A Separate Corporate Voice

Like the Harvard Corporation, the Radcliffe Board of Trustees is a financially independent, self-perpetuating group of people charged with the care of the institution it takes its name from. But where the Corporation is "the oldest ruling oligarchy in America," in the words of one Radcliffe administrator, the Trustees are a more diverse group with a higher public profile and a better public image.

The Trustees--whose number fluctuates between 38 and 40 each year--oversee Radcliffe's $16.7 million budget. That's one immediate difference between Harvard and Radcliffe--the Harvard Corporation handles a $300 million budget and $1.4 billion endowment. "You're dealing with an awful lot more zeroes on your numbers at Harvard," Francis H. Burr '35, who is the only Corporation member who also sits on Radcliffe's board, says.

Although the size of the sums of money Radcliffe manages may look insignificant next to Harvard's billion-and-a-half, it is Radcliffe's finances that ensure its independence. Under the terms of the 1977 Agreement between Presidents Bok and Horner, Radcliffe pays Harvard 100 per cent of its tuition income in return for the education Harvard gives undergraduate women. "Harvard is in effect our service bureau," says Burton I. Wolfman, administrative dean of Radcliffe. Effectively without any tuition income, Radcliffe relies on endowment income and government grants to support its activities.

In light of this dependence, Radcliffe launched a fund drive to mark its 100th anniversary last year, to raise $10 million over five years for endowing and improving existing Radcliffe programs and to increase alumnae giving to $1 million annually within three years. Once again, Radcliffe's numbers look puny next to Harvard's--the University plans to raise $250 million over the same period, and its annual giving topped $7.5 million this year.

Radcliffe has no faculty to maintain, so it doesn't need to worry about the astronomical sums Harvard administrators confront daily, and its governing board doesn't handle the same depth and detail of business as the Corporation, Wolfman says. "The Corporation has a hell of a lot more work to do," Burr says. "The president of M.I.T. once served on the Radcliffe Trustees, but he wouldn't become a Corporation member even if you asked him," he adds.

The trustees meet four times a year, but an executive committee meets monthly to conduct more immediate business. "The executive committee does the nitty-gritty stuff," Burr says. Their composition is much less homogeneous than the Corporation's--the mix of alumni, parents, academics, businessmen and professionals (not to mention the presence of women and minority group members) make the Radcliffe trustees more like Harvard's Board of Overseers than the Corporation. (The Overseers are a larger group that meets less frequently than the Corporation and advises the University on non-financial matters.)

The Tustee's business includes, obviously, fundraising for Radcliffe. It also approves any large grant of money, and oversees Radcliffe's different organs like the Schlesinger Library or the Data Resources Center. But the Board does not have much control over the education of Radcliffe students. "Radcliffe deals with the policy of women at Harvard, not the day-to-day management," Wolfman says.

"The Trustees approve a lot of decisions that are made for them by the deans that have to do with educational matters," Burr says.

The 1977 Agreement put an end to any idea of a corporate merger between Harvard and Radcliffe, and the Trustees are determined to maintain their independence. The only real links between the two institutions are at the very highest levels. "It's strictly a corporate relationship--President Bok to President Horner," Wolfman says.

He says the value of keeping Radcliffe separate, lies in the prominence an independent Radcliffe can give to women's needs both within and without the University. "Women's research is low on Harvard's totem pole, but we can go to the Ford, Carnegie and Lilly and be the first on the queue," Wolfman says. In other words, Radcliffe's separate voice with the government and with corporations gives it more clout in seeking funds for women's needs that would get buried in any Harvard dossier.

"It's an uncharted course," Wolfman admits. "Feminism may be a fad, and everyone will get bored with it, and the Trustees will say, 'Give it up.' But they've taken 100 years to build Radcliffe up, and that's not likely."