A College No More, Radcliffe Eyes Donors

When alumnae wrote $72 million worth of checks payable to "Radcliffe College," they had no warning their money would end up in Harvard's bank account--through the new Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.

Before Tuesday's historic announcement that the 120-year-old institution would merge with Harvard, Radcliffe had been nearing the close of a seven-year, $100 million capital campaign. Though, as recently as two weeks ago, the campaign had a significant distance to go before reaching its goal, Radcliffe officials insisted they had several major gifts in the works.

But now the University will have to explain the switch to donors who have been kept in the dark about Radcliffe's plans for the last year. Officials from both institutions have said they are cautiously optimistic that donors will understand, but they're still waiting for the final verdict.

The retraction of donations is "certainly hypothetically possible," said Radcliffe's Vice President for College Relations Bonnie R. Clendenning.

She noted that when Wheaton College, a women's institution in Norton, went coeducational in 1988 immediately after finishing its capital campaign, alumnae pulled some $400,000 of recently donated funds.

"It was terrible timing," Clendenning said.

Now, Radcliffe faces the unenviable task of stepping up fundraising for the new Institute while simultaneously explaining to alumnae, like Adeline Naiman '46, that their alma mater is no more.

"I just don't see where the intimate connection is going to come from for the giving," Naiman said.

For many long-time donors to Radcliffe, giving money to Harvard--even through a Radcliffe institute--is a hard pill to swallow.

"A lot of people don't trust Harvard. Harvardhas a very large endowment, and Harvard doesn'tspend it voluntarily on things that we wouldlike," said Naiman, who has given annually toRadcliffe. "When all of us die off and have nomore wills to bequeath things in, will [Harvard]stop caring about this [Institute]?"

Radcliffe and Harvard will together have toconvince older alumnae, many of whom have the mostmoney to give, that their gift will be along-lasting legacy. In Tuesday's pressconference, Harvard President Neil L. Rudenstinenoted that any institute for advanced study mustsustain itself primarily through donations.

"We're still under the gun to raise just asmuch money," Clendenning said.

The chairman of the Radcliffe Board ofTrustees, Nancy-Beth G. Sheerr '71, has saidRadcliffe will still strive for at least $100million in gifts to help make its new Instituterun.

However, no decision has been made aboutwhether the effort will be billed as thecompletion of the independent Radcliffe campaignor subsumed into a larger Harvard effort.

"That is an unresolved issue, and we will needto talk about it," Sheerr said. "We willhopefully--and I'm sure [we will]--complete thiscapital campaign successfully. It might beextended and enlarged."

But with no more Radcliffe graduates, analumnae pool will naturally decrease over time,and the obvious candidates for giving will beginto disappear over the years.

Rudenstine said the University has said it willappropriate some its own funds to offset any dipsin donations over the next few years. Rudenstinesaid he is confident that by then a steady streamof new supporters will have emerged.

"I think they've run a good ship," he said."Many new donors will be interested in this kindof institution."

But Mary Maples Dunn, incoming interim head ofRadcliffe, said specifics for short-termdevelopment are still up in the air.

"For fundraising, we now have a process," saidthe former president of Smith College. "But wedon't have definite agreements. We don't have adetailed agreement as to who goes after whichclasses and so on"--no small matter, since Harvardis currently barred from soliciting funds fromRadcliffe's pre-1977 graduates.

Radcliffe will now be able to draw on thefundraising prowess of Harvard's developmentoffice and Rudenstine himself, who said that "theUniversity will begin aggressively raising fundsfor the Institute right away."

At Tuesday's press conference, Rudenstinejokingly invited the assembled reporters andphotographers to make donations immediatelyfollowing the event.

And Radcliffe officials said, so far, theannouncement seems to be encouraging enthusiasticalumnae to take out their checkbooks.

"We've had a lot of gifts and a lot of pledgescome in the last few days," said Radcliffespokesperson Michael A. Armini.

Armini noted that one seven-figure gift thathad been "in the pipeline" several weeks ago hasbeen finalized since the announcement.

He added that alumnae have been reassured bythe knowledge that restricted gifts given duringRadcliffe's college days cannot be redirected.

"They definitely cannot be spent for anotherpurpose," he said. "That's something that peopledon't have to worry about."

Student callers for the Radcliffe phonathonsaid they have been told to come to work as usualthis week.

"We're making calls for Radcliffe--it doesn'treally matter what you call it," said Mary A.Piscitello '01, co-director of the RadcliffeCollege Fund phonathon. "Obviously, we'll bediscussing what's happening with alumnae."

Certainly, those alumnae who supportedTuesday's agreement said their peers will beeasily convinced to change their giving habits.

"I think with a little of hoopla they'll bemore than willing to give to Harvard and notRadcliffe [College]," said longtime critic ofRadcliffe College Claire K. Lipsman '45, whobacked Tuesday's decision.

Many alumnae said the decision could not havecome as a surprise to Radcliffe's most recentdonors.

"I don't think alumnae were under anymisconception about what they were giving to,"said Charlotte H. Armstrong '49, president of theHarvard Board of Overseers. "They knew theyweren't giving to a traditional, four-year women'scollege.

"A lot of people don't trust Harvard. Harvardhas a very large endowment, and Harvard doesn'tspend it voluntarily on things that we wouldlike," said Naiman, who has given annually toRadcliffe. "When all of us die off and have nomore wills to bequeath things in, will [Harvard]stop caring about this [Institute]?"

Radcliffe and Harvard will together have toconvince older alumnae, many of whom have the mostmoney to give, that their gift will be along-lasting legacy. In Tuesday's pressconference, Harvard President Neil L. Rudenstinenoted that any institute for advanced study mustsustain itself primarily through donations.

"We're still under the gun to raise just asmuch money," Clendenning said.

The chairman of the Radcliffe Board ofTrustees, Nancy-Beth G. Sheerr '71, has saidRadcliffe will still strive for at least $100million in gifts to help make its new Instituterun.

However, no decision has been made aboutwhether the effort will be billed as thecompletion of the independent Radcliffe campaignor subsumed into a larger Harvard effort.

"That is an unresolved issue, and we will needto talk about it," Sheerr said. "We willhopefully--and I'm sure [we will]--complete thiscapital campaign successfully. It might beextended and enlarged."

But with no more Radcliffe graduates, analumnae pool will naturally decrease over time,and the obvious candidates for giving will beginto disappear over the years.

Rudenstine said the University has said it willappropriate some its own funds to offset any dipsin donations over the next few years. Rudenstinesaid he is confident that by then a steady streamof new supporters will have emerged.

"I think they've run a good ship," he said."Many new donors will be interested in this kindof institution."

But Mary Maples Dunn, incoming interim head ofRadcliffe, said specifics for short-termdevelopment are still up in the air.

"For fundraising, we now have a process," saidthe former president of Smith College. "But wedon't have definite agreements. We don't have adetailed agreement as to who goes after whichclasses and so on"--no small matter, since Harvardis currently barred from soliciting funds fromRadcliffe's pre-1977 graduates.

Radcliffe will now be able to draw on thefundraising prowess of Harvard's developmentoffice and Rudenstine himself, who said that "theUniversity will begin aggressively raising fundsfor the Institute right away."

At Tuesday's press conference, Rudenstinejokingly invited the assembled reporters andphotographers to make donations immediatelyfollowing the event.

And Radcliffe officials said, so far, theannouncement seems to be encouraging enthusiasticalumnae to take out their checkbooks.

"We've had a lot of gifts and a lot of pledgescome in the last few days," said Radcliffespokesperson Michael A. Armini.

Armini noted that one seven-figure gift thathad been "in the pipeline" several weeks ago hasbeen finalized since the announcement.

He added that alumnae have been reassured bythe knowledge that restricted gifts given duringRadcliffe's college days cannot be redirected.

"They definitely cannot be spent for anotherpurpose," he said. "That's something that peopledon't have to worry about."

Student callers for the Radcliffe phonathonsaid they have been told to come to work as usualthis week.

"We're making calls for Radcliffe--it doesn'treally matter what you call it," said Mary A.Piscitello '01, co-director of the RadcliffeCollege Fund phonathon. "Obviously, we'll bediscussing what's happening with alumnae."

Certainly, those alumnae who supportedTuesday's agreement said their peers will beeasily convinced to change their giving habits.

"I think with a little of hoopla they'll bemore than willing to give to Harvard and notRadcliffe [College]," said longtime critic ofRadcliffe College Claire K. Lipsman '45, whobacked Tuesday's decision.

Many alumnae said the decision could not havecome as a surprise to Radcliffe's most recentdonors.

"I don't think alumnae were under anymisconception about what they were giving to,"said Charlotte H. Armstrong '49, president of theHarvard Board of Overseers. "They knew theyweren't giving to a traditional, four-year women'scollege.