Faculty to Discuss Merger Today; Ratio of Sexes May Be an Issue

Last Friday. representatives of the National Organization for Women (NOW) brought up a question that may become a point of debate at today's Faculty meeting: that of equal enrollment for female undergraduates after the proposed merger between Harvard and Radcliffe.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences will have its first round of merger debate today on a motion "That we reaffirm our commitment to the full and equal participation of Radcliffe students in the intellectual and social life of the University community," but that "the decision on merger be deferred until all considerations, pro and con, and all voices within the two communities have been heard."

Edward L. Keenan, lecturer on History, who will make the proposal, said last night that it was "an appeal for a proper discussion." "The responsibility for rational discussion of this thing is enormous," he said.

Mary I. Bunting, president of Radcliffe, expressed concern Sunday that the demands NOW made to President Pusey for an equal number of woman students and Faculty members in the University would discourage support for the merger in the Faculty.

President Pusey has often stressed that he would be against lowering the male enrollment at Harvard to obtain a higher number of women. He has also said that an increased total enroll-ment-which would add more women while keeping the same number of men-is financially unfeasible and academically undesirable.

Those groups most concerned with a one-to-one ratio in the University seem to be graduate students and alumnae rather than Radcliffe undergraduates.

"I don't think the girls in general are that upset about the ratio issue," said Nancy Beth Gordon '71. president of the Radcliffe Union of Students. "They're more interested in the problems of women and careers," she added.

It seems that undergraduates, who are more affected by such benefits of merger as coed housing and possible better financial aid, feel that the merger, on any ratio terms, is necessary.

Alumnae are more divided on the subject. Mrs. Frances C. Donovan, head of the Trustees' Committee on Merger, said Sunday, "We have thought of the ratio as one of the things that would have to be worked out after merger-over a long period of time" She added that there are many more pressing aspects of the merger to be considered first.

Deborah A. Batts, a first-year Law School student and former president of the RUS, said yesterday. "One of the reasons I was for the merger is that I was under the impression that more women would be admitted to the Hallowed Halls of Harvard."

She is one of what may be a growing number of alumnae who have had second thoughts about the desirability of merger. After initially welcoming merger, they have begun to question Harvard's willingness to treat women equally.

Some even believe that Radcliffe, as is presently constituted, may be one of the last strongholds of administrative concern for women.

Roberta Benjamin '62. a member of the Alumnae Association, said yesterday, "President Pusey says we can't take fewer men [to get a more even ratio] because Harvard has a commitment to the nation. One can only wonder what sort of commitment neglects educating some of the most intelligent women in the nation."

Some women, such as Jane Pollock, president of NOW, feel that the Faculty should make a definite commitment to an equal ratio before the merger is completed. "The Faculty must formally affirm the ultimate desirability of an equal ratio of men to women," she said yesterday.

Others feel that ultimately Harvard will achieve a more even ratio that the present four-to-one-whether or not mention of it is made in the formal merger plans.

Mrs. Bunting, whose first priority is the merger, said. "The ratio is apt to change somewhat. I don't think it's apt to be 50-50." She cited a 60 men to 40 women ratio-which many other coed schools have-as a possible future ratio here.