Open Radcliffe to Men

In a Kennedy School panel last semester, Harvard witnessed a rare moment of ideological unity between liberals and conservatives. Editors of Perspective, Peninsula, and The Salient all called for the end of Radcliffe College.

Although we do not support the complete elimination of Radcliffe per se, we do advocate opening Radcliffe completely to men and making equal, joint citizenship a reality for male and female students.

While Radcliffe offers many benefits only to women, the existence of Radcliffe as distinctly separate from Harvard implies that female students are not fully a part of Harvard. In this manner, Radcliffe relegates women to the status of second class citizens at Harvard.

Ironically, Radcliffe simply forestalls the arrival of gender equality. Harvard can refer all issues related to women over to Radcliffe, as Jesse M. Furman '94, former Perspective president, observed during the Kennedy School discussion.

Furthermore, as Curtis E. Gannon '94, former editor of The Salient, suggested, Radcliffe's role as a special advocate for women sends the message that women can't control their own affairs or be their own advocates.

At the same time, significant opportunities are offered only to Radcliffe students. These include special prizes, contests, internship programs and research projects. As the pamphlet Facts About Radcliffe College 1993-1994 states, "Women are dual citizens of Harvard and Radcliffe... Today, women students have access to all the resources of Harvard College." This is fine.

The pamphlet continues, however: "They also have access to all of the programs provided for undergraduates of Radcliffe College as well as to its educational, research and scholarly programs."

In the interest of simple fairness, we propose that such prizes for women should be opened to men, just as the few remaining men's prizes should be opened to women.

All-female Radcliffe and the much-despised all-male final clubs share an important characteristic: both discriminate in extending membership and benefits to the Harvard community, with no valid reasons for drawing the lines where they draw them.

The existence of Radcliffe in its present form represents a simple and obvious case of gender discrimination. Just as women should not be denied the benefits of final clubs merely because they are women, men should not be denied the benefits of Radcliffe simply because of their gender.

As an institution with a greater public trust and duty to the community than the final clubs, Harvard-Radcliffe should adhere to an even higher standard of total gender equality and the absence of gender discrimination.