Gender and feminism are deeply rooted in the culture of Radcliffe, which was founded in 1879 as a bastion of female undergraduate education.

Its Schlesinger Library boasts a large collection of pins, pennants and posters from various women’s rights movements. And the papers of many prominent feminist thinkers, including Betty Friedan and Andrea Dworkin, can also be found in the library’s archival collections.

According to its director, Trumbull Professor of American History Nancy F. Cott, the library remains “the one place within the Institute that really is focused on women.”

Radcliffe administrators, alumnae and fellows alike agree that the study of women, gender and society should have a home beyond the Schlesinger’s stacks.

“This is a place where path-breaking advances are going to be made” in gender studies, Faust says. “We have a critical intellectual role to play, and critical resources to share.”

But as the Institute’s new administrative and programmatic structures come into focus, just where that home will be remains unclear. And for the many observers—from alums to former fellows—who still feel invested in Radcliffe’s future, the location remains a topic worth debating.

WRITING UP A STORM

The dispute has recently played out in the form of subtle sparring over the fellowship program on the pages of the Radcliffe Quarterly.

Ever since the merger, the Institute has taken heat from its alumnae. The initial complaints focused on feelings of disenfranchisement from their disappearing alma mater, and many alums responded by closing their checkbooks. But now, some alums have decided to support the new Institute while turning their focus to its intellectual identity.

In fact, Regina Gittes Greenspun ’55, who co-authored the letter with Bergmann, says she continues to give money to Radcliffe and helps fundraising efforts on the Institute’s behalf.

The pair circulated their letter on e-mail lists for the Radcliffe Class of 1955 and for the American Association of University Professors, criticizing the majority of this year’s class of fellows for having “no connection to gender issues whatever.”

Bergmann says Faust’s approach seems to be nothing more than “let’s get a lot of smart people together.”

The letter pushes for an alternate approach: the increased study of public policy to “serve women’s needs and aspirations.”

“Because there is no institute in the world supporting fellowships focusing on women and gender,” the letter states, “a Radcliffe Institute which did so—by choosing top scholars who would benefit from being together—would make a huge contribution and would best serve the heritage of Radcliffe.”

In her response, Faust challenged their entire concept of the Institute’s nature.