Free Bird or Lame Duck?

HIGH ABOVE the plushly furnished office, for the arts and the newly renovated Agassiz Theater. Education for Action, the fifteen-year-old group that funds student social action, occupies two small corner rooms on the fourth floor, decorated with a frayed throw rug and a table with a collection of kitchen chairs that don't match. "We're not going to be embraced within the image "of Radcliffe," says staff-member Suzanne Motherall.

Education for Action is technically an office of Radcliffe College. Each year, it distributes about $10.000 to undergraduates who are involved in social action--from slide shows on Mozambique to internships with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Its student board, which collects all of the money it distributes, is unusual this year in being all women and two thirds Third World women.

But Education for Action seems an anomoly in the Radcliffe Yard. Motherall notes that Radcliffe doesn't "show off" the group in part because "our office doesn't look like other offices". And the Radcliffe administration does not seem to understand the workings of a collective, she says, adding that administrators are not used to dealing with whoever happens to pick up the telephone. Last year was a "rough year," she says, since Agassiz renovations caused Education for Action to change offices three times. "I think there's a little embarrassment," she says, adding, "we don't meet the Radcliffe standard."

Education for Action is not the only group struggling with the question of what its relation to Radcliffe is and what Radcliffe as a whole stands for While it never had a separate faculty and never offered undergraduate classes of its own. Radcliffe always served as the mechanism through which women could receive a Harvard education. Now that women are admitted with men, enrolled with men, and housed with men, the obvious question is what role remains for Radcliffe. Opinions range from author Diana Trilling '25's point-blank "Radcliffe is dead," to the Radcliffe Guide's assertion that "Radcliffe has a specified role in the development of the administrative policy affecting undergraduates." According to the 1977 Agreement, the most recent document governing the Harvard-Radcliffe relationship. Radcliffe pays Harvard College to educate its students leaving control of the curriculum to Harvard. What is left for Radcliffe is some degree of influence over undergraduate curriculum, and a larger degree of freedom in implementing extracurricular programs.

Although President Horner sits on several curricular committees of Harvard College. Radcliffe is in the awkward position of having to offer its students the education that Harvard College chooses to provide. Radcliffe does not have an undergraduate concentration in women's studies, for example, or indeed many courses in women's studies at all, simply because Harvard does not How active a force Radcliffe is in pushing for a greater role for women's studies in undergraduate courses is a subject of some debate.

FORMAL PRESSURE for more women's studies is "not an appropriate thing" for Radcliffe to be doing, says Phillipa Bovet, associate dean of Radcliffe. President Horner speaks of using "the carrot," rather than the stick in working for more women's studies. She notes for example, that Radcliffe requires Harvard faculty members who apply for a Mellon Fellowship to present evidence of curricular innovation toward more women's studies in their courses. But Radcliffe has not vocally called for a women's studies concentration, not has it encouraged Radcliffe students who have applied for special concentrations in women's studies, none of which has ever been granted. Horner attributes the widely perceived silence by Radcliffe on important issues to be a decision not to work by "public embarrassment". The work Radcliffe does for women's studies she asserts is done quietly. "I think Radcliffe is not trying to seek publicity which is why a lot of people do not know what it does," she adds.

How eager Radcliffe is to involve itself in a direct advocacy role is a subject of some contention, "My gut feeling is that yes they should play an advocacy role," says House Intern Helene Sahadi York '83. "I'm not sure whose responsibility it should be, but I don't see much of it happening." While she praises President Horner's access sability she does not see anyone at Radcliffe as being the forceful advocate on women's issues that they might "Issues of importance to women tend to be political footballs," she says." Radcliffe is just another bureaucracy to throw it around in."

Bovet seems uncomfortable with the charge some Radcliffe students make that Radcliffe has played a less-than-forceful role in combatting the problem of sexual harassment Radcliffe is "very concerned" about the problem, she says, adding that it is "being discussed at the moment."

Radcliffe officials are much happier talking about the many extra opportunities they believe Radcliffe presents to women undergraduates at Harvard Radcliffe. Bovet, who has the greatest role in student activities, points to the newly expanded Radcliffe special career guidance program as a particularly attractive Radcliffe offering. A lot of what her office does "depends on what students bring in" she says, adding that one student suggested a weekly luncheon series that is currently underway. On the average, she estimates perhaps one in four members of any Radcliffe class will participate in such Radcliffe-sponsored activities.

Radcliffe officials are always happiest speaking in trickle-down terms about the inevitable advantages for undergraduates of having the great Radcliffe triumverate so nearby the Schlesinger Library, the Bunting Institute, and the Murrey Research Center. The Schlesinger Library houses one of the great national collections of books on women's history. The Bunting Institute brings promising women scholars to Radcliffe, creating a lively female academic community nearby. And the Murrey Research center conducts social science research of interest to women in addition. Radcliffe supervises Mellon Fellowships, which produce scholarships on women's studies on a national level. While none of these is geared specifically toward the individual Radcliffe undergraduate administrators seem convinced that undergraduate women cannot help but benefit from them nevertheless.

But a constant retrain running through discussions of Radcliffe offerings is the dearth of publicity they receive and the relatively low level of use they therefore enjoy from Radcliffe under graduates. Radcliffe "assumes a base level of awareness that most people don't have," says Yvonne L. Jones '85 a Radcliffe intern. While the Schlesinger library houses a nationally eminent collection on women's history, library director Patricia King admits that "it's hard to acquaint undergraduates with the factn that it exists." Ann Co1by, director of the Murrey Center says that while some undergraduates regularly use the facility most undergraduates "Just don't know about it". Although the center sends out mailings regularly, and tries to encourage research of interest to undergraduates such as a recent study of dietary disorders--it has trouble enlisting significant undergraduate interest. Elizabeth Einaudi '83, former president of the Radcliffe Union of Students, says that a major problem is that most of the resources at Radcliffe never find their way into the Harvard curriculum.

IF RADCLIFFE has a problem in making its mission known to its undergraduates, almost everyone agrees that the widest lack of understanding and interest lies among the freshmen. Since most of the less obvious aspects of Radcliffe have not had time to reach them, many freshman express bewilderment. "I don't even think of Radcliffe," says Delia B. Pooler '82, "only when I write letters--you know return addresses." "Radcliffe means being quadded," adds Eleanor S. Pollak '85, "I just think of the yard up there with Agassiz," Lillis E. Grove '85 says, "I don't know what they do except give teas for us."

Einaudi says that as students spend more time here however their appreciation of Radcliffe grows. "When they have to write theses, they realize that a lot of books they will need if they want to write about women are up in Radcliffe Yard, and when they want to think about a career, they realize that only at Radcliffe are the special problems women face the sole object of consideration. "But many students, nevertheless, make it through all four years without having a meaningful interaction with any part of Radcliffe House Intern Barbara E. Mahon '82 says that many students simply view Radcliffe as "extracurricular" and that it suffers in competition with other campus activities.

Because of the extraordinary degree of equality now granted to Radcliffe students at Harvard. Radcliffe must now face the question of whether it has killed itself off by its own successes. Only because of the recent gains made by women undergraduates--in library privileges, admissions and living in the Houses--can they now afford to ignore entirely their link with Radcliffe. Radcliffe never had a faculty of its own and was always to some extent a conduct through which women could receive a Harvard education. Now, however many women fail to see the need.

"It's not Radcliffe's primary intention to get people to sign up as loyal instant Radcliffe women," says Mary Cox, vice president for development. "We don't care if they have a Radcliffe banner in their room or not "President Horner also says that Radcliffe is not concerned about what level of allegiance women undergraduates show toward Radcliffe. "I care why women say they go to Harvard," she says. "It's like immigrants who change their names. I care if they are denying a part of themselves."

This year, women undergraduates bursars cards say "Harvard College," where last year they said "Harvard University." Just how accurate this is hard to say. President Horner says something about not having time to catch every little mechancal detail like whether bursars cards say "Harvard College." Dean Bovet says something about how it may be correct, since all Radcliffe students have all of the rights and privileges accorded to Harvard College students--presumably even the right to have bursars cards that say "Harvard College." But in the end, Radcliffe doesn't really seem concerned about such details. President Horner says that at the time of the 1977 agreement a lot of consideration was given to whether Radcliffe should just remove itself entirely from undergraduate education. But Radcliffe decided that women undergraduates would lose a lot of special opportunities, and all they would gain is a "lack of confusion." Better to puzzle over the bursars cards and continue to take advantage of what they insist are the unique advantages of the continuing existence of Radcliffe.