Since the beginning of time--or at least since 1879--the relationship between Harvard University and Radcliffe College has been in a state of flux.
Even after the landmark 1977 deal in which Radcliffe achieved equal access to Harvard's classrooms and facilities for female undergraduates, somehow there was more confusion, not less.
With a capital campaign competing with Harvard's, periodic squabblings over students and buildings and constant public scrutiny and bewilderment over the school's role and responsibilities, Radcliffe suffers from an image problem.
There are now plans on the table to clear all this up.
After nearly a year of internal "strategic planning" by Radcliffe administrators and discussions with top Harvard officials about the future of the Harvard-Radcliffe relationship, sources have told The Crimson that Radcliffe will likely restructure itself as a research institute for the study of women, gender and society allied with Harvard--ceding all official undergraduate ties to Harvard College.
Sources say the leaders of the two sibling institutions have nodded to an "agreement in principle," but details surrounding Radcliffe's finances and alumnae still need ironing out.
Indeed, Radcliffe--funded largely on the whim of alumnae and by liberal endowment payouts--may not look like a good buy for Harvard, whose scrupulous investment strategies have solidified its claim as the world's richest university.
The proposed elimination of Radcliffe's role in undergraduate life will also alienate many female graduates and students, who see the institution abandoning a spirit cultivated by more than a century of bravely facing the glass ceiling.
But both institutions' top-level leaders see the restructuring's effect on undergraduates and alumnae as secondary to a larger mission: to join to create the premier hub of scholarship to explore interdisciplinary, cross-cultural issues of gender and society.
For Radcliffe's Board of Trustees and the President and Fellows of Harvard College--both of whom are currently weighing the benefits and the liabilities of a merger--it's decision time.
Devising a Deal
Last fall, the leaders of Radcliffe's Schlesinger Library, Bunting Institute, Murray Research Center and Public Policy Institute began holding regular meetings to discuss ways for the often-insular arms of the college to collaborate.
But Radcliffe is looking to cast a wider net of partnership as well.
While Radcliffe officials have spent weeks dodging queries about reported strategic talks with Harvard--prompting public displays of frustration from alumnae leaders--The Crimson has learned that Harvard President Neil L. Rudenstine and Radcliffe President Linda S. Wilson, Harvard Corporation members Hanna H. Gray and D. RonaldDaniel, Provost Harvey V. Fineberg '67, Dean ofthe Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles, Radcliffe Chairmanof the Board of Trustees NancyBeth G. Sheerr '71and Radcliffe-commissioned consultants AnthonyKnerr and Jim McAvoy have all been involved indiscussions surrounding the future of theHarvard-Radcliffe relationship.
The new Radcliffe--under one proposal calledthe Radcliffe Institutes for Advanced Study--wouldfocus its energies on cultivating collaboration inacademia, both among its institutes and with theHarvard faculties--along themes of inquiry fromthe media to human development to economics.
Visiting fellows, a cadre of scholars, newcourses and stellar resources would convergethrough interdisciplinary studies and pursuits inan effort Radcliffe might consider touting as"advancing society by advancing partnership"between women and men.
The idea--of shedding Radcliffe's undergraduaterole and instead emphasizing studies in gender--isnot new.
The late Mary Ingraham Bunting--the legendaryRadcliffe president who left her porch-light onfor late-night chats with undergraduates--set thestage for Radcliffe's new focus on research byestablishing the now-Bunting Institute in 1960,and proposing to merge with Harvard in 1969.
Former Harvard President Derek C. Bok, inaccepting the 1991 Radcliffe Medal, said he wasnot "convinced of Radcliffe's future as aparticipant in the conduct of undergraduateeducation," and called for Radcliffe "to becomethe world's leading center for study and researchon matters of special concern to women."
Rudenstine makes it clear that he is "not incharge" of shaping Radcliffe, and the progress ofany talks "depends on how Radcliffe sees its ownfuture...[either] under its current rubric orrethinking it in a fundamental way."
Still, in terms of increased collaborationbetween the two institutions, "the capacity [forpartnership] to spring up," no matter whatincarnation Radcliffe assumes, "is very real," hesays.
`The Invisible College'
Radcliffe's exclusive focus on advanced studyand research would end years of confusionsurrounding the institution's stubborn insistenceon being called an undergraduate "college" 21years after it delegated all responsibility forundergraduates to Harvard.
In the pages of campus publications, studentshave been wondering whether or not Radcliffe was"still there" practically since the 1977 agreementwas signed.
Prospective students are especially confused,say admissions officers, who must explain thearcane procedure which admits women to Radcliffeand--"in the blink of an eye," says Director ofAdmissions Marlyn McGrath Lewis '70-'73--enrollsthem in Harvard.
"On the narrow question of whether dualadmissions--this idiosyncratic arrangement--is aplus or a minus," McGrath Lewis says, "I wouldhave to count it not as an asset."
Prospective students are concerned about "wherethey would fit, where they'd belong," shecontinues, noting female undergraduates want tofeel like full citizens--without dividedloyalties.
The bewilderment is still greater amongalumnae, whose understanding of Radcliffe seldomextends beyond the day they graduated.
Claire K. Lipsman '45 goes so far as to suggestthat Radcliffe violates its graduates' trust bysoliciting money under the false pretense of stillbeing a college.
"I didn't catch on until shortly before my50-year reunion that the Radcliffe of yore was nomore," she writes in an opinion piece in theChronicle of Higher Education. "Why did it take meso long?"
Even Radcliffe administrators say theirinstitution's true nature is ill-understood.
"The outside world often does not know whetheror not Radcliffe is still a traditionalundergraduate institution," says Tamar March, deanof educational programs at Radcliffe, who prefersto frame Radcliffe as "a focal point for theadvancement of women and a beacon of intellectualvitality for undergraduates [and others]."
A new arrangement would allow the UniversityDevelopment Office to coordinate all fundraisingefforts and Harvard College to claim allundergraduate programs, eliminating some of the"significant confusion in the roles of Harvard andRadcliffe in undergraduate education,extracurricular life and fundraising," assuggested in an April 1997 Faculty of Arts andSciences (FAS) report on Harvard women and thecapital campaign.
Radcliffe, under the Harvard umbrella, couldstill provide many of its currentpostbaccalaureate and continuing educationprograms, including its half-century oldpublishing course, which would be tied moretightly to the Institutes' academic focus.
"We're not going to evanesce," says March, whohas been assured that educational programs are notgoing anywhere.
"Radcliffe's mission and work includes making adiscernible difference in society," March says. "Ithink the trustees are really aware of that."
Meanwhile, Radcliffe will need to undergo asignificant shift in focus and resources.
Rita Nakashima Brock, director of the BuntingInstitute, told
Read more in News
The TAT
