Merger: Last Poker Game

The present merger plan, like most compromises, satisfies almost everyone and pleases almost no one. Harvard has accepted the fact that it is cheaper to support Radcliffe than to create new coeducational facilities. Radcliffe has approved the merger rather than lace a desperate financial crisis, and is trusting to Harvard's goodwill and student concern to safeguard the interests of women.

The main question most Cliffies are asking is whether or not the new merger plan is a better deal for women. Does Radcliffe have more power to further women's interests as a separate institution or as part of Harvard? How flexible will the new contract be to changes regarding admissions and the ratio of women to men? Why is the contract being rapidly pushed through before Bok takes office? Does the four-year clause freeze the issue until 1975? How much power will the Dean/President of Radcliffe have to further the interests of women at Harvard?

Radcliffe women are not the only people questioning the new merger plan. Alumnae and women on the faculty and in the Administration have expressed doubts as to Harvard's sincere commitment to furthering educational opportunities for women. On the other hand, there are women who feel that Radcliffe alone would not do a better job of it.

The merger contract between Harvard and Radcliffe will become effective June 30, 1971 and be subject to review during the academic year 1974-1975. Although the contract itself has not yet been drawn up, Daniel Steiner, Legal Counsel to the University, will base the contract on the final report of the Committee on Harvard-Radcliffe Relationships, released January 25. The committee which drew up the final report consisted of Presidents Bunting and Pusey, Radcliffe Trustees Helen H. Gilbert and Frances C. Donovan and Corporation members Hugh Calkins and Frances H. Burr. An implementation committee under Dean Dunlop now has the report and will work out the details of the actual merger.

THE REPORT states that "Radcliffe would have the right to terminate the arrangement effective June 30, 1975." But, as one woman at the Law School put it: "Having relinquished its identity and separateness so completely, Radcliffe as such would not exist to terminate in 1975 and to smugly suggest the contrary is the epitome of lack of good faith on the part of Harvard."

The report basically assumes that "A total merger of Radcliffe College into Harvard University is not desirable at this time." What it achieves is a masterpiece of how to have your cake and eat it too-Harvard will obtain co-education without changing its admissions policies, while Radcliffe will relinquish financial responsibility for housing and administration, without giving up its endowment.

The single most important reason for merger at this time is financial. According to Harriet B. Belin, Director of Radcliffe Admissions, "It is the only solution to our financial pickle." Radcliffe is facing a projected deficit of close to a million dollars for 1971-1972. Her alumnae annual giving is down 30 per cent this year as compared to last. Radcliffe will save a great deal of money be eliminating its separate administration of housing, buildings and grounds, and dean's offices. Another important consideration was Radcliffe's staff which has been patient and long-suffering through two years of uncertainty. "We would have preferred to wait for Bok," said Helen H. Gilbert, Chairman of the Radcliffe Trustees, "but it would have been dreadful for the staff."

Students and alumnae wonder whether it is worth "selling out" to Harvard without first safeguarding specific female interests such as more women on the faculty, equal admissions policy, the Radclie Institute, and day-care. They question the necessity for immediate merger and propose alternatives such as an outright gift from Harvard, cut-backs on tuition, and even the use of capital funds. They point out that Harvard's financial situation is also precarious and that the every-tub-on-its-own-bottom philosophy is not applicable to Radcliffe. As one alumna wrote to Gilbert, "I am unimpressed with the financial urgency of this marriage of convenience. I hope the Radcliffe trustees will not find us so weak-kneed that we cannot cut expenditures and trim our sails until we are sure the arrangement we are making is what we want for future Radcliffe students.

Others feel that Radcliffe has never really furthered the interests of Harvard women and would definitely not be able to do so should it remain single. In December's Radcliffe Quarterly three graduate students trace the history of Radcliffe and reveal a consistently conservative attitude on Radcliffe's part when it comes to pressing Harvard for female equal opportunity. According to Ann N .Michelini '60, Co-chairman of the Graduate Women's Organization, "The existence of Radcliffe as a separate, but completely dependent institution has been repeatedly used by Harvard as a protective barrier against admitting women equally to the advantages men students enjoy. At present, Radcliffe is still being used by Harvard to discriminate against women, for only by maintaining the fiction that Radcliffe is a separate entity can Harvard justify the present ratio of four men to one woman. .. . As a separate institution with no faculty and no independent educational policy, Radcliffe can not serve the 'special educational needs' of women. . . . Undergraduate women would be able to urge response to their 'interests' and 'special needs' [should any arise] more effectively within Harvard College than outside it."

II

The final merger report recommends:

Radcliffe houses become part of Harvard's unified house system and Harvard assume responsibility for their administration. Radcliffe houses must be comparable to Harvard's regarding common rooms, tutor residences, etc. Fund raising for this project will be a joint responsibility of Harvard and Radcliffe.

The present Radcliffe Dean's Office be replaced by the House Master and Burr Tutor system. Although the report specifically states that "Women should be represented in appropriate numbers among the House Masters, College Deans, Burr Tutors and in the various faculties," it does not specify what is meant by "appropriate."

The Harvard Governing Boards and Radcliffe Trustees jointly appoint a "Dean/President" of Radcliffe. It is not required that a woman fill this position. He or she will be a member of the Council of Deans and of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Radcliffe Dean will be responsible for activities which will remain separate from Harvard including admissions and financial aid, the career counseling office, the Radcliffe Institute, the Schlesinger Library, and the Alumnae Office. However, the function remains vague: "He or she would be expected to take a special interest in initiating and extending educational opportunities for women under that Faculty."

Radcliffe give Harvard the income from her endowment, her current gifts and her entire tuition revenue. In exchange, Harvard accepts joint responsibility to close the gap (estimated this year at $250,000) between this income and the amount Radcliffe needs to meet her expenses. Harvard will provide the balance only under two conditions: 1) that the budget for specific Radcliffe activities such as admissions and financial aid be reviewed by a joint Harvard-Radcliffe Committee, and that should Radcliffe fund-raising fall below an agreed amount, Radcliffe activities suffer accordingly.

Harvard and Radcliffe recognize fund-raising as a joint responsibility and operate jointly as far as practicable.

Business operations be brought together, including buildings and grounds, dining halls, and the Comptroller's Office.

Problems of joint operation be reviewed at least two or three times yearly by a committee of Harvard Overseers and Radcliffe Trustees. The committee of Overseers to visit Harvard College will expand to include Radcliffe Trustees and alumnae. It will meet regularly and devote close attention to the problems of co-education.

III

MANY critics of the new merger plan oppose it because they feel Radcliffe has won no significant concessions from Harvard. Economic security is not enough, they say, to justify the destruction of Radcliffe as a separate institution. As Deborah Batts '68, former president of RUS, put it: "This is the last poker game Radcliffe will play with Harvard -if they don't drive a hard bargain now, they never will. I don't think Radcliffe girls will get anything out of this plan. But they will give up Radcliffe's flexibility and personableness for an impersonal bureaucracy."

Radcliffe administrators, on the other hand, are optimistic. Bunting has asked that students be patient and give the new merger plan a chance to work. "Harvard has given evidence of a serious commitment to women. Although they are facing real financial problems themselves, they have been willing to take on this extra responsibility. We must have faith in Harvard to be concerned with women and faith in Radcliffe to push for what they want." In addition, Bunting, Gilbert and Belin have all warned against negative consequences should women students push for too many concessions at this time. "When Harvard has responsibility for the women, it will be more responsive to their desires," Belin said.

Those who oppose the new merger plan base their objections on the plan's failure to face the issue of an equal sex admissions policy at Harvard. Chase Peterson's Faculty Committee

on Admissions and Merger reported last March that there would be no change in the ratio of women to men. It claimed that a reduction in male admissions would reduce diversity at Harvard and that an increase in female enrollment would lead to an undesirable enlargement of the student body. Peterson's Committee warned, however, "We are worried by the suggestion that such issues as an equal sex admission ratio and total size of the undergraduate enrollment can be waken up piecemeal after the fact of a legal merger.

Many students would like to see the issue resolved before Radcliffe gives up her separate identity. They assume that Radcliffe students are in better bargaining positions with Harvard now than they would be when the contract becomes official. Many feel that merger will give women even less of a voice than they now have.

"What worries us most," Ann N. Michelini '60, co-chairman of the Graduate Women's Organization said, "is the attempt to freeze the issue for four years." Many undergraduates express similar fears. They feel that Harvard is postponing the equal admissions issue until 1975 when the contract can be renewed. Many students want the issues of merger and equal admissions to be of immediate concern to the new President. The final report, however, disagrees: "The new Harvard President will be faced with many critical problems at the outset of his administration and it is not in the best interests of Radcliffe or Harvard that he should be forced to deal with this issue immediately." Students opposing the merger find this clause "particularly pernicious." As Deborah Batts said, "such a long-term period seems to approve implicitly low-priority for the problems of women for the new President. If he is in office for four years before he is faced with the issue of the women in the University, he may continue to give top-priority to those problems which this section seeks to free him to deal with after that four years period has lapsed."

Two main obstacles preventing a change in the male-female ratio at Harvard are repeatedly cited by administrators at both colleges: the Faculty and the alumni.

The Faculty does not want to upset the present departmental balance. They argue that an influx of women coupled with a decrease in men, would swell the ranks of departments such as English, History and Social Relations, leave the labs of the scientific departments empty. Then what would Harvard do with her expensive new Science Center and all her tenured professors? The Faculty claims that women tend to avoid science concentration. Interestingly, Cox's Committee reported last March that women at all-women colleges concentrate in applied sciences in larger numbers than do women at co-educational colleges.

The alumni, on the other hand, oppose equal sex admissions for more sentimental reasons. Somehow it just wouldn't sound right to sing "Ten thousand men and women of Harvard," Alumni, especially the older ones (who often happen to be the more generous ones) look back with pride upon the tradition of a men's college and look forward to the day when their sons will enter Harvard.

The Harvard alumni are not alone in their sentiment. Many Radcliffe alumnae and administrators do not see the equal admission of women as a top priority issue. Some would even prefer to see a substantial increase in the student body rather than reduce the number of men admitted to the college. Gilbert, chairman of the Radcliffe Trustees, said: "Harvard shouldn't educate less men. I'd hate to deny men a Harvard education. If more women need to go to college more places should be made."

Most administrators express strong doubts that Harvard will take any step toward equal admissions in the next four years. One administrator said: "I doubt the ratio will change I'll eat my shirt if Harvard decreases the number of men. Von Stade is quite representative of the Harvard Administration. I don't think students have the kind of power to change that. It would turn off the alumni."

It is significant that the Committee on Harvard-Radcliffe Relationships has chosen to ignore the issue of equal admissions rather than to determine a specific ratio in the report. By keeping separate admissions offices Harvard is implicitly accepting the current admissions policy. There is nothing to indicate-short of tremendous student pressure-that this policy will change. The understanding between Harvard and Radcliffe is that the "gentlemen's agreement" whereby Radcliffe admits no more than 330 freshmen per year will continue under the new contract. Steiner feels that, "We were not in a position to resolve the admissions ratio question for four years. I would not assume that the new contract would specify the number of women to be admitted for the next four years."

Another question which the report does not adequately answer is the role to be played by the Dean of Radcliffe. How much power will she have to further the interests of women at Harvard? She will be a member of the Faculty and the Council of Deans. "The Dean of Radcliffe," Gilbert said, "is the key to how all this works. The wrong person could rook everything." According to Bunting, "The Radcliffe Dean will have powers I've never had. She will be expected to take an interest in innovative projects for women. I have been working in several areas but without a specific mandate. She won't have to worry about housing and certain other administrative problems." The contract could reap positive benefits for Harvard women, depending on the Dean's initiative and powers of persuasion. But controversial reform seems unlikely without a great deal of student support.

IV

IT BECOMES apparent after talking to administrators on both sides of the Common, that Radcliffe does simply not have sufficient bargaining power to gain concessions from Harvard. Radcliffe is helpless against powerful constituencies such as the Faculty and the Harvard alumni, both of whom, according to any change in the admission ratio. Radcliffe as Harvard administrators, are dead set against a separate institution will never have the influence it needs to change Harvard's discriminatory polices toward women. Not until Harvard recognizes Radcliffe women as full and legitimate members of the undergraduate community will there be any possibility of admission reform. As Caroline Bynum, Assistant Professor of History, put it, "The power base is not Radcliffe-but women." Hopefully, this merger plan will be a concrete step towards the recognition of women as equals in the Harvard community. With the administrative merger of Harvard and Radcliffe, women will be able to address themselves to the problems of discrimination in their capacity as Harvard -not Radcliffe-undergraduates.