Institutional Sexism

LAST YEAR in his small corner of Massachusetts Hall, the University's lawyer decided that students who were admitted to Radcliffe College were deemed to be enrolled in Harvard College. The redefinition, Daniel Steiner '54 says now, reflected in part the provisions of the Strauch report and also what he viewed to be the "realities" of the similar college lives that men and women here lead. These are arguments, Steiner says, that he might make in court to show that the change was a legal one.

The decision has had more than semantic consequences. As a result of the Gilbert & Sullivan-like alteration, prizes that were once limited to males because the bequests specified students of Harvard College as recipients were now open to women. Therefore, 32 prizes, prize fellowships, and prize scholarships, along with 22 that had been opened up to equal access in 1971, were now available to both men and women.

Nonetheless, 12 Radcliffe prizes and 10 Harvard prizes remain limited to women and men respectively. The Harvard awards are worth about $22,000 annually, the Radcliffe ones $15,000. Steiner says that it would be illegal to open these prizes to both sexes because the terms of the bequests specify the sex of the recipient. Even though there is a difference between the amount of the restricted money available only to one sex--with men coming out on top by about $7000--Steiner says the situation is "equitable." The apparent inequality is offset by the fact that there are fewer women here than men, and thus a woman has the chance to get more prize money than a man. Still, Steiner sees a "symbolic" inequality wherever sexual distinctions are made, and these restricted prizes amount to a "wart" on the face of this equitable situation.

The University should be applauded for freeing the 32 restricted prizes to both sexes. It is a move in the right direction to reverse the tradition of institutional sexism at Harvard. As for the remaining funds, it is unfortunate that the University cannot endeavor any further legalistic legerdemain to open them up also. Still, the "overall" equality that Steiner says exists will not exist when there are equal numbers of men and women in the College. When that day comes, Harvard ought to match that $7000 advantage men will have with an equal $7000 restricted to women. Such a step, along with one-to-one admissions and the opening this year of 54 prizes to both sexes, all fit well within Steiner's admirable "policy objective" of ending distinctions between the opportunities available to men and women at Harvard.