We had no idea what we were getting ourselves into. On the phone a few weeks prior to the start of the Radcliffe Science Alliance, we nervously wondered how we had enlisted ourselves for an extra week of academia before beginning college in September. We pictured ourselves stranded amongst girl geniuses competing over how many digits of pi they could recite on command. But upon our arrival in Cambridge, we found, instead, 38 girls as nervous as ourselves, all unsure of the week, as well as the years, ahead of them.

So began the seventh and final year of the Radcliffe Science Alliance. Besieged by the three letter F-words FAP, FOP and FUP, the Science Alliance stood alone amongst first-year programs as an academically oriented experience. In particular, the Alliance offered 40 incoming female first-years the opportunity to become acquainted with the resources and support network available to women in the sciences at Harvard. Touring chemistry labs by day and stargazing by night, the participants received early exposure to a wide range of facilities and opportunities on campus and in the Boston area. Some of the workshops were geared towards female considerations in science careers, such as balancing motherhood and work, while others were aimed at introducing first-years to female mentors and resources, including Women in Science at Harvard-Radcliffe (WISHR). The nervousness we all felt that first day of our "nerdy" science program dissipated after meeting truly remarkable, cool and, yes, female scientists paving the way for our generation. We came away from the Alliance with renewed interest in the sciences and security in the knowledge of the resources that would be available to us in pursuing this interest at Harvard.

However, now that the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study has replaced Radcliffe College, the administration has said that it will no longer support programs that, like the Science Alliance, are exclusive to women. Even with the potential aid of the Ann Radcliffe Trust, set up to provide continued financial backing to programs for women after Radcliffe College's closing, few administrators have rallied to the defense of the Science Alliance.

Opposition to the continuation of the program seems based in the fear that it will be perceived as discriminatory against men, leaving Harvard open to lawsuits for violation of Title IX of the 1972 Educational Amendments. This law stipulates that universities and colleges must offer men and women equal educational opportunities. While other schools like Dartmouth and Brown have continued women-only programs despite the possibility of such lawsuits, the Harvard administration has been unwilling to consider following their lead.

Assistant Dean of the College Karen E. Avery '87 has maintained that despite the recent merger, the Institute remains committed to attracting young Harvard women to the sciences and retaining them in those fields. She suggested in an e-mail message that the discussions which are part of the Science Alliance could take place on an independent basis during the regular school year on the Radcliffe campus: "I can imagine many positive ways (conferences, speaker series, colloquia, etc.) to provide networking for women in science during their first year and beyond."

Yet it is hard to imagine that the goals of the Science Alliance might be achieved as effectively through such programs. Incoming first-years will be much more likely to be convinced that they should try science than mid-year students who have already opted for humanities courses. Indeed, the Science Alliance's niche was in roping young Harvard women into the sciences right at the beginning of their college careers. The panels and speakers, the small group setting, the interaction with upperclass women in the sciences--this sustained barrage gave incoming first-year women the confidence to opt for those tough science courses despite orientation week science advising, which might better be termed orientation week science intimidation. Furthermore, programs scheduled during the often stressful academic term will certainly receive less attention and prove less engaging than those that occur during the workless bliss of summertime. Discussions and events similar to those suggested by Dean Avery are already occurring under the auspices of WISHR (Women In Science At Harvard and Radcliffe), but they can hardly be considered fitting substitutes for the intensive, week-long Science Alliance.

It has also been suggested that the program be maintained in its current form but simply allow males to apply. Those men interested in panels on motherhood could, the argument goes, benefit from the program as much as women could. But allowing men into the program would immediately alter the dynamic. The Science Alliance is an alliance of those facing similar discrimination. While clearly the male participants would not be perpetrators of such discrimination, they do not suffer from it directly. Women, especially women in a highly competitive environment such as Harvard's, often feel that voicing concerns about discrimination and inequity will be viewed by their male peers as an excuse for falling short of a science program's exacting standards. A strong support network of female friends as established by the Science Alliance in its current, single-sex form is crucial to minimizing these insecurities.

Until a greater level of equality between men and women in the sciences is reached, we need programs to help remedy the current discrepancy. To devote special attention to a long-disregarded group is not reverse discrimination, but a correction of a pre-existing problem. The Science Alliance has tremendously improved the life of women in the sciences at Harvard, but it has only just begun to solve the problems. It must be allowed to continue, Radcliffe or not.