“It was an intense process that took place over a very long period of time,” Figueroa says.

The Radcliffe Association is “less and less able to fulfill its traditional mission” under the auspices of the Radcliffe Institute, according to the report.

The report identifies the “interests” of both the Radcliffe Institute and its alumnae body, in an effort, according to its introduction, to determine where they overlap and come up with recommendations for both groups.

While support for the Institute is expressed throughout the report, it repeatedly cites connecting alumnae with undergraduate students—along with women’s public advocacy—as two of the “core values” that Radcliffe and its alumnae body no longer share.

“Basically, we’re just trying to be sure that all the things we hold dear and are concerned about as women who have been at Harvard are taken care of,” says Judith F. Bowman ’61, one of the committee members.

But the merger agreement mandated that Radcliffe hand over all responsibility for undergraduates to Harvard College.

“The Radcliffe Institute is not taking responsibility for undergraduate women,” says Biloon, who also served on the Futures Committee. “That’s perfectly appropriate for them as an academic institution.”

The report also suggests that the Institute is still suited to serve women’s interests in some ways, acting as a base for female scholars to build credentials—and hopefully catch the attention of Harvard department chairs who can offer them tenure-track positions—and as a “convener” for women across the University.

In addition to recommending future goals for the Radcliffe Association, the report describes tensions that have developed between alumnae and the Radcliffe Institute since the merger.

“The most significant post-merger change...has been the end of a significant governance role for the Radcliffe Association,” the report says, claiming that they were not invited to serve on Faust’s advisory council.“We went into it thinking that we were partners in this and that all the parties were equal,” Figueroa said. “We couldn’t believe that they weren’t coming to us begging for our perspective.”

The report also cites several “divergent” interests between the Institute and the association, lamenting that “alumnae-centric” programming is a thing the past.

Even though alumnae were invited to attend the “Women, Money, and Power” conference held at Radcliffe last fall, “there was little opportunity to convene or connect as alumnae and limited recognition of alumnae status,” according to the report.

And the report complains that the Radcliffe Quarterly, which once reported on issues of special interest to alumnae, has now become more of an academic journal highlighting the work of the Institute’s fellows.

As a result of Radcliffe’s shifting mission, the report says, the functions of the Radcliffe Association should be divided over time between the Institute and the Harvard Alumni Association (HAA).

The Next Step