Radcliffe, One Year Later

Sometimes all it takes is an awkward moment to highlight a continuing problem. At Tuesday's Women's Leadership Awards dinner, one of the speakers thanked Harvard College and Radcliffe College for their support of the Women's Leadership Project (WLP), a sponsor of the event. She looked out over the dais and nodded to her right at the Harvard officials seated at one table. She then nodded to her left where Radcliffe President Linda S. Wilson sat on the other side of the room. It was a graceful way to handle a difficult situation, but the physical and verbal dichotomy was clear: Harvard and Radcliffe are still very much two separate entities apparently at odds with one another even as they both continue to support such worthy causes as women's leadership on campus. It was the briefest of moments in an otherwise successful ceremony, but it reminded me just how much we still don't know about where Radcliffe stands and what a disservice to the community the administrative silence on this issue has become.

As The Crimson pointed out (News, April 6), next Monday will be the one-year anniversary of the Boston Globe article announcing the imminent dissolution of Radcliffe as a college. Laying aside the Globe's ominous and clearly hyperbolical coverage, let's also consider that it's been about a year since this page was filled with discussion of signatures on diplomas, the role of Radcliffe in students' lives and whether it needed to remain a college to make up for all Harvard was not doing for women.

My view on this hasn't really changed much--Radcliffe should become an allied institution of the University. Radcliffe can capitalize on a more integrated relationship with Harvard to achieve its mission: bringing important resources and prominence to issues of women, gender and society. More than end the identity confusion that the "college" appellation creates (Radcliffe is not a college and should not pose as one), a successful redefinition of Radcliffe under the University umbrella would commit Harvard to paying close attention to the study of gender.

Radcliffe has always played a crucial role in the advancement of women in higher education here in Cambridge. If Radcliffe would only recognize that its orginal mission has been completed, the 120-year-old institution could metamorphosize into an entity forging new change and incorporating both men and women as participants in their valuable programs.

But whether you belive in a pragmatic redefinition of Radcliffe or advocate maintaining the college appellation, we should all be able to agree that the uncertainty over its future has gone on too long. Negotiations between Harvard and Radcliffe continue to be conducted in complete secrecy without any kind of progress report or indication of an end date. There is no shortage of interest and debate over this issue--concerned alumnae have been flooding the letters section of the Radcliffe Quarterly with proposals and counter-proposals for the fate of the institution, and many of them turned out to see President Wilson when she went on her national tour.

The problem is that dialogue is useless when it doesn't involve the key players. The longer Wilson and Chairman of the Board of Trustees Nancy-Beth G. Sheerr '71--and for that matter, President Rudenstine and his fellow administrators working on the issue--remain silent about their negotiations, the harder it will be for alumnae and students to have a real role in the evolution of an institution which is rightfully theirs. Shouldn't an educational institution place emphasis on dialogue and cooperation instead of silence and secrecy when considering change?

It's true that there is a great deal at stake--it can't be easy to orchestrate the distribution of money, power, tradition and reputation, and it's therefore understandable that negotiations between the two schools have been time-consuming. But it is precisely because there is such a great deal at stake that the negotiations should be made public--and fast. Radcliffe loses credibility every day in the eyes of current undergraduates who will remember the "college" only as an institution in limbo.

After a year of speculation and rumor, it may seem too late to get on the right track. But as frustration builds among the people who care about Harvard and Radcliffe most but know the least about their evolving relationship, Wilson, Sheerr and Rudenstine have an opportunity to turn this ignominious anniversary into a new beginning. It seems logical that any kind of change in the relationship between the two schools will be more successful if it is born out of serious dialogue and consideration of a diversity of opinions.

Now that Wilson has heard from so many alumnae, she should share with us her own thoughts on the future of the institution she leads and how she plans to incorporate (or ignore) the suggestions she has received. Both Harvard and Radcliffe should give a substantive report outlining the actual options on the table. Enough precious time has been lost already. Susannah B. Tobin '00 is a classics concentrator in Lowell House. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.