Radcliffe's Rocky Road

When the wheelers and dealers who brokered the merger between Radcliffe College and Harvard University in 1998 envisioned a new Radcliffe, they imagined a world-class institute for advanced study that would be influential and powerful at both at Harvard and in the world of academia as a whole.

But two years after Radcliffe College agreed to become part of Harvard, the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study is facing a budget shortfall, firing top administrators and mid-level employees and altering once-central Radcliffe programs—all while trying to placate a large contingent of confused alumnae.

The Institute is in the process of trying to comply with the advice of an ad-hoc committee of academics that this winter suggested that Radcliffe streamline its many programs.

While struggling to transform itself from a College into an institute for advanced study, Radcliffe has failed to adequately communicate its mission to its alumnae and to the Harvard community as a whole.

“Organizing this is very wrenching,” University Provost Harvey V. Fineberg ’67 says. “It’s necessary to shake the organization to accomplish its mission.”

The shaking going on at Radcliffe seems to be more like an earthquake.

Though Radcliffe completed its $100 million capital campaign last spring, the Institute fell short this year in meeting the cash flow requirements for its annual budget.

The budget troubles have led to the firings of mid-level employees across the institute, staffing cuts handed down this past Friday, a source familiar with the Radcliffe administration told The Crimson.

And while Radcliffe is concerned with addressing its financial troubles, alumni say the institute has to better define its mission in order to garner their support (and funds).

A large group of possible supporters are equally interested in participating in Harvard’s development efforts, even though those women who graduated before 1977 can only be solicited by Radcliffe for funds —a decades old technicality that was maintained in the 1998 merger agreement.

Though there is a growing initiative among alumanae and both Radcliffe and Harvard administrators to change the fundraising rules, Radcliffe will have to be on a solid financial footing—and have a clear public image—to open up its core financial constituency to Harvard solicitations.

Less Money, More Problems

Dean of the Institute Drew Gilpin Faust says that when she first arrived at Radcliffe this past January, she was made aware of the budget shortfall.

“We identified a significant projected shortfall for the current fiscal year, and we immediately informed the University,” she writes in an email.

This winter’s ad-hoc committee report suggested that Radcliffe centralize the famed Bunting Fellowship Progra m and call it the Radcliffe Fellowship Program—making the the fellows the core of the institute, as opposed to one program of many.

The implication of the advice was that Rita N. Brock, the director of the Bunting, would have to be fired, and Brock was relieved of her position earlier this spring .

While Brock acknowledges that staff changes are necessary for Radcliffe—in fact, she says she told the ad-hoc committee that the Institute had too many high level administrators—she says that she was “a little surprised that it happened so fast.”

She in turn attributes the elimination of many mid-level positions throughout Radcliffe to the institute’s budget woes. In addition to staff cuts at the mid-administrative level, Brock says that as employees decide to leave Radcliffe, many won’t be replaced.

“I think that there have been staffing changes because of the budget shortfall,” Brock explains.

Many of those employees were fired on Friday, according to the source familiar with Radcliffe, who notes that “There’s a sense of panic” at the institute.

Another source close to Radcliffe says that three mid-level administrators were fired at the Bunting, and “a number of staff at Educational Programs were told they had one more year.”

Faust says that she immediately enlisted the help of financial experts in January when she learned of the shortfall, and that Radcliffe has now revised its budget so that it will be in the black when the fiscal year ends on June 30.

But while Radcliffe plans to report a balanced budget to the Univeristy, its staff numbers have been slashed.

“That’s how they’re balancing the budget,” the source says.

Tamara Elliot Rogers `74, associate dean for advancement at Radcliffe, maintains though that any changes in staffing are not due to Radcliffe’s budget troubles.

“It is absolutely the case that re-organization is not being done for budgetary reasons,” she says.

Rumors have also been circulating that Faust plans to eliminate, or at least radically alter, the Radcliffe Public Policy Center.

The ad-hoc report suggested that the Public Policy Center’s work should be “fundamentally reframed.”

Jane Knowles, the acting director of the Schlesinger Library at Radcliffe, says that “Faust is following the recommendation of the ad hoc committee which is to ensure that all research be led by a faculty member.”

The current director of the Public Policy Center, Paula Rayman, declined to comment to The Crimson for this story but currently does not have a tenured faculty appointment at Harvard.

Brock says Rayman will be leaving Radcliffe at the end of this academic year.

Faust staunchly maintains though that the Public Policy Center will go on at Radcliffe.

“The Public Policy Center will continue to exist,” she says.

Trouble With the Alumnae

While Radcliffe is facing its own financial demons, the institute also has to address a formidable challenge in explaining its new mission to alumnae.

Much of the 1998 merger agreement was negotiated in secret, and even though then acting Dean Mary Maples Dunn crisscrossed the county in the wake of the merger to explain what the new Radcliffe Institute would be doing, many alumnae say they are still confused.

“They’re trying hard through publication and certainly making it possible for alumnae to meet representatives, but I think that’s a very difficult thing to do,” says Sandra Biloon `51, a member of the Radcliffe Association Board of Management. “The change was handled quietly, and I think some alumnae were surprised. It’s hard to get used to something new when the new isn’t something defined.”

Many alumnae say that they do not understand Radcliffe’s mission now that the institute no longer is responsible for female undergraduates.

The women who do not donate money or participate on committees are simply left out by Radcliffe, according to Melanie M. Niemiec `71.

“I’m a member of a group of women that has a pot luck supper once a month. Most of them are just ignored [by Radcliffe] and don’t understand much about the Institute,” Niemiec says.

Even Nancy Sinsabaugh `71, a co-chair of the 30th Reunion Committee, says she is still unsure of what is happening at Radcliffe. She says that she is counting on Faust to illuminate her during the reunion.

“One of my goals for next week is to find out what direction Radcliffe is going in because I do not know,” Sainsabar says.

Central to the communication problem with alumnae is the fundraising agreement that prohibits Harvard from soliciting funds from alumnae that graduated before 1977.

The infamous “non-merger merger” was brokered between Harvard and Radcliffe in 1977, granting formal responsibility for female undergraduates to Harvard. Harvard and Radcliffe agreed to collaborate on fundraising from new alumnae, but only Radcliffe would be able to solicit money from those who graduated before 1977.

In the 1999 merger, overseen by University President Neil L. Rudenstine and Radcliffe President Linda S. Wilson, the fundraising agreement remained.

Without the tuition provided by undergraduates, alumnae donations became the core of Radcliffe’s financial structure and Radcliffe negotiators worried that without a guaranteed alumnae base, the Institute would be lefthigh and dry.

“They were very concerned about the ability of Radcliffe to function on a year-to-year basis,” Fineberg says.

“People were afraid that alumnae would give money to Harvard or that Harvard would solicit them very hard to do so,” explains Dunn, who helped negotiate the agreement.

But while the agreement has protected alumnae who graduated before 1977 from being trampled by Harvard for donations, it has left many alumnae feeling like that they are not part of the Harvard community.

These women are not eager to give money to the institute.

“What you’ve done is put a whole group of women out in Siberia,” former President of the Board of Overseers Charlotte H. Armstrong ’49 says. “They say ‘I never hear from Harvard.’ They don’t feel part of Harvard, yet the Radcliffe that they knew is gone.”

Armstrong calls the fundraising agreement “a big mistake” and Rudenstine says that the negotiators compromised on the arrangement even though they recognized it could cause problems in the future.

But alumnae point out that an agreement designed to include alumnae in Radcliffe’s development has also served to exclude them from participating in Harvard alumni life.

“If you look at who’s on committees at Harvard, it’s people who give the money. If women aren’t being solicited then they’re not going to be picked for the committees,” Hope B. Winthrop ’71 says.

Niemiec, who is a close friend of Winthrop, says that Winthrop sprang into action when her husband, Grant F. Winthrop `71, was contacted by Harvard to serve on the 30th reunion gift committee and she was not asked to serve as well.

Though Hope Winthrop was hesitant to talk about her interactions with the 30th reunion committee, Niemiec says that Winthrop felt it was unfair that Harvard only contacted its alumni—and not Radcliffe’s alumnae—to play a leading role in the reunion festivities.

“They called him and asked him to be a member and she said, ‘Why can’t I be on the committee?’” Niemiec says. “Even now the Harvard guys still really don’t think of us as classmates in many ways.”

After contacting Harvard herself, Winthrop succeeded in joining the 30th reunion gift committee that her husband was originally recruited for.

“I don’t understand why the pre-’77 women should be treated as a different class of people,” Winthrop says. “There’s just no rationale for it.”

Armstrong, Winthrop and Niemiec all agree that Harvard and Radcliffe should abolish the pre-’77 agreement so that Harvard could solicit all graduates of Radcliffe.

“[When I was in college] Harvard didn’t care about the women. The men got the football tickets and we didn’t. [The alumnae] are right to be offended,” Niemiec says. “Radcliffe is trying to establish itself with this new institute and the women are its base of donors. They’re worried Harvard will try to skim the cream off the top and get the more able donors.”

Change In the Air?

Administrators on both ends of Garden Street recognize that the agreement about fundraising has left a generation of women awkwardly in between Harvard and Radcliffe.

“We keep getting grumpy letters from couples,” Faust says. “My ultimate goal is to get rid of all these…complexities and Byzantine arrangements that kept Harvard [and Radcliffe apart].”

Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 calls the pre-`77 agreement “embarrassing.”

“It’s one of my few disappointments with the agreement that this wasn’t resolved,” Lewis says of the arrangement.

Faust and Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles ’67 have already spoken about changing the agreement, and Niemiec says she expects the arrangement to be changed within six months.

Knowles was less clear about a time frame for change, but wrote in an email that “My personal hope is that we can move to amore open arrangement where our alumnae don’t feel neglected by Harvard and where our alumni feel able also to give to the Radcliffe Institute.”

Though the amount of money Radcliffe has raised this year for its annual fund is not available until after June 30, Dunn told The Crimson last spring that she was concerned that the number of donors to last year’s annual fund had dropped in the wake of the Radcliffe merger.

Dunn noted however, that the total amount given to the annual fund last year—$2.6 million—was not significantly lower than previous years.

Rogers says that the annual fund figure was a tad bit higher than normal last year because of a $400,000 donation from an anonymous donor.

Fineberg—who was central to brokering the merger between Harvard and Radcliffe—says that the desire on the part of some Radcliffe representatives’ to keep the pre-1977 alumnae from Harvard solicitations is rooted in emotions, rather than financial realities.

“It’s an emotional as well as a practical issue, and maybe a financial issue. I’m not sure it makes much difference actually,” he says. “With each passing month, the whole psychology about what it is to be part of Harvard is evolving.”

Raadcliffe’s Rocky Road

While Radcliffe may want to open up the pre-1977 alumnae to Harvard fundraising efforts, they may not be able to until they are on solid financial ground and have secured long-term sources of revenue other than alumnae donations.

The financially motivated mid-level position cuts that came last week may help Radcliffe trim expenses in the short term.

But Faust and other administrators say that corporate and foundation funding may be the missing link for Radcliffe in in the long run.

“Foundation funding should be important and we are having some very good luck with organizing corporate sponsorship,” Rogers says.

Rogers says that a new exhibit sponsored by the Schlesinger Library entitled “‘Enterprising Women’: A History of Businesswomen in America, 1750-2000” foreshadows the future of fundraising at the Institute, though the names of the exhibit’s corporate supporters have not yet been released to the public.

Radcliffe Assistant Dean for Planning Polly Steele points out that the other major institutes of advanced study—like those at Stanford and Princeton—thrive financially without an alumni base, relying on corporate and foundation grants to fund their research.

While Radcliffe struggles to pitch itself to its alumnae, it also has to win the support of President-elect Lawrence H. Summers.

His vision for Radcliffe and how it can fit in to Harvard will most certainly shape the institute’s power within the University.

In an absolute sense, Faust has as much influence at the University Deans’ table as Knowles or the deans of the Medical School and the Law School.

But in a relative sense (in terms of funding and size), Radcliffe is much smaller than the Univeristy’s nine other faculties.

“I think Rudenstine and Fineberg were both very visionary in understanding what Radcliffe could be and could contribute, and I think the important role for the new president is to really try to understand and pursue that vision,” Pendred E. Noyce `77 says. “The role of the president should be to help be a visionary.”

Dunn notes that engaging the attention of Harvard’s 27th President early on is essential.

“That’s going to be really critical for him to be interested in it [Radcliffe] and support it,” she says.

And it seems that the Radcliffe Institute has already caught Summers’ attention. In one of Summers’ recent visits to Cambridge, he had lunch with Faust and discussed the future of the institute. Faust is upbeat in describing their meeting.

“It was clear that he’s very committed to supporting us. I think he’ll be a very good president for Radcliffe,” she says.

But Radcliffe will have to be able to give its alumnae and the Harvard community a clearer picture of its mission in order to capitalize on alumni support and stake out a truly influential position at the University.

“Now Radcliffe is a part of Harvard and it really has to shine in the Harvard sense,” Dunn says. “That’s a concern for the immediate future.”