Radcliffe says it's in the midst of a "strategic planning process." But last week the Harvard Corporation, the University's highest governing board, met for dinner to discuss for dramatic plans for the future of the 104-year-old institution. Whatever the specifics of these secret meetings, it seems clear the on-going debate about the role of Radcliffe in the lives of undergraduates--and at the University in general--is rapidly becoming more intense.

Negotiations are reported to be underway to redefine Radcliffe as an "allied institution" of Harvard University and remove its "college" title. Such a redefinition is both necessary and long overdue--Radcliffe is many things, but it is not an undergraduate educational facility. To make it an allied institution of Harvard would be beneficial to both undergraduates and Radcliffe itself.

First, removing the "college" tagline from Radcliffe's name would put an end to the schizophrenic system of admitting female undergraduates to both Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges and having Radcliffe collect tuition dollars which are immediately transferred to Harvard. The current system, confusing and time-wasting as it is, is a symbol of all that is wrong with the Harvard/Radcliffe relationship. Undergraduates deserve a clearly-defined identity as students of Harvard College, and Radcliffe deserves to be more than just a vestigial gateway for female students.

As the situation stands, Radcliffe is constrained by its misleading appellation as a college. It does not employ a full-time faculty; it does not offer courses for credit to undergraduates. By calling itself what it is-a research and support institution allied with Harvard University--Radcliffe can devote all its energy to its continued excellence as a center for women's studies and history. A change in focus would be an acknowledgment of all Radcliffe has achieved for women at Harvard. It was once necessary as a college to provide education for females who were not allowed to attend Harvard. Now that Harvard College is fully coeducational and coresidential (and has been for more than 20 years), Radcliffe College is little more than a name. But Radcliffe as an institution is vital and necessary for the University community and the larger world.

The one concern we have about the transition of Radcliffe from college to allied institution is for the undergraduate programs affiliated with Radcliffe, such as the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS) and Education for Action. Harvard College must make a public commitment to continue to support and fund these organizations. Since Radcliffe will no longer be a functioning college, female students' mandatory $5 term bill should go the way of the College. On the other hand, bringing these activities under the umbrella of Harvard will be unifying for the campus. For example, this week's Take Back The Night (TBTN) programs are organized by RUS and sponsored by Radcliffe, a patronage that might have the unintended effect of distancing male undergraduates from involvement in the movement. We need one college for all students, one which actively supports and promotes women's issues on campus.

Radcliffe should acknowledge changing times and changing roles and become an allied institution of the University. Harvard College should acknowledge the concerns of those undergraduates affiliated with Radcliffe and take care to address them during the transition.