Radcliffe May Relinquish Official College Status

After nine months of secret negotiations between the Fellows of Harvard and the Trustees of Radcliffe Colleges, the University is preparing to redefine the historically ambiguous role of Radcliffe College.

Sources close to the discussions said yesterday that Radcliffe may soon relinquish its 119-year-old title of undergraduate college, refocusing itself as solely a premier women's research facility--and becoming a University "allied institution."

Responding to yesterday's front page article in The Boston Globe which alleged that Radcliffe may lose its titular claim to undergraduate women, University officials said they can "neither confirm nor deny" impending changes.

"The Radcliffe Board of Trustees is engaged in a comprehensive strategic planning process," said Nancy-Beth Scheerr '71, president of the Radcliffe board. "At best, it is premature to state any kind of conclusion [to these ongoing discussions]."

Sources said yesterday that plans to change the relationship between Radcliffe and Harvard are indefinite but forthcoming. The specific implications of the plan will likely include removing Radcliffe's seal from undergraduate women's diplomas; a greater focus on research efforts; and reaffiliation for the few remaining undergraduate Radcliffe programs.

Members of the Harvard Corporation, the University's chief governing board, and top Mass. Hall advisors gathered for dinner at President Neil L. Rudenstine's Elmwood home last Sunday to discuss Radcliffe's role within the University. The discussion bore no definitive conclusion, one source said.

While many within the University community said they were "shocked" by yesterday's news, some said they see the potential developments as the logical next step in Radcliffe's evolution.

From coeducation, to co-residency, to the official merger in 1977, many said Radcliffe's role in the lives of most undergraduate women has been steadily diminishing.

"The present arrangement is awkward, and wastes a lot of time and probably a lot of money," said Aida K. Press '48, director of public information at Radcliffe until her retirement in 1993.

"The reality of Radcliffe being an undergraduate college hasn't been true since 1971," Press said. "Radcliffe should get out of the undergraduate business."

Karen E. Avery '87, assistant dean of Harvard College, said she was "thrilled" to read that Radcliffe may relinquish its nominal role in undergraduate life.

"Ten years ago, when I worked at Radcliffe, I thought they should become a research institute even then," Avery said. "By having `college' as their tag line, I think they've been slowing themselves down."

Press, who is also co-editor of her class's 50th reunion book and a member of the awards committee, said times have changed, and so must Radcliffe.

And Adeline L. Naiman '46, also an active Radcliffe graduate, said while she supports the concept of women's colleges, Radcliffe needs to "put up or shut up" at this juncture.

Naiman said she feels that Radcliffe should act as a support system but notes that organizational changes within Radcliffe have alienated some elderly alumnae.

With a decreased focus on women's education and more emphasis on financialdevelopment, Naiman said Radcliffe is "putting alot of pressure on us to give," making alumnaefeel like "cash cows waiting to be milked."

But some current undergraduates said yesterdaythat Radcliffe is not obsolete.

Upset at the Globe's "one-sided" coverage ofstudent apathy towards Radcliffe, Emma M. Cheuse'98 said she feels "strongly connected" toRadcliffe and the community it fosters.

Yesterday's news left Cheuse and others seekinganswers from a University unwilling to comment.

Certain undergraduate organizations--such aswomen's crew and rugby teams, the Radcliffe Unionof Students (RUS) and Education for Action--may bein limbo as a result of proposed changes.

Could RUS, which is the "official studentgovernment of Radcliffe College," exist withoutRadcliffe?

"The answer is, really, no," said RUSco-president Stacy M. Abder '99. "I know so manywomen who wouldn't have come here if it weren'tfor Radcliffe. Harvard is so male--that's theimpression you get before you even get here."

Michele A. Casey '99, who holds two positionsin Radcliffe research institutes, said she doesnot believe Harvard would have the impetus to fillRadcliffe's place in the women's community oncampus.

"Radcliffe needs to take a proactive stancetoward women before we can even think aboutgetting rid of Radcliffe," said Mia C. Bagneris'99, co-president of RUS

But some current undergraduates said yesterdaythat Radcliffe is not obsolete.

Upset at the Globe's "one-sided" coverage ofstudent apathy towards Radcliffe, Emma M. Cheuse'98 said she feels "strongly connected" toRadcliffe and the community it fosters.

Yesterday's news left Cheuse and others seekinganswers from a University unwilling to comment.

Certain undergraduate organizations--such aswomen's crew and rugby teams, the Radcliffe Unionof Students (RUS) and Education for Action--may bein limbo as a result of proposed changes.

Could RUS, which is the "official studentgovernment of Radcliffe College," exist withoutRadcliffe?

"The answer is, really, no," said RUSco-president Stacy M. Abder '99. "I know so manywomen who wouldn't have come here if it weren'tfor Radcliffe. Harvard is so male--that's theimpression you get before you even get here."

Michele A. Casey '99, who holds two positionsin Radcliffe research institutes, said she doesnot believe Harvard would have the impetus to fillRadcliffe's place in the women's community oncampus.

"Radcliffe needs to take a proactive stancetoward women before we can even think aboutgetting rid of Radcliffe," said Mia C. Bagneris'99, co-president of RUS