How the University Works

The Harvard-Radcliffe relationship is something you will hear a lot about this year, usually in terms of "merger." When someone talks about merger they are primarily talking about equal admissions or some alternative, because the admissions office is virtually all that is left of Radcliffe. The last time the relationship between the two institutions was negotiated, in 1969, Radcliffe retained only the title over its property and endowment. Radcliffe agreed to turn over to Harvard 100 per cent of its income from tuition, rents and its endowment, in exchange for Harvard's assuming the total expense of Radcliffe's operation.

When Harvard took over Radcliffe's academic responsibilities back in World War II, it was a simple decision--it was the only financially pragmatic one. But in 1969, the situation was different. Radcliffe was foundering financially and--insult to injury--was calling for total merger, the logical conclusion to a relationship which had been growing increasingly closer and which had been presumed at the inception of Radcliffe. This time around, Harvard could not see that it had much to gain financially--despite the changes in values and career opportunities that women are now experiencing Harvard administrators are quick to point out that women do not contribute as much financially or educationally to their alma maters as men.

Radcliffe capitulated to Harvard on the essential issue, partly for the sake of the very attractive financial arrangement and partly because Harvard wasn't going to give in. But by the time Derek Bok assumed the University's presidency in 1971, the pressure for more equal admissions was too great to ignore. Bok announced that fall that the College would move to a 2.5-to-1 male-female ratio from the old 4 to 1. But the pressure was nearly as great from Harvard alumni to maintain the size of the Harvard undergraduate body. So Bok decided to expand the size of the subsequent three entering classes.

Those of you who will live three people to a double will understand all too well how merger affects everyone physically, not to mention politically and spiritually. Doubts about the capabilities of women undergraduates aside, it is becoming increasingly apparent to Harvard administrators that the College cannot tolerate much more expansion.

The "non-merger merger" pact--as the 1971 agreement came to be known--runs out at the end of this year, when a new agreement must be negotiated. In many ways, Harvard and Radcliffe seem as close to merger as they will ever be. On the other hand, Matina Horner, Radcliffe's current president, has been an enthusiastic proponent of the non-merger merger concept, and Bok has often been influenced by the conservative views of Harvard alumni.

Right now the issue is in the hands of the Strauch Committee, a group of faculty, administrators, students and alumni chosen by Bok and Horner to consider the Harvard-Radcliffe relationship and make recommendations. One thing is fairly certain: Radcliffe will not agree to a merger that guarantees anything less than sex-blind admissions. To do otherwise would be to betray Radcliffe.