In the year and a half that I've been a student here, the majority of articles and editorials in The Crimson and The Boston Globe which have featured the Harvard-Radcliffe relationship have inadequately represented many of the perspectives of this situation. Too much emphasis has been placed on the comparative bank accounts of each institution. The Globe and The Crimson at times seemed far more interested in analyzing the relative successes of Harvard's and Radcliffe's individual capital campaigns in order to determine the pertinence of Radcliffe's future to undergraduates, rather than asking the important questions: What is each of these schools doing to improve the education of their students? How successful has Radcliffe been at advancing women? Is Harvard actually more successful at it?

The difference between Harvard's 13 billion dollar endowment and Radcliffe's 200 million dollar endowment is not going to answer that question. As a community, we need to assess the actual initiatives both institutions are taking maximize gender equality and partnership.

Harvard, which 26 years ago accepted full responsibility for its female undergraduates when it accepted women into its dorms, is only now beginning to respond to the need for women's resources. Radcliffe, now 120 years old, is already familiar with the campaign for women. A number of its undergraduate programs begun within the last two decades are proving successful in targeting the needs of female undergraduates at the college. Radcliffe's leadership and participation in the efforts of advancing Harvard women is vital.

Many people claim that acceptance is enough, that Radcliffe's achievement of getting its students full status as Harvard undergraduates in 1977 ended the necessity of the institution. I don't deny the assertion that for a long time just getting the women through the gate was the main goal. I have spoken to many alumnae and read a number of documents which agree with this statement. However, like any equal rights movement in history, Radcliffe's movement to educate women has had to raise its expectations as times changed and as its movement gained more success.

If admitting women to Harvard meant that after graduating, male and female alums would receive equal opportunities and equal experiences, then yes, undergraduates don't need Radcliffe. However, this is not the case. Yes, men and women at Harvard graduate with the same level of educational excellence, but while many men have the luxury of making separate career and family decisions, for many women these issues are inextricably connected. It is not enough to judge the level of equality in 1999 by 1882 or 1977 standards; these standards must be raised to include equality of opportunity and experiences.

Through its undergraduate programs, including the Radcliffe Research Partnerships, which pair undergraduate women with alumnae around the nation and scholars at Harvard-Radcliffe, Radcliffe fosters an environment of learning and support. Radcliffe has proven to be very efficient in implementing these programs over the last decade. The enrollment in these programs has steadily increased over time, attesting to the demand for them within the student body and their importance. If Harvard were providing the same types of programs, the same level of quality and cross-generational experience from which many women benefit at Radcliffe, then we could all agree that Radcliffe had finally achieved its goal and should pass on 100 percent of that responsibility to Harvard College. But for now, Radcliffe is right to retain some supervisory oversight of female undergraduates.

Each of us chooses to make Harvard College what we want it to be by the organizations to which we belong. The same applies for Radcliffe. A number of women and men-students and scholars alike-have created a community which is looking for innovative ways to advance women and society as a whole. The undergraduate program Education for Action is a good example. It awards grants to undergraduates to study and address a social problem which may exist in a local or international community.

The Public Policy Institute has also been making national news (though sadly, not in The Crimson) as it has been bringing together the CEOs of major corporations, social policy makers, Republicans and Democrats, men and women to find profitable ways to accommodate changing work-family concerns. These forums have resulted in policy recommendations and implementations of new solutions such as child-care and elder-care leave opportunities for both men and women.

It's ironic that with the amazing partnerships that Radcliffe is helping to forge across the nation between men and women of all socioeconomic backgrounds, our campus and our alumni population remain so polarized about the idea of forging a cooperative relationship between Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges. It's time for us to stop examining the currency flow between these two institutions and instead work to achieve the goal of educating women at the joint institution of Harvard-Radcliffe.

Mary A. Piscitello '01 is a history of science concentrator in Dunster House.