“People who are here now don’t know what’s been lost,” says Rani Yadav ’03, former co-chair of the WLP.

Some members of the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS) say the demise of Radcliffe College left RUS initially adrift.

“The merger basically left RUS floating for a while, sort of groundless, homeless, not really knowing where our club was going to get its next paycheck,” says Natalia A.J. Truszkowska. ’04, a former co-president of RUS.

But the student group’s current board, she says, came at the “tail end” of the dilemma.

“We were there for all the stress our freshman year of trying to figure out what happened,” she says. “But we didn’t actually participate in being part of Radcliffe.”

According to Truszkowska, the continued RUS relationship with Radcliffe is a matter of shared interests in the status of women in the University.

And Richey notes that one clear positive effect of the merger was the creation of the Ann Radcliffe Trust—which aims to “reinforce the undergraduate experience of Harvard women students” and funds groups or students who are interested in planning a project that deals with women’s issues within the College. An annual contribution of $50,000 from the Institute is a major source of funding for the Trust.

“The Trust is really active, and perhaps even brings the name of Radcliffe to more people,” says Richey, who also serves as a student member of the Trust’s board.

GETTING THE WORD OUT

While Faust points to a number of programs through which Radcliffe can impact current students in the College, she and the Institute’s undergraduate supporters say they are well aware of its current publicity problem.

Starting last year, Radcliffe attempted to increase its visibility with posters on Yard kiosks and House bulletin boards and posts to House e-mail lists.

But still, Richey says, “A lot of people hear about Radcliffe but don’t really go down Garden Street to see what’s there.”

Twenty-nine percent of students who chose to respond to the survey question say the Institute’s resources are not at all useful to undergraduates, according to the Crimson survey. Only 3 percent of students ranked Radcliffe’s resources as very useful. Thirty-five percent of students surveyed chose not to answer the question.

Truszkowska suggests that informal publicity through undergraduate women’s groups might be a more effective strategy.

According to Faust, explaining Radcliffe’s new incarnation to undergraduates is one of many tasks ahead.