What's Holding Up the Merger?

A YEAR and a half ago, Radcliffe's proposal of merger was eagerly anticipated by most of the Harvard-Radcliffe community. The merger was to be an easy and straightforward move-to be accomplished by this Fall. Since then, the issue has become bogged down in a morass of some hard-headed Harvard administrators, professors, and confused and worried alumnae and alumni. Some form of merger probably will pass eventually, but whether anyone presently enrolled in the Colleges will be around to see it is a moot point.

The major reasons that Faculty members and Harvard administrators cite against merger are ratio and finances. The primary concern of women opposed to merger is the question of a continuing commitment to education for women.

If Harvard and Radcliffe were to merge totally, there would undoubtedly be pressure to change the present four-to-one male-female ratio to an equal one. Some Harvard administrators fear that legislation now pending in Congress might make the present ratio an illegal one if men and woman were part of the same undergraduate body. Cogent arguments against increasing the total number of students in the Colleges have been advanced from many sides.

If the male enrollment were to stay at its present 4800, the female enrollment would have to jump by 3600, bringing the number of undergraduates to 9600. Although Harvard is one of the wealthier universities in the nation, it could not allocate enough resources for an expansion to accommodate 40 per cent more than the present numbers. So large an increase also would be undesirable if Harvard is to retain any of the advantages of its present size. Lectures would be even larger than they are now, with far fewer small courses. The Faculty would be overtaxed; tutors would be spread thin across the expanded undergraduate group. Everyone in Cambridge would be much unhappier than they are already.

The other alternative for obtaining an equal ratio is to cut down the present male enrollment by 1800, adding that number of women. Many of the men conditioned to look upon Harvard as a male institution hotly protest this alternative. Pusey has said that Harvard has "an obligation to the nation" to train men for their careers. Last February, when a delegation from the National Organization for Women (NOW) met with him to ask for an increased female enrollment, he reportedly said. "But to do that, we would have to cut down on the number of qualified people we admit." "Qualified men, you mean." one of the women commented, "Yes-qualified people." he repeated.

The administrator most vocal in his opposition to more women at Harvard-and his opposition to merger-is Dr. Chase N. Peterson '52, dean of Admissions and Financial Aid for Harvard College. In a report he wrote as chairman of a Faculty subcommittee to study the admissions and financial aid aspects of merger, Peterson argued against more women by citing the admissions policy he helped form:

What are the problems in reducing male admissions? We have worked hard for, and now benefit from, representation of significant numbers of students from a wide variety of social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. But in fact we should have more third-world students. We should have more sons of alumni. We should have more lower-middle-class and lower-class economic representation. There are many special groups and constituencies within the Harvard undergraduate body. The New England college flavor, which lends a cultural distinctiveness to what otherwise might be a homogenized University of the United States, requires significant enrollment of New Englanders of all flavors and background.... Finally, there is a desire to have Harvard participate more fully in the minority racial cultures of this country.

Homogeneity breeds comfortable stagnation. But diversity also threatens loneliness and isolation. Each group within the college requires a certain critical mass to allow it to fit with reasonable comfort.... For this reason a smaller male enrollment might force us to eliminate a number of such distinctive groups entirely when their numbers fell below a tolerance threshold... Reduced admission of men would force us into less diversity at a time when we are being asked for more. (This argument has assumed perhaps debatedly, that men and women students are not fully interchangeable within "delegations." This assumption may not be correct, but we believe it is.)

As numbers increase, we are in danger of having so many good applicants rejected that even superior applicants in the future will be discouraged from applying. Given a reduction in male admissions, such heightened frustrations and negative feedback might literally destroy the richness of our applicant pool, our national Schools Committee apparatus, and the interest of the secondary schools they contact.

... Finally, if we tried to maintain departmental representation in the face of reduced numbers, we would be forced to develop and abide by distastefully rigid admissions criteria. An engineer, a physicist, an actor, or a percussionist would have to be selected with far greater predictability than is now our desire or practice. Undergraduate admissions would become as the graduate schools necessarily are, a departmental phnomenon.

Throughout Peterson's argument (and, unfortunately, the thinking of many men at Harvard) is the idea that women are all alike, not quite individual people: "in the face of reduced admissions," meaning fewer men and more women: "We should have more sons of alumni"-a dubious necessity anyway. When speaking of his "delegations." Peterson does not consider the possibility that Harvard might have a responsibility to educate the women of those groups as well. If the present Harvard undergraduate body is a more diverse group than Radcliffe's, it stems from Radcliffe's smaller scholarship fund-a deficiency that would be ameliorated after merger.

Many faculty members feel that the ratio question is the most important one about merger, but Mrs. Bunting, a strong proponent of merger, has not seen it as such. "The feeling that the ratio would be changed much doesn't have a high priority with me-nor with Radcliffe students." she said last week. She said that pressure might come from Harvard students who want an equal ratio in the Houses. "Our principal job right now is to fix this place up for the women who are here," she said.

She emphasizes equal conditions for women before equal numbers. "We have to try to get conditions equal for women, especially in the subtle ways-ways in which the Faculty will expect an equal amount from women." She feels strongly that certain crucial aspects of Radcliffe should be kept, and perhaps expanded, for specialized education for women in the future.

ANOTHER item of concern for those opposed to merger is money. Although both Harvard and Radcliffe have financial problems at the moment, Radcliffe's are much worse than Harvard's. Radcliffe was in the middle of a campaign to raise $30 million when negotiations for merger were announced in February 1969. This discouraged many alumnae from giving until they know what the future status of Harvard and Radcliffe would be. Radcliffe, however, has always had fewer resources than Harvard, and for this reason its schol-arship program has suffered. Were the two Colleges to merge financially, Harvard would have to shoulder the responsibility for Radcliffe's deficits.

This viewpoint overlooks some obvious advantages of merger. Many functions that are presently carried on separately could be joined, such as Buildings and Grounds, Comptroller's offices, career planning offices, and probably the Admissions offices. Although the immediate impact would be a heavier drain on Harvard funds, the following drop in Radcliffe's expenses would compensate in the long run.

Alumnac would probably be willing to contribute more money after merger. Although there might be an initial emotional reaction to the merger that would decrease contributions, more women would be willing to give to the University, rather than to Radcliffe. Special endowment funds for women exist now, and would continue after merger, as will the Radcliffe Institue, so that those people who wish to contribute specifically for women's education may do so. But many women who do not contribute to Radclice would contribute to a merged Harvard. Less than 50 per cent of alumnae presently give to Radcliffe at any time during their lives. At other women's colleges, where women's education is totally separated from male institutions, the percentage is much higher. Eighty per cent of Vassar's graduates contribute, as do a large percentage of Smith and Mt. Hoyloke women. Radcliffe alumnae are not now asked to contribute directly to the institution-Harvard-that educated them.

Although the presence of other women at Radcliffe contribute strongly to a female undergraduate's growth at college, a large part of the intellectual stimulation comes from the Harvard community as a whole: coeducational Harvard classes and extra-curricular groups contribute substantially to the education of both male and female undergraduates.

MANY women-both alumnae and undergraduate women's liberation groups-are opposed to merger because they feel women and women's education would be submerged once Radcliffe no longer exists as a strong proponent of women in the University. Men neither understand nor accept women's needs in education. Women do not receive the attention at Harvard that men do. The Radcliffe Institute was created to educate women who left their educations when they were young to raise families.

Radcliffe's career planning office keeps files for alumnae throughout their lives, so that they may start jobs years after they have graduated and still have records and recommendations from their college performance. The Radcliffe administration is a sort of lobbying group for women within the University. Some women feel that no such group would exist after merger, and that women would gradually be forced into the male framework of the whole University.

These are valid-but not insurmountable-objections that must be considered during the merger negotiations. Obviously, the Radcliffe Institute can-and will-be kept. The Harvard and Radcliffe career planning offices should merge, and could without the loss of record-keeping for women. The effects of separate offices are much worse than a merged one could be. Large firms send recruiters to Harvard to find management trainees, highly skilled scientists, and other jobs requiring good minds and good educations. The same companies go to Radcliffe to recruit secretaries. If both sexes were under the same planning office, such discrimination would not be possible-companies might even be too embarrassed to ask for Harvard graduates to work as secretaries.

The issue of women's education is one that will require considerable study and commitments before merger passes. The problem with separate institutions, however, is that Radcliffe is not independent. Women depend on Harvard totally for their classroom education. Caroline W. Bynum, assistant professor of History, pointed out recently that the position of women at Harvard bears some resemblance to that of blacks in the nation: "The men have all the intellectual resources, just as the whites have all the money." Now Radcliffe must contract with Harvard for women's education. It is either not possible to exert pressure from Radcliffe on Harvard's attitudes, or no one has really tried. Men such as Peterson can point to Radcliffe and say "not diverse," or "unimportant" very easily. After all, those students are not really Harvard's. Harvard does not have to take the responsibility for women as long as it can think that the special needs of women are Radcliffe's responsibility. If Harvard had one coeducational student body and administration to look after the special interests of women, then the men might start treating women on an equal basis. If women's education were the responsibility of the whole group, eventually Harvard would feel that it could take pride in its women as well as in its men.

Mrs. Bunting has suggested that there be some form of women's organization for all the undergraduates, an expanded Radcliffe Union of Students. RUS may not be the ideal group for this function, but it also might be revitalized by having a distinct function within the community.

The person who could influence the prospects and realities of merger most is the new President of Harvard. Proponents of merger all emphasize that the president will have to feel a strong commitment to women's education. Were a man like Chase Peterson to become president, merger probably would not pass, and women would be kept in their present state of limbo between a full education within the University and the separate education that other colleges have had since their inception. A president committed to equality of women within the University could bring the whole community together and possibly influence new innovations in women's education.

THE TIMETABLE for merger is still vague. Over the summer, a committee of two members of the Harvard Corporation and two Radcliffe Trustees will gather recommendations from the community and present a report in the Fall. (Recommendations should be sent to the Corporation-Trustee/Committee, c/o The Secretary to the Corporation, Massachusetts Hall.) Although Pusey has been in favor of merger, it is unlikely that any action will be taken on megrer until after the new president takes office. Many problems are still unresolved, and serious detail-by-detail negotiations could take more than a year. Some details have been merged within the last year, including the housing and the Administration Boards of the two colleges.

Harvard has always prided itself in its leadership-both in national issues of education, and in providing ment to lead the nation. Since 1636, "First" and then "Best" have been words on the lips of Harvard men when referring to their alma mater. Some of that is true: Harvard is an excellent university, and it has taken stands in the past that have led the way for others.

Yet on the issue of women, Harvard is still decades behind, when it could once again be a leader. Harvard, which supposedly forms the minds that run the world, is instilling in those minds the idea that women aren't worth bothering about-that they are homogeneous and not as interesting as men, and that men represent a much more important part of the population than do women.