Bunting Fellows Could Include Men Next Fall

Imagine a place of quiet but intense academic research. A place where eager young scholars come to escape the harried constants of class and committee work expected of them at their universities and, instead, are given money and a comfortable office to pursue their dreams of publishing.

All are invited to apply for a place in this environment, provided their research is sufficiently cutting edge and their gender is male.

Limiting such a rich opportunity to men sounds antiquated, perhaps even discriminatory. But substitute women for men, and this scenario describes the Bunting Institute, perhaps the most prominent of Radcliffe College's three major research institutes.

Nestled in a cluster of small buildings off of quiet Concord Avenue a few blocks from Radcliffe Yard, the Bunting bills itself as "the nation's premiere multidisciplinary center of advanced studies for women scholars, writers, artists and activists."

And for 39 years, the Bunting has boasted a community of woman researchers, a place--nearly unique in higher education--where women are expected to excel in any field they chose to study.

But now, as Radcliffe officials conduct secret talks with Harvard about a possible merger between the two schools, the Bunting's single-sex tradition could expose the institute to lawsuits under federal gender-equity laws.

This risk is acknowledged by Bunting Director Rita Nakashima Brock, who says it could stall the high-level negotiations with Harvard.

And, in response, Brock told The Crimson that her institute will explicitly open its doors to men as fellows, beginning in the 1999-2000 school year.

Radcliffe's decision to integrate the Bunting's unique women's world may be an indication that Harvard and Radcliffe are at long last considering the concessions required to iron out a final deal.

It's the Law

Founded in 1960 by Radcliffe's fifth president, Mary Ingraham Bunting, the institute began as a means to combat what she called a "climate of unexpectation" for academic women.

If colleges and universities assumed women couldn't be philosophers, astrophysicists or orchestra conductors, the Bunting would assume otherwise--and fund female scholars' research to prove it.

Though Radcliffe officials at times have said that men were welcome to apply for a Bunting position, there is little hint of this in the application materials for a Bunting fellowship during this school year. All of these begin by describing prospective fellows as "women."

And men seem to have gotten the hint. In the Bunting's 39-year history, the institute has hosted more than 1,200 women scholars as fellows and research associates, but only a handful of men. According to Marion Kilson '58, a former director of the Bunting Institute, the last time a man studied at the Bunting was in the '70s, and he was a research associate, not a fellow.

But the world has changed since 1960, and in recent years opponents of affirmative action have succeeded in rolling back race- and gender-based preferences in higher education across the country.

Race-based admissions policies at universities from California to Texas currently face legal and public challenges. Gender-restrictive policies may very well be the next under fire.

And as the courts continue to interpret Title IX section of the Education Amendments of 1972, more and more single-sex educational programs are being ruledillegal.

Originally intended to open traditionallyall-male institutions to women, Title IX says thatgender-based discrimination is illegal ineducational programs or activities that receivefederal funding.

Title IX has been used in recent years to forceequal treatment of men's and women's athleticteams. It was also the law that put ShannonFaulkner into the Virginia Military Institute'straditionally all-male corps of cadets.

But according to Boston University Professor ofLaw Jane M. Cohen, an expert in Title IX law, theBunting Institute may not be safe from the law'sfar-reaching effects.

While Title IX contains an exemption fortraditionally all-women undergraduatecolleges--the law was never intended to challengeWellesley College or, for that matter,Radcliffe--courts have held that it is illegal forgraduate programs to discriminate on the basis ofgender.

Cohen explains that courts have ruled that ifeven one program at a given school receivesfederal money, all of that school's programs mustcomply with Title IX. That means that whenall-women undergraduate colleges also runsingle-sex graduate or post-graduate programs,they may then violate Title IX.

But Cohen, who herself read grant applicationsfor the Bunting Institute during the early 1990s,says much of Title IX law is open tointerpretation. With institutions like theBunting, technicalities can blur the meaning oflegal precedent.

For instance, some might argue that calling theBunting a post-graduate educational program is nottechnically accurate, since its fellows areactually paid to do research and not teach orattend classes.

Though Radcliffe has since changed its tune,Radcliffe College President Linda S. Wilson saidin December that the Bunting was not aneducational program, suggesting that Title IX didnot apply.

Conversely, Radcliffe now argues that seminarsand colloquia run by Bunting fellows are open toall, men and women alike.

However, according to Cohen, this in itselfinvites a legal interpretation which could bepotentially damning. Teaching both male and femaleundergraduates gives the Bunting an educationalcomponent and at the same time removes itsprotection under the Title IX exemption forall-women undergraduate college programs.

A formal ruling on the Bunting's compliancewith Title IX could come only if an aggrievedparty decided to actually file a complaint withthe federal government.

`The Bunting exists in an obviously ambiguousstatus in respect to Title IX," Cohen says. "Therecent trend now suggests that Title IX wouldapply--it seems to me that it should apply."

Radcliffe officials are quick to point out thatthe school's other graduate programs are open tomen.

"All of the courses in Radcliffe's GraduateStudies Center are co-educational and each of theInstitutes for Advanced Study have had both maleand female fellows," says Radcliffe spokespersonMichael A. Armini.

But, for all its defenses, Radcliffe hasrecently agreed with those concerned about thelegality of the Bunting Institute and agreed toopen its doors to men.

Brock says application materials for nextyear's fellowships, which will be distributed inJune, will more explicitly outline agender-neutral policy at the Bunting.

And Brock says recent talks between Harvard andRadcliffe helped motivate this change.

"The speed at which it was looked at wascertainly affected by [the talks]," Brock says."Harvard is extremely risk averse for good reason.Harvard has a very large endowment that someonewould like to get their hands on--it's fiscallyresponsible to avoid lawsuits."

While Brock says she has had no role in thenegotiations, one high-level observer notes thatensuring the legality of Radcliffe's programs isessential to any final deal.

"Harvard doesn't break the law," says thesource. "Anything that becomes part of Harvardmust be absolutely consistent with Title IX."

A Whole New World

But some Bunting scholars claim that the veryessence of the Bunting would change if men wereadmitted. Fellows already study widely disparatefields. The addition of men to the mix mightloosen the glue that holds the Bunting together.

"[If men are admitted] it would just be a placelike any other," says Tracy Isaacs, a currentBunting fellow studying philosophy. "It wouldn'tbe unique anymore. You might as well stay at yourhome institution and feel like you're one of theonly women."

"It would be a completely differentenvironment," says fellow Bunting scholar AnnFerentz. "It would set up at the Bunting a sort ofhierarchy--the sort of system we're trying toavoid."

Even Wilson has explicitly extolled the virtuesof the Bunting's single-sex membership in thepast. She told undergraduates at a dinner meetingin December that the all-women community of theBunting is "freeing."

"It's almost like magic," Wilson said then."It's a comfortable community. They learn to talkacross the disciplines, and that gets the braincells spinning."

But Brock maintains that what distinguishes theBunting--which the Boston Globe Magazine oncecalled "America's Think Tank for Women"--would notchange fundamentally with the addition of men.

"The community of women [at the Bunting] hasalways included men," Brock points out.

Even more importantly, Brock stresses that theunderlying respect accorded to incoming femalescholars will not change.

Plus, she says men may never form a majority ofits scholars, as the Bunting aims to continue itsmission of helping female scholars. Somefellowships, particularly those in the sciences,are funded by government money that is restrictedto woman scholars.

"It's certainly legal to have initiatives whichfocus on women," Brock says.

According to Brock, the mission of the Buntinghas changed since it was first outlined byPresident Bunting. Instead of combating "theclimate of unexpectation," the institute must nowhelp combat an atmosphere of what she calls"hyperexpectation."

"There's this myth that the doors are wideopen, and all high-achieving women need to do iscome in and do everthing," she says. "Just becauseyou open the door doesn't mean people want youthere."

The Fellow Fellow

And, with the Bunting poised to open its doorsto both men and women, a man who calls himself oneof the Bunting's two male alumni says theinstitute will survive the change.

Steven Schlossman, now the chair of the historydepartment at Carnegie Mellon University, workedat the Bunting between 1977 and 1979. Of the morethan 1,200 academics who have studied at theinstitute, Schlossman believes himself to be oneof only two men in the Bunting's alumni pool.

"I never did ask whether or not they meant toopen the competition to men or if it was anoversight," Schlossman says.

But according to Kilson, whose tenure at theBunting overlapped with Schlossman's, fellowshipswere in her time--and, according to her knowledge,up until this year--always limited to women.

She says that Schlossman's designation as oneof about five "research associates" meant that theBunting's strict gender requirements for fellowsdid not apply to him. Furthermore, despite thefact that men were allowed to apply for researchassociateships, Kilson says she knows of only oneother man to have served in that capacity.

Schlossman, then one of the only men pursuingthe newly born field of women's history at theUniversity of Chicago, says he examined theBunting's application from "every interpretativeangle." Surprised to find an institute positionthat did not explicitly exclude men, Schlossmanmailed off his rsum. Within a few months, he foundout he was in.

"Since the door was open, I was going to try toenter it," Schlossman says.

But Schlossman says his presence was not animpediment to the workings of the institute.Rather, he calls his story one of "easyintegration," in which he was eagerly acceptedinto a salon of scholars conducting groundbreakingresearch, all centered around Radcliffe'sSchlesinger Library.

"I wasn't there to be the token male among agroup of women's scholars," says Schlossman, whowas referred to by his female peers as the "fellowfellow."

"I would have felt that I had been denied animportant opportunity to be with cutting edgescholars in a new and exciting field if I had beendenied [the opportunity] to apply equally," headds.

Kilson, who is now the dean of the graduateschool at Salem (Mass.) State College, saysdespite the unusual situation, Schlossman waseasily accepted by his peers.

"Men have always participated in the collegialintellectual life of the institute as guests," shesays. "He was just another colleague who happenedto be a man."

And though Schlossman recalls that in his daythe Bunting didn't even have a men's restroom--hehad to "give notice" before using the women'sroom--he says he thinks the Bunting could easilyaccommodate men once again.

"I don't think it's all or nothing--either youexclude men or you don't," he says. "I don't thinka man's presence would so disrupt the day-to-dayoperations or spirit of the institution so as toundermine the goal."

Yet Schlossman realizes that he was just oneperson, who studied at the Bunting for only twoyears. Making the Bunting available to men andwomen on equal footing would necessarily have agreater impact on the institute, he says.

"As the one male within the institution, Ididn't threaten the stated goals of theinstitution as being primarily an enclave forwomen's scholars," he says.

"There's no question that a large concentrationof men at the institution on a regular basis wouldchange its reputation in the scholarly world andits reputation among women scholars," Schlossmanadds.

The Harvard Tie

A possible merger between Harvard and Radcliffewould affect more than just the Bunting'sadmission policies. According to those associatedwith the institute, a final deal could clarify anadministrative situation that has always beenperplexing for many Bunting fellows, whose stay inCambridge is frequently limited to a year or two.

"The Harvard-Radcliffe relationship isconfusing anyway as it is, and it isn't helped bythe fact that our fellows receive a Harvard ID,"Brock says.

According to Brock, coupling Harvard's immensereputation with its name could only help theinstitute and its participants.

"It'd be great for us. Our fellows, for theirown professional development, could say they'dbeen at Harvard," she notes.

Still, fellows say that though the institute'sbond to Radcliffe is strong, their own loyaltieshave always been closer to the Bunting itself, andthus a change in the Bunting's umbrellaorganization might not affect its daily workings.

"The primary connection I feel is to theBunting first, then Radcliffe, then Harvard,"Isaacs says.

While discussions continue between the twoschools--the closed-door talks first became public10 months ago--the Bunting may now be trying tocapitalize on the strength of its own reputation,independent from that of Radcliffe.

A recently announced summer program that bringsmid-career professionals to Cambridge to work withBunting fellows is just such a move, according toBunting fellow Ferentz.

"I think that the Bunting is such a strongprogram on its own," Ferentz says. "Even though itwas started as a Radcliffe thing, I think it canmaintain its own identity."

Even with the change, the Bunting could remainvirtually all-female. Kilson, for one, doesn'texpect to the institute to be inundated withapplications from men clamoring to be admitted.

"I'd be very surprised if there are many menapplicants," she says.

But even if no men choose to apply for theBunting, changing admissions policies will helpthe institute stay on the right side of thelaw--and might bring the Harvard-Radcliffenegotiations one step closer to a final deal.Harvard News OfficeBUNTING IN TRANSITION:RITA NAKASHIMABROCK, director of Radcliffe's Bunting Institute,says concerns about the single-sex institute'sconflict with Title IX have led to its move toadmit men as fellows next year.

Originally intended to open traditionallyall-male institutions to women, Title IX says thatgender-based discrimination is illegal ineducational programs or activities that receivefederal funding.

Title IX has been used in recent years to forceequal treatment of men's and women's athleticteams. It was also the law that put ShannonFaulkner into the Virginia Military Institute'straditionally all-male corps of cadets.

But according to Boston University Professor ofLaw Jane M. Cohen, an expert in Title IX law, theBunting Institute may not be safe from the law'sfar-reaching effects.

While Title IX contains an exemption fortraditionally all-women undergraduatecolleges--the law was never intended to challengeWellesley College or, for that matter,Radcliffe--courts have held that it is illegal forgraduate programs to discriminate on the basis ofgender.

Cohen explains that courts have ruled that ifeven one program at a given school receivesfederal money, all of that school's programs mustcomply with Title IX. That means that whenall-women undergraduate colleges also runsingle-sex graduate or post-graduate programs,they may then violate Title IX.

But Cohen, who herself read grant applicationsfor the Bunting Institute during the early 1990s,says much of Title IX law is open tointerpretation. With institutions like theBunting, technicalities can blur the meaning oflegal precedent.

For instance, some might argue that calling theBunting a post-graduate educational program is nottechnically accurate, since its fellows areactually paid to do research and not teach orattend classes.

Though Radcliffe has since changed its tune,Radcliffe College President Linda S. Wilson saidin December that the Bunting was not aneducational program, suggesting that Title IX didnot apply.

Conversely, Radcliffe now argues that seminarsand colloquia run by Bunting fellows are open toall, men and women alike.

However, according to Cohen, this in itselfinvites a legal interpretation which could bepotentially damning. Teaching both male and femaleundergraduates gives the Bunting an educationalcomponent and at the same time removes itsprotection under the Title IX exemption forall-women undergraduate college programs.

A formal ruling on the Bunting's compliancewith Title IX could come only if an aggrievedparty decided to actually file a complaint withthe federal government.

`The Bunting exists in an obviously ambiguousstatus in respect to Title IX," Cohen says. "Therecent trend now suggests that Title IX wouldapply--it seems to me that it should apply."

Radcliffe officials are quick to point out thatthe school's other graduate programs are open tomen.

"All of the courses in Radcliffe's GraduateStudies Center are co-educational and each of theInstitutes for Advanced Study have had both maleand female fellows," says Radcliffe spokespersonMichael A. Armini.

But, for all its defenses, Radcliffe hasrecently agreed with those concerned about thelegality of the Bunting Institute and agreed toopen its doors to men.

Brock says application materials for nextyear's fellowships, which will be distributed inJune, will more explicitly outline agender-neutral policy at the Bunting.

And Brock says recent talks between Harvard andRadcliffe helped motivate this change.

"The speed at which it was looked at wascertainly affected by [the talks]," Brock says."Harvard is extremely risk averse for good reason.Harvard has a very large endowment that someonewould like to get their hands on--it's fiscallyresponsible to avoid lawsuits."

While Brock says she has had no role in thenegotiations, one high-level observer notes thatensuring the legality of Radcliffe's programs isessential to any final deal.

"Harvard doesn't break the law," says thesource. "Anything that becomes part of Harvardmust be absolutely consistent with Title IX."

A Whole New World

But some Bunting scholars claim that the veryessence of the Bunting would change if men wereadmitted. Fellows already study widely disparatefields. The addition of men to the mix mightloosen the glue that holds the Bunting together.

"[If men are admitted] it would just be a placelike any other," says Tracy Isaacs, a currentBunting fellow studying philosophy. "It wouldn'tbe unique anymore. You might as well stay at yourhome institution and feel like you're one of theonly women."

"It would be a completely differentenvironment," says fellow Bunting scholar AnnFerentz. "It would set up at the Bunting a sort ofhierarchy--the sort of system we're trying toavoid."

Even Wilson has explicitly extolled the virtuesof the Bunting's single-sex membership in thepast. She told undergraduates at a dinner meetingin December that the all-women community of theBunting is "freeing."

"It's almost like magic," Wilson said then."It's a comfortable community. They learn to talkacross the disciplines, and that gets the braincells spinning."

But Brock maintains that what distinguishes theBunting--which the Boston Globe Magazine oncecalled "America's Think Tank for Women"--would notchange fundamentally with the addition of men.

"The community of women [at the Bunting] hasalways included men," Brock points out.

Even more importantly, Brock stresses that theunderlying respect accorded to incoming femalescholars will not change.

Plus, she says men may never form a majority ofits scholars, as the Bunting aims to continue itsmission of helping female scholars. Somefellowships, particularly those in the sciences,are funded by government money that is restrictedto woman scholars.

"It's certainly legal to have initiatives whichfocus on women," Brock says.

According to Brock, the mission of the Buntinghas changed since it was first outlined byPresident Bunting. Instead of combating "theclimate of unexpectation," the institute must nowhelp combat an atmosphere of what she calls"hyperexpectation."

"There's this myth that the doors are wideopen, and all high-achieving women need to do iscome in and do everthing," she says. "Just becauseyou open the door doesn't mean people want youthere."

The Fellow Fellow

And, with the Bunting poised to open its doorsto both men and women, a man who calls himself oneof the Bunting's two male alumni says theinstitute will survive the change.

Steven Schlossman, now the chair of the historydepartment at Carnegie Mellon University, workedat the Bunting between 1977 and 1979. Of the morethan 1,200 academics who have studied at theinstitute, Schlossman believes himself to be oneof only two men in the Bunting's alumni pool.

"I never did ask whether or not they meant toopen the competition to men or if it was anoversight," Schlossman says.

But according to Kilson, whose tenure at theBunting overlapped with Schlossman's, fellowshipswere in her time--and, according to her knowledge,up until this year--always limited to women.

She says that Schlossman's designation as oneof about five "research associates" meant that theBunting's strict gender requirements for fellowsdid not apply to him. Furthermore, despite thefact that men were allowed to apply for researchassociateships, Kilson says she knows of only oneother man to have served in that capacity.

Schlossman, then one of the only men pursuingthe newly born field of women's history at theUniversity of Chicago, says he examined theBunting's application from "every interpretativeangle." Surprised to find an institute positionthat did not explicitly exclude men, Schlossmanmailed off his rsum. Within a few months, he foundout he was in.

"Since the door was open, I was going to try toenter it," Schlossman says.

But Schlossman says his presence was not animpediment to the workings of the institute.Rather, he calls his story one of "easyintegration," in which he was eagerly acceptedinto a salon of scholars conducting groundbreakingresearch, all centered around Radcliffe'sSchlesinger Library.

"I wasn't there to be the token male among agroup of women's scholars," says Schlossman, whowas referred to by his female peers as the "fellowfellow."

"I would have felt that I had been denied animportant opportunity to be with cutting edgescholars in a new and exciting field if I had beendenied [the opportunity] to apply equally," headds.

Kilson, who is now the dean of the graduateschool at Salem (Mass.) State College, saysdespite the unusual situation, Schlossman waseasily accepted by his peers.

"Men have always participated in the collegialintellectual life of the institute as guests," shesays. "He was just another colleague who happenedto be a man."

And though Schlossman recalls that in his daythe Bunting didn't even have a men's restroom--hehad to "give notice" before using the women'sroom--he says he thinks the Bunting could easilyaccommodate men once again.

"I don't think it's all or nothing--either youexclude men or you don't," he says. "I don't thinka man's presence would so disrupt the day-to-dayoperations or spirit of the institution so as toundermine the goal."

Yet Schlossman realizes that he was just oneperson, who studied at the Bunting for only twoyears. Making the Bunting available to men andwomen on equal footing would necessarily have agreater impact on the institute, he says.

"As the one male within the institution, Ididn't threaten the stated goals of theinstitution as being primarily an enclave forwomen's scholars," he says.

"There's no question that a large concentrationof men at the institution on a regular basis wouldchange its reputation in the scholarly world andits reputation among women scholars," Schlossmanadds.

The Harvard Tie

A possible merger between Harvard and Radcliffewould affect more than just the Bunting'sadmission policies. According to those associatedwith the institute, a final deal could clarify anadministrative situation that has always beenperplexing for many Bunting fellows, whose stay inCambridge is frequently limited to a year or two.

"The Harvard-Radcliffe relationship isconfusing anyway as it is, and it isn't helped bythe fact that our fellows receive a Harvard ID,"Brock says.

According to Brock, coupling Harvard's immensereputation with its name could only help theinstitute and its participants.

"It'd be great for us. Our fellows, for theirown professional development, could say they'dbeen at Harvard," she notes.

Still, fellows say that though the institute'sbond to Radcliffe is strong, their own loyaltieshave always been closer to the Bunting itself, andthus a change in the Bunting's umbrellaorganization might not affect its daily workings.

"The primary connection I feel is to theBunting first, then Radcliffe, then Harvard,"Isaacs says.

While discussions continue between the twoschools--the closed-door talks first became public10 months ago--the Bunting may now be trying tocapitalize on the strength of its own reputation,independent from that of Radcliffe.

A recently announced summer program that bringsmid-career professionals to Cambridge to work withBunting fellows is just such a move, according toBunting fellow Ferentz.

"I think that the Bunting is such a strongprogram on its own," Ferentz says. "Even though itwas started as a Radcliffe thing, I think it canmaintain its own identity."

Even with the change, the Bunting could remainvirtually all-female. Kilson, for one, doesn'texpect to the institute to be inundated withapplications from men clamoring to be admitted.

"I'd be very surprised if there are many menapplicants," she says.

But even if no men choose to apply for theBunting, changing admissions policies will helpthe institute stay on the right side of thelaw--and might bring the Harvard-Radcliffenegotiations one step closer to a final deal.Harvard News OfficeBUNTING IN TRANSITION:RITA NAKASHIMABROCK, director of Radcliffe's Bunting Institute,says concerns about the single-sex institute'sconflict with Title IX have led to its move toadmit men as fellows next year.