Good Question

IT WAS PERHAPS INEVITABLE that a women's college in the shadow of a major men's university could not hope to maintain a separate identity. Radcliffe's history, despite the claims of Where's Radcliffe?, a multi-media show patterened after Where's Boston?, is basically the story of its awkward coexistence with and eventual digestion by a neighboring men's college.

"Multi-media" makes the hour-and-a-half show sound more complicated than it really is. Three Radcliffe students alternate in delivering prepared monologues on the history and current status of Radcliffe while slides flash on two screens, accompanied by occasional background music. The format is not all that different from an Astronomy 8 lecture.

The orations begin with straight history: Radcliffe was founded in such-and-such year, by so-and-so, in some building in Radcliffe Yard, and grew in the following three easy steps, etc. Above our heads slides of Anne Radcliffe and Ada Louise Comstock mingle with shots of women in long dresses in libraries and dining halls. Interspersed among these historical slides are contemporary scenes of Radcliffe and Cambridge.

The problem with Where's Radcliffe? is that the contemporary shots soon become the only shots. Harvard women are photographed in the Science Center, Lowell House, and Elsie's, among other familiar spots. One's pre-existing sense that Radcliffe is nothing more than part of Harvard is thus enhanced.

At least for its first half the show sticks to a purely historical narrative. We are treated to stories of maids during the '20s, nurses during the '40s, food during the '60s, and parietals and boyfriends throughout. It is interesting, though somehow one feels that history can be more exciting than the educational films you used to see in fourth and fifth grades.

History must be experienced, not merely heard or read, to be felt. The three narrators of the show, Victoria E. Allan '80, Martina N. Miller '79 and Andrea Robinson '81, are rather indistinguishable; each basically recites a series of memorized speeches. There is little attempt at dialogue or acting of any sort, except for a few perfunctory hand gestures. The show uses no sets, props or costumes.

The history of the first part of the show rapidly gives way to adulation for the present state of affairs at Harvard/Radcliffe. Women, we are told, are now free to express their separate identities within the context of a uniquely endowed educational institution. Radcliffe supposedly provides the stabilizing force for women at this University during their undergraduate years.

But the images deceive. Harvard's women are Harvard women, and whether or not one accepts the notion of Radcliffe as a mere institutional anachronism, the fact remains that most women here do not think of themselves as attending Radcliffe College. Therefore, despite the smiling faces of women in Quad Houses and scenes of women doing everything from rowing to building snow sculptures, we realize that we are really viewing only a segment of Harvard. And it is not really even a segment, for slides of men, River Houses, and Harvard Square are almost as common as those of contented Quad women.

The second half of the show muddles the already unclear haze concerning Radcliffe's identity. If the Radcliffe of the past can be barely surmised by historical anecdotes and old photos from the Schlesinger library, today's Radcliffe is certainly not comprehended through segments on "Leaves of Absence," "Blacks at Radcliffe," and "Radcliffe Theater." They might as well be retitled "Harvard Theater" and "Blacks at Harvard."

EVEN MORE ANNOYING, the orations themselves give the impression that today, finally, in the merged-non-merged '70s, all is well at fair Harvard. We are proudly told of the fact that Radcliffe crew is still a Radcliffe, not a Harvard, team and that "equal-access" admissions has forever solved the perennial problem of the Harvard sex ratio. Ignored are the larger problems of equal funding for women's athletic teams and minority recruitment reluctance. One almost feels that the show was designed with nostalgic alumni in mind.

The show climaxes with a vast array of slides taken during the recent blizzard of locations throughout the University. Flashes of University Hall takeovers of the '60s and co-ed living of the '70s appear with appropriate rock music from both decades. This is pure Harvard, and no attempt is made to explain the significance of Radcliffe in these events.

Ultimately, Where's Radcliffe? fails because it does not answer the question "where is Radcliffe?" The forgotten lines, missed cues, and incorrect lighting could all be excused if one obtained an understanding of the ambiguous position of that institution. No enlightenment is provided other than the fact that Radcliffe is synonomous with almost half of Harvard College.

It is a shame that in its tribute to Radcliffe's centennial the Radcliffe Class of '79, the sponsors of the event, could not shed some light on the nature of a very complex entity. But then, perhaps we have no right to expect so much from a mere show. After all, Harvard and Radcliffe administrators have been trying for nearly a decade to determine the precise status of Radcliffe College.