Letter Solves Longstanding Radcliffe Problem

Though they received their diplomas more than 25 years ago, it was not until last month that alums who graduated from Radcliffe before 1976 received an official welcome from Harvard.

A letter, jointly written and sent by Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Dean Drew Gilpin Faust and Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Dean Jeremy R. Knowles, promises equal opportunity for graduates of Harvard and Radcliffe to be involved in both institutions’ alumni activities.

“To resolve the uncomfortable situation that denied pre-1976 alumnae full citizenship in the University community...we believe that all graduates of Harvard and of Radcliffe should be free to participate in whatever programs and activities of the Radcliffe Institute and of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences that they choose,” the letter, dated Feb. 22, states.

Since 1976, only Radcliffe could solicit donations from women who graduated before that year or offer these women positions on advisory or reunion committees.

This left many alums upset that they were overlooked by their alma mater.

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

And the decision’s impact extends beyond the return address on fundraising mailings to alums. The agreement—reached in a collegial manner—resolves a major problem in the relationship between Harvard and Radcliffe left unsolved by the Oct. 1, 1999 merger.

A Complicated Past

The rules concern fundraising date back to 1976, when Radcliffe formally transferred responsibility for undergraduate education to Harvard.

At the time of the agreement, known as the “non-merger merger,” Radcliffe administrators noted that without the tuition provided by undergraduates, alumnae donations would become the essential core of Radcliffe’s financial structure.

And when the new merger discussions began in 1998, protecting its alumnae base remained a priority for Radcliffe.

Though Harvard negotiators realized maintaining the agreement was an imperfect solution, they compromised on the arrangement to finalize the overall merger.

“There were lots of things to hammer out,” explains former University Provost Harvey V. Fineberg ’67, who was instrumental in negotiating the merger. “This was one that could comfortably wait and, in fact, did.”

When Faust arrived at Radcliffe last year, the oft-criticized agreement was already tagged as a problem. But first she needed to familiarize herself with the inner-workings of Radcliffe, she says.

“I wanted a chance to talk to Radcliffe people about it, to understand why there was so much anxiety,” Faust says.

And even after Faust and Knowles decided to reexamine the agreement, practical considerations lingered.

“It turned out that the logistical details are much more complicated than anyone thought,” explains Ann E. Berman, a senior advisor to Knowles who was involved in negotiating the new agreement.

Unlike their predecessors, who negotiated the Harvard-Radcliffe merger in top secret board rooms, Faust and Knowles drafted this just-released letter through a series of e-mail exchanges over winter vacation.

“I can assure you that the process was very much more ‘joint’ than anything that has occurred between Harvard and Radcliffe for a few decades,” Knowles wrote in a later e-mail to The Crimson.

But even with a more collaborative effort, the smallest details had to be ironed out in order to ensure that both institutions were presented on equal terms.

Everything from signatures to the letterhead had to be negotiated, Knowles notes.

“It was very collegial and fun,” Faust says.

An Uncertain Future

Both Harvard and Radcliffe administrators who brokered the new agreement say they are uncertain whether it will impact either schools’ fundraising efforts.

“I think we all are in the dark about this,” Faust says.

And the full impact may not be clear for some time, as the Harvard Development Office will not begin large-scale solicitations of the pre-1976 Radcliffe alums until next year.

“No one wanted to mix up fundraising with a welcoming and inclusive gesture,” explains Radcliffe Associate Dean for Advancement Tamara Elliott Rogers ’74.

Logistical concerns also factored in to the timetable.

“Radcliffe asked for that, I think mostly to have a chance to get their own house in order,” Berman says.

Radcliffe administrators stress that the decision to change the fundraising rules was not made for financial reasons.

“We believe as a matter of principle the Radcliffe Institute should not stand in the way of women who wish to affiliate closely with Harvard College,” Rogers says.

But even with losing the exclusive right to solicit money from those females who graduated before 1976, one element of the agreement may improve Radcliffe’s bottom line.

Contributions to Radcliffe will now be counted the same as gifts to the Harvard College Fund for class fundraising goals and for the recognition of individual donors. In the past, gifts to Radcliffe were not included in such listings.

“It will probably encourage gifts to Radcliffe from both women and men,” Berman says. “That class credit matters to a lot of people.”

The Present Reaction

For the most part administrators say the response to their announcement from alums has been positive.

“Happy and positive replies...are outnumbering the uncertain ones by at least ten to one,” Knowles says.

And Board of Overseers member Karen G. Mills ’75 shares this optimistic view.

“The spirit in which it was written is a tone and a voice that I’ve been hoping to hear from Harvard and from Radcliffe,” she says.

But some still wonder why the agreement took so long to achieve.

“It’s not an uncontroversial thing to do,” Rogers says. “There are some women pre-’76 who feel it’s a little late.”

—Staff writer Catherine E. Shoichet can be reached at shoichet@fas.harvard.edu.