Marie Hicks
Historian & Author
Andrina Wood, an early British computer expert, at the console of a British Tablulating Machines computer.

    Integrating Women at Oxford and Harvard Universities, 1964-1977
    Marie Hicks
    in Yards and Gates: Gender in Harvard and Radcliffe History, ed. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.
    (Download a PDF copy of this article here)

    In February 1969 an article in an Oxford undergraduate magazine proclaimed: “No more hungry stares across the Bodleian."(1) For years Oxford’s women and men undergraduates had studied together in this central university library during the day before returning to their single-sex colleges at night.

    In the same month, in the same year, in the same situation, but in a different country, dozens of Harvard and Radcliffe undergraduates were writing to Mary Bunting, president of Radcliffe College, to lobby for coresidence in the Harvard and Radcliffe Houses, residential units modeled on the Oxford colleges. “For the sake of the Radcliffe girl caught in between the Harvard and Radcliffe communities but part of neither,” wrote one Radcliffe undergraduate, “I urge you to support the proposed merger with Harvard and plans for coed living."(2)

    In 1969 coeducational housing was not a new issue in either England or America. The newer “redbrick universities” and the University of London had opened many of their colleges to women during the 1960s, and coresidence had come to many private institutions in the United States by the 1960s. But Oxford and Harvard joined the coresidential trend hesitantly, after all of their peers had done so. Oxford established coed colleges in 1974, three years later than its traditional rival, the University of Cambridge. Harvard went partly coresidential in fall 1971, a crucial, tumultuous two years after Yale and Princeton, and even then integrated only in stages, completing plans for coed living in 1972. Not until the late 1970s did Oxford and Harvard begin to admit women according to the same criteria as men, abolish quotas, and award similar scholarships.

    Ironically, the sharpest criticism of coresidence came from the women of Oxford and Harvard universities. By the time coresidence was being seriously considered in each institution, the five women’s colleges of Oxford were significantly opposed to immediate coresidence, and Radcliffe College, the coordinate women’s college of Harvard University, also had substantial factions who feared that the benefits women could accrue from coresidence and closer integration with Harvard would not outweigh the negatives attendant on the change.

    Though far from homogeneous in position or outlook, the women’s colleges displayed a hesitancy and fear that reveal important aspects of the crucial period of transition for women in elite institutions. Their dissension makes clear that many important changes for women had more to do with institutional concerns than with higher ideals of women’s rights. Studying the women’s colleges’ widespread, vocal, and organized dissent permits a greater understanding of why and how Harvard and Oxford went coed when they did and of what the change implied for women at different levels in each institution.

    Worlds unto Themselves: The Oxford Women’s Colleges

    In the University of Oxford, the presence of women was a comparatively new development. Whereas men had studied at Oxford since the Middle Ages, women had been allowed in--and then only within limits--when pioneers gained access to some Oxford lectures in the late nineteenth century and residential halls opened for women students in 1878. Gradually gaining access to parts of the university after that point, women students and teachers nonetheless had to wait until 1920 before they were granted degrees for their work and study. And the petitions of the women’s societies for the abolition of strict limits on the number of women in the university succeeded only in the 1950s. Though possessing highly qualified faculty, and students who on average were even more successful in university examinations than the men students, the women’s societies were not finally recognized as real colleges of the university until late 1959. After their quotas were lifted and their status assured, the women’s colleges took loans and embarked on a series of building projects and a period of expansion in order to bring more women to Oxford.(3)

    Remarkably, just as the women’s colleges were finally coming into their own, less than four years later a men’s college began seriously talking about going coed. In 1964 a notoriously conservative member of one of the oldest men’s colleges initiated the first discussion of accepting some women along with men. He felt that women students should be given the chance to benefit from male tutors, though his college should of course not open its faculty positions to women by the same reasoning.(4) Thus New College, founded in 1379 by William of Wykeham, broached a desire to allow a quota of women students into the college with letters to the university vice-chancellor and to all the colleges, and with a long article in the university magazine expounding the virtues of the plan for women.(5)

    The five women’s colleges were taken aback. In the same year that New College proposed coresidence, a major university commission made up of five men and two women dons and chaired by Sir Oliver (later Lord) Franks began investigating questions about the future size and shape of the university. Though the commission declined to make plans for coresidential Oxford colleges, it took extensive written and oral evidence from all the colleges touching on the subject of women’s future place in the universit.(6) Three of the heads of the five women’s colleges spoke to the commission. The least averse to New College’s plan, the principal of Somerville College, Dame Janet Vaughn, wrote to the Franks Commission saying, “I do not attach much importance to the value of shared residence. . . . [but] The quickest and cheapest method [to increase the number of women] would be for some of the men’s colleges to take some women and reduce the number of men.” She added, however, that such coed colleges must be open to women on the faculty and administrative levels as well or else be “unbalanced communities”. She concluded by stressing that coresidence was only an expedient: if money could be secured to expand the existing women’s colleges, or even to found an entirely new coed college, those would be better options.(7)

    Lady Mary Ogilvie, the principal of St. Anne’s College, disagreed. In speaking to the Franks Commission she restated and reinforced her opposition to integrating the Oxford men’s colleges: I am not against mixed halls of residence. What I am against is a men’s college taking even a fairly large handful of women and then grafting it onto what is essentially a male society. . . . they would remain an appendage to the college. There are centuries of tradition at the men’s colleges of an all-male community. There would also be a predominance of men dons and I think it would be exceedingly unlikely there would ever be a woman warden [the top administrator in a British men’s college]. This would be a case of women implanted into a men’s societ.(8)

    In the statements of the women’s colleges against coresidence, no aversion to the idea of coed living emerged, but a fear predominated that coresidence and its attendant closer integration of women would be detrimental to the gains women had made and might yet make in Oxford. Principal Ogilvie synthesized a main concern of the women’s colleges by pointing out that women’s concerns in a men’s college could not be as accepted or as important as they had been in all-women’s colleges, whose raison d’être was to improve opportunities for women. “Grafting” women onto centuries-old, consciously masculine traditions would put the women in a minority position in colleges where members were not as attuned to or concerned with issues of gender discrimination as the women’s colleges were. She also highlighted the idea that women academics and administrators would not be accepted into men’s colleges as easily as students and would not be on an equal footing with men once there. Because the predominantly femalestaffed women’s colleges had deliberately served as niches for women to enter into the Oxford faculty, this was extremely significant. By preferring qualified women candidates to men, they allowed women university teachers to comprise a higher percentage in Oxford than they did nationally, even though on the student level the situation was the reverse.

    The third woman principal who gave evidence, Lucy Sutherland of Lady Margaret Hall, also pointed out the problems of making a coresidential college by simply adding a quota of women to a men’s college: if coed colleges were to be, they should be so from their founding, with the number of men and women “roughly equal” and “women playing a full part rather than forming a small appendage to an essentially male institution.”(9)

    The Franks Commission agreed that if a few colleges went mixed, the other men’s colleges, in an effort to compete, would also rush to go coed, robbing the women’s colleges of their applicant pool. For this reason, the Franks Commission recommended a different course of action for increasing women’s numbers: the women’s colleges should endeavor and be helped to expand further, creating between them the equivalent of a student body of a sixth women’s college.(1)0

    The organ for university opinion, The Oxford Magazine, lamented the failure of the New College plan and, ignoring the concerns of the women’s colleges, stubbornly claimed that they had “put the interests of the women’s colleges before the interests of the girls.(11) Some glibly accused the women’s colleges of willfully hindering women’s interests in Oxford after furthering them for almost a hundred years. Most also ignored the fact that the New College plan had floundered due to lack of support within New College’s governing body, not because of the women’s colleges.(12)

    After New College dropped the idea of going mixed, the topic of coresidence lay relatively dormant for five more years. Ominous rumblings began as the University of Cambridge began to discuss coresidence. In 1970 when several Cambridge men’s colleges announced that they would admit women within two years, one Oxford men’s college quietly formed a committee of men’s colleges interested in becoming coresidential. In early 1971 this group remained underground, refusing to bring up their interest at the Conference of Oxford Colleges so that the issue could be discussed. Fearful that the inclusion of the women’s colleges in the debate would shape or hinder their plans, the 16 interested men’s colleges resolved to keep quiet until they had come up with a definite plan for gradual implementation that would abide by the university’s belief, which came mainly from the recommendations of the Franks Commission, that change had to be gradual so as not to hurt the women’s colleges and thus the university.(13)

    When the women’s colleges were notified about the committee and its mission, the interested men’s colleges assured them that any change would be orchestrated so as not to demolish the women’s colleges by taking away their best applicants and forcing them immediately into competition with wealthier, more prestigious men’s colleges. Tiring of such limitations, however, one or two men’s colleges made headlines by considering going coresidential independently of the committee’s plans.(14)

    Immediately the women’s colleges expressed alarm that the plans would simultaneously fail to protect the interests of women in the university and also run the women’s colleges into the ground, depriving Oxford women, and especially Oxford women faculty, of their traditional advocates and sanctums.(15) Because of their lower prestige and income, the women’s colleges would not be able to compete for good men applicants, who expected larger scholarships as students and higher salaries as faculty. As the principal of St. Hilda’s, the largest women’s college, pointed out when asked about finances by the vice chancellor, “If academic quality, actual or expected, attracts hard cash, hard cash is a considerable help in building up academic quality. . . . Our yearly budgeting remains a sustained feat of tightrope walking. . . .”(16) Because of the youth of the women’s colleges and their beginnings as women’s societies that became real colleges only in the late 1950s, they were in no position to compete with the men’s colleges. “In my experience,” she told the vice chancellor, “the main--almost the only--reason that women undergraduates give for thinking that the colleges should go mixed is that the men’s colleges are so much richer and can provide so many more amenities in consequence.”(17)

    The women’s colleges also had little reason to want to take in men students: on average, women’s degree examination results were higher than those of most of the men’s. The “Norrington Table,” which ranked the Oxford colleges in order of the performances of their students, consistently counted the five highly selective women’s colleges near the top. It was generally assumed that in the event of coresidence, all of the best women students would choose to go to former men’s colleges, and therefore the men’s colleges who went mixed would be doubly blessed: they would get the best women applicants as well as the best men applicants, who would presumably be more attracted to a coed college. Meanwhile, the women’s colleges would get the dregs.(18) From the first serious talk of coresidence in 1965 to the actual planning stages in 1971, the five women’s colleges of Oxford generally remained strongly against the idea. Though they numbered some among their ranks who offered qualified support to the idea of men’s colleges taking in women, their principals almost unanimously agreed that coresidence would have a negative effect on the faculties, staffs, and even students of the women’s colleges. One woman don wrote in the university magazine that if one looked beyond the boundaries of women as undergraduates and thought “instead about women in general, and their place in society as a whole, and above all their career opportunities, then it seems to me we should be far less sanguine about the prospect of mixed colleges.”(19) However, the formation of committees of the numerous men’s colleges interested in coresidence reduced the women’s colleges to a small protest group. Comprising only a fifth of the 25 Oxford undergraduate colleges, and an even smaller fraction of the 39 colleges in the university, the women’s colleges lacked sufficient representation in the university’s structure to be able to deal with the men’s college committees on equal terms.

    A College without a Faculty: The Trouble with Radcliffe

    At Radcliffe the issue of coed living for students was inextricably tied to the issue of a Harvard-Radcliffe merger. Women’s closer integration into the older, predominantly male Harvard college and university structure became, as at Oxford, a more contentious issue than coresidence alone. Unlike the Oxford women’s colleges, however, Radcliffe was 371 handicapped by a lack of autonomy: it had always hired Harvard faculty to teach its classes.

    Radcliffe women had been, by degrees, allowed into classes with men since 1943. A wartime agreement let Radcliffe women fill the empty spaces in the men’s classrooms in order to conserve university resources. However, strict quotas limited Radcliffe admissions. In the late 1960s, the median Scholastic Apptitude Test scores on both the math and verbal sections were higher for accepted Radcliffe applicants than for Harvard’s applicants.(20) It was widely acknowledged in the university that the much larger Harvard classes accepted men students who would not have passed the rigorous standards the university imposed on Radcliffe’s admissions, but the university justified the practice with the argument that educating a greater number of men was more socially and economically desirable than educating equal numbers of men and women.

    When Mary Ingraham Bunting became the president of Radcliffe College in 1960, she devoted herself to bettering the position of women at Radcliffe and Harvard. She launched the Radcliffe Institute in 1960 to aid women who sought to fulfill high aims in the academic and professional sphere, remodeled the Radcliffe dormitories on Harvard’s collegial “House system,” and built a new library for undergraduate women.(21) But as early as 1965, President Bunting ran into the problem that Radcliffe’s student body was not allowed to expand to meet the growing demand of qualified women for a Radcliffe education. The dean of Harvard College told her that further increases in Radcliffe’s student body could not be justified unless Harvard’s also grew; otherwise, the women would drain away university resources intended for men. Bunting was instructed to freeze current admission rates at one Radcliffe student to every four Harvard undergraduates until Radcliffe’s agreement with the university was renegotiated. She therefore began to believe that the best way to increase women’s opportunities in the university was to try to make women more a part of Harvard.(22)

    In a letter to Harvard’s president Nathan Pusey, Bunting stated that she “had begun to wonder whether Radcliffe would not now be able to work more effectively for women’s education if it were a unit within the University,” and that she now believed “that the discussion will not be as disturbing as I, and various [Radcliffe] trustees, at first, feared.” Bunting asked that a committee be set up to report on merger within the next few months. She noted, however, that “Women’s education can not be properly managed without concern for its special features. There is ample evidence that it is not always sufficient to open existing educational opportunities to women. . . . For this fact to be recognized by Harvard would carry far more weight than for it to be argued by Radcliffe.”(23)

    Advancing the concerns of women required bringing them into the power structures of already well-established and respected institutions. Mary Bunting ardently desired a merger that others feared would “submerge” Radcliffe and hurt women’s interests in the university because she believed that women would actually wield more influence if they were more integrated and not in an isolated stronghold at Radcliffe. She felt that the condition of Radcliffe women not really being “full members of Harvard” could be rectified only by making Radcliffe students into Harvard students. Merger, she claimed, would give women “a legitimate voice in Harvard policies and procedures in a way that has never been true before.”(24) By integrating Radcliffe into Harvard’s structure on all levels--administrative, faculty, and student--Bunting thought women would be able to set their own educational goals and make changes from within the university.

    Not surprisingly, Bunting earnestly declared her view of merger “as fulfillment for Radcliffe.”(25) As she would frequently tell newspapers and conferences, “I believe our society will never be truly open to women until our top universities are, and I would not want to see Radcliffe stand in the way of this.”(26) Bunting’s strong conviction that merger was beneficial influenced her stance on coresidence. Amid growing student unrest and demands for reform, President Pusey stated staunchly in December 1968 that there could be no coresidence until all undergraduates were under one administration.(27) Mary Bunting’s views on coresidence after Pusey’s announcement worked in tandem with her strong desire to effect a merger.

    She later explained to a parent, “My first reaction to the idea of coeducational Houses was quite negative but I’ve been convinced partly by the arguments and by our students and partly by the experiences of other colleges that the step is probably a good one.”(28) When addressing a group of alumnae in 1969, the year coresidence and merger were seriously considered, Bunting told them, only half-jokingly, “for this awkwardness, I blame Yale! . . . had the word not gotten all the way from New Haven to Cambridge that they were planning, at Yale, to let women live right in the Yale colleges,” Harvard might not have felt it necessary to go coresidential at that time.(29)

    After Pusey insisted on the connection between merger and coresidence, Radcliffe found itself under student pressure to merge so that coresidence could occur. Pleased by the attention merger was now getting, albeit for somewhat disconnected reasons, Mary Bunting gladly responded to overtures from the university that the administration and Faculty of Arts and Sciences would now welcome a proposal of merger, though they would not initiate one. At a meeting of the Radcliffe Trustees in February 1969, she proposed that the Radcliffe Council initiate discussion with the President and Fellows of Harvard University, “with a view to merging the two institutions,” as Pusey had asked. He wanted Radcliffe to initiate any discussions to show that it desired merger as a whole.(30)

    All but one of the Radcliffe Trustees assented to initiating discussions, but that lone trustee came down firmly against even entering into discussions, saying, “it would be an irreversible error to remove the potential that Radcliffe offers. . . . I think coeducational housing should be added to the already available options. Coeducational instruction has worked without administrative merger. I hope that we can have a merger of interests and not a dissolution.”(31) The trustee was concerned that Radcliffe was already committing itself to a merger just by entering into discussions, and she noted that she had received calls from alumnae who strongly agreed with her view. Soon after, she joined the committee formed by the Radcliffe Alumnae Association to investigate the idea of merger and the full extent of its implications for Radcliffe--the Committee to Study the Merger, which became the voice of the many Radcliffe women who believed their college could better serve women if it remained autonomous.

    The dissent of the well-organized Radcliffe Alumnae Association was comparable to that of the Oxford women’s colleges in several important respects. The governing bodies of Oxford women’s colleges and the Radcliffe Alumnae Association both represented mature women with close ties to their universities. Members of these groups remembered how each university’s commitment to the education of women had been firmly isolated in its colleges for women. Both the women’s colleges and the Radcliffe alumnae were also very interested in changing the treatment of women throughout the course of their lives, not just when women were younger and their life-patterns more easily mirrored those of men students. Both groups concerned themselves more with women’s treatment in a society where academic and professional achievement were male-oriented, and they felt that assenting to the students’ and the universities’ ideas of progress would result in women being forced to live even more by rules set by and for men. Neither group hoped to stave off integration or merger forever, nor did they have objections to coresidence in principle, but both believed that closer integration at that moment--after the women’s institutions had firmly established themselves but before they had changed the way women were treated outside their walls--would not be good for women. Women’s colleges, they felt, had not yet achieved their full purpose.

    The Alumnae Association formed its Committee to Study the Merger in January 1969, before it was even clear to the larger community that merger would, in fact, be discussed. Over the course of several months they met, compiled information, and tried to decide whether merger was the best route to follow, and by June 1970 they issued a research portfolio containing ideas on a merger they believed was still indefinite. In reality, however, by then the merger negotiations were nearly finished.

    Aware that decisions on merger might be made in private, the committee had also sought to define the optimum administrative arrangements for women in the Harvard community and how the “Radcliffe entity” could best serve women’s needs after a merger. They nevertheless remained strongly against merger in their recommendations portfolio, a lucid and convincing document outlining the serious Radcliffe doubts about the value of a merger.

    They began with the charged assertion that:

    While coeducation has been available in some colleges for a century, we observe that it has not succeeded in releasing many women (or men) from the traditional expectation that the primary role of women is to be wives and mothers. Presumably women have been more interesting wives and more inspiring mothers by virtue of their education, but hard is the path of the woman who tries to step out of the traditional mold to “use” her education. She encounters a society that signals “no” with criticisms, lower pay, and lower status jobs than those available to men who have the same training. Our concept is that women should have opportunities to choose a combination of roles according to their individual abilities and desires.(32)

    The first proposition of the alumnae committee was to challenge the assumption that further “coeducation” was indeed beneficial to women. They noted that traditional expectations of women’s roles had not changed much despite closer integration into many men’s institutions, and they implied that such institutions had often stifled rather than liberated women. Second, they argued that women’s willingness to integrate into an unequal situation, and thus to help perpetuate it, was directly linked to society’s different and unequal treatment of women. In a society that already closed doors to women, they contended, integrating women into an elite university on an unequal basis would pose even more problems in the long term than remaining separate from their powerful neighbor.

    President Bunting hoped that further coeducation and coresidence would lead to women being more accepted and she aimed at diversifying women’s image in the university and beyond. She saw the solution very differently from the alumnae, however--she felt that a literal “equalization” of women’s opportunities and treatment would lead women out of traditional, gendered roles and ease discrimination. The alumnae committee strongly opposed this view, because they believed that Harvard was a “predominantly masculine institution” that was likely to treat women as “little men.” For them, Radcliffe needed to play a central role for women, both before graduation and after, through aid in career planning and by providing opportunities for women with families, to counteract the structure of the university and society.

    By 1970 the draft report of the university-appointed Committee on HarvardRadcliffe Relations shared misgivings about total corporate merger and advised that steps “short of merger” be taken.(33) In fact, however, the text of the agreement proposed a merger in all but three respects. Radcliffe would keep its corporate identity, land, and endowment, but would turn over all income from tuition, endowment, fundraising, and other sources to Harvard and give Harvard responsibility over Radcliffe’s budget, students, and day-to-day administration. Barbara Voss, the president of the Alumnae Association, continued to dispute the assumption that equal opportunity for women required the dismantling of Radcliffe and its absorption into Harvard. Chief among her concerns was that funding for Radcliffe programs for women would be reduced once Harvard controlled all the finances.(34) In response to Mary Bunting, and some of the other trustees’ beliefs that merger would legitimate Radcliffe’s influence in the university and make it more far-reaching, to include all women, the alumnae argued that “control over all women in the university is in effect no control at all.”(35) This statement addressed the key issue that if Radcliffe were not promised actual administrative positions in exchange for merging, then its role as caretaker of women’s interests would be nominal at best, having no place in the power structure of the university or any definite way to effect change. The Alumnae repeatedly asserted that Radcliffe’s ability to effect policy at high levels needed to be more concretely addressed in the merger agreement.

    In trying to draw attention to why women would be better served in the long run by Radcliffe’s autonomy, the alumnae committee looked at the reasons why many Radcliffe students so eagerly desired coresidence and integration. The students said that their primary concern was to be allowed to live in the Harvard Houses. For the most part, they did not want coresidence as an end in itself, but rather desired access to the more centrally located, better-staffed and well-appointed Harvard dormitories. Much like the women undergraduates at Oxford who wanted to become members of the richer, more prestigious, and better-equipped men’s colleges, Radcliffe students held ideas about coresidence that were largely influenced by the poorer state of the women’s college. Mary Bunting sympathized with their desire to belong to the older, richer, more prestigious institution, feeling that the students understood what they wanted. The alumnae, however, once Radcliffe students themselves, were convinced that the undergraduates’ coveting of Harvard’s perquisites and privileges lacked foresight.

    Many administrators and faculty at the women’s colleges of Oxford staunchly stood against coresidence, as did some administrators and many vocal alumnae at Radcliffe. Though the protests of the two groups took different forms, in each case their dissent revolved around the common theme that coresidence and further integration of women into the most elite male universities at that precise moment would be more detrimental than helpful to women’s advancement. After fighting so long to help women gain access to Oxford and Harvard, the Oxford women’s colleges and Radcliffe had entered an uncertain period where the direction of further progress became unclear. The condemnation of mixed men’s colleges by many of the most influential women scholars in Oxford and the schisms of opinion at Radcliffe on the subject of closer integration into Harvard University betray mixed feelings and hesitancy about further integration, and reveal a profound change in direction of privileged Anglo-American women’s aspirations, which until that point had been enthusiastically integrationist and had identified with masculine privilege.

    Despite contemporaries’ charges that women who stood against closer integration at this time were selfishly motivated or reactionary, analysis of the evidence presents the opposite view: these individuals fully believed that longer-term concerns about women’s place in society necessitated forgoing immediately gratifying social advances like coed colleges. Far from being reactionary or conservative, the opponents shared a prescient, and perhaps vaguely radical, viewpoint that dictated the further strengthening of separate women’s institutions and a delay of integration in order to achieve more successful integration down the line.

    Faculty, Students, and Alumni: Tacit Assumptions and Wide-ranging Opinions

    Throughout the coresidence experiments, students, faculty, and alumni registered their opinions with their university administrations as well as with university and national news publications, which anxiously reported on any development, however small, at Oxford and Harvard. Coresidence inflamed deeply held convictions about social mores, gender roles, and, most important, heterosexual interaction, as well as feelings of anger and impatience that these top universities had so long remained unchanged. Women’s rights continued to be overshadowed, however, by other social and political concerns.

    When faculty spoke out against the administration’s view in matters of coresidence, they usually confined themselves to criticizing specific plans for coresidence rather than the principles behind the plans. By contrast, students remained extremely critical of the late moves to coresidence, and they tended to view the universities’ actions as too limited. Indirectly, majority student opinion held great sway, but the frantic editorializing of the students and their direct appeals to the administration seldom if ever produced concrete results. The universities, concerned with where future students would enroll, rather than with what current students thought, often made plans that were immensely frustrating to most men students and uninformed by women students’ opinions. Alumni response also showed divisions along lines of gender, vocal alumnae largely being in favor of coresidence and vocal male alumni most often being against it. The notable exceptions came up not in discussions of coresidence per se, but in discussions of whether coresidence and integration would promote more equitable treatment for women.

    At Oxford, an apparent minority of faculty seemed to believe that coresidence would be a positive thing in itself, irrespective of its attractiveness to applicants or the places it would open up for women. A modern history tutor in a women’s college, going against the general opinion in her college, repeatedly asserted that the separate “intellectual and social lives” of “girls” needed to be integrated. Much like Mary Bunting at Radcliffe, she felt that “it is easier for men and women to get to know each other as working partners and equals if they are not separated by college.”(36) These remarks, from an interview given to an undergraduate magazine at a time when undergraduates were loudly campaigning for the university to admit that coresidence had some intrinsic merit, were likely genuine, but other dons privately remarked that the “starry-eyed” accounts of the “moral benefits” of coresidence that other universities gave to the press were “not worth the paper they are written on.”(37) Despite some dons’ attempts to bolster coresidence with the idea that adding a scant few women to men’s colleges would create a “more natural” environment where “emotional and sexual tension is likely to decrease” with the aid of casual intergender contact, most focused on the institutional results coresidence would bring.(38)

    While these arguments over integration raged, women continued to be excluded from the premier, all-research fellows’ college in Oxford, All Souls. One don quipped that “a college of All Hearts, a wholly female research institution is too much to expect.”(39) Even after coresidence ended the blockade on women faculty in men’s colleges, women were elected to fellowships in the newly mixed colleges at an alarmingly low rate.(40) Worse yet, they saw their previous faculty strongholds in the women’s colleges being whittled away as women’s colleges went mixed to compete and bulked up on male faculty so as to be taken seriously by applicants.(41) Not until 1980, after all but one of the men’s colleges had gone coresidential, were fellowships at All Souls opened to women.(42)

    At Harvard, one of the more outspoken professors came out against the entire idea of lifting quotas for women, arguing that it was inappropriate to institute such a “fundamental change on the basis of an abstraction, namely the equality of women.”(43) His argument turned mainly on the specific impact more women would have on Harvard, and on Harvard men. The faculty considered his arguments, but ultimately rejected them and endorsed the committee report that advocated lifting the quotas and publicizing the move to entice more women applicants. Nonetheless, women remained in a confining and somewhat unwelcome position in the university.(44) In 1970 there were no tenured female professors among nearly 400 of that rank in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.(45) By 1998 the number of tenured women had risen to fifty-eight out of 433, or just over 11 percent.(46)

    A key aspect of Harvard opinion toward women students emerged in the Kagan Report on coresidence. Led by a prominent professor of child psychology, the committee assumed no increase in the numbers of female students in the near future, but supported coresidence, with a higher ratio of women to men than was possible in 1970, for its “psychological” benefits--namely, the way it would “allow each student to gain a finer appreciation of the subtle differences in motives, strains, and style of living that characterize American men and women.”(47) The report revolved around the comforts of heterosexual men students, dwelling on how “the traditional living arrangement” made it difficult for “some young men who just want to talk to a Radcliffe woman in a common room to gain this goal in any way except by asking her for a date.” One of the report’s main points was that coresidence would allow “the man who is temperamentally hesitant with women . . . to establish an easier relationship in the context of the House without the extra burdens attached to the dating ritual.”(48) Male-initiated heterosexual interaction preoccupied the committee just as much as it preoccupied male students at the time.

    When it came to addressing Radcliffe women’s fears of being in Houses where they would be greatly outnumbered by men, the report barely shifted focus: “The Radcliffe woman in a coeducational house should develop an understanding of the young man that is a more accurate reflection of the complex mosaic of motivations and anxieties that he carries.”(49) In another attempt to address “women’s issues,” the report explains, “women, in and outside of the university, are becoming increasingly preoccupied with their role in our society. Coresidential living, by allowing more frequent discussion of this theme, should help to broaden the male’s appreciation of this experiential issue.”(50) Not only does the report center around “the male’s appreciation” even when discussing women’s issues, but in passages like this it betrays an unconsciously pejorative attitude toward women. The context of the term “preoccupied” implies that women may have been too focused on their own current position in society, while “experiential” implies the ephemeral and primarily personal.

    Several of the prominent male faculty members on the Kagan committee were openly antifeminist. One member, dean of freshmen and master of the newest Harvard House, Skiddy von Stade, wrote a long letter in 1969 to the Radcliffe dean of admissions. “I do not see highly educated women making startling strides in contributing to our society in the foreseeable future,” he stated. “They are not, in my opinion, going to stop getting married and/or having children. They will fail in their present roles as women if they do.”(51) Furthermore, in reasoning against the merger he noted, “when I see the bright, well-educated, but relatively dull housewives who attended the ‘Seven Sisters,’ I honestly shudder at changing the balance of males vs. females at Harvard.” As women became more integrated into the atmosphere of male educational privilege, they continued to be subject to labeling devices that would perpetuate their status as intrinsically less important and essentially outsiders.

    An outraged Radcliffe student living in Dunster House at the time wrote to Mary Bunting, saying, “although I was amazed at the explicitness of his [Von Stade’s] male chauvinist remarks, I realize that his sentiments must indeed be similar to those held by the rest of the administration. Obviously, if this University did not want to discriminate against women, it would not maintain its blatantly discriminatory practices on every level. . . .”(52) Bunting gave a commiserative reply, saying she was aware of the dean’s 385 views, but claimed that such sentiments were not represented in the soon-to-be-instituted merger agreement.(53)

    Yet, a meeting of faculty and deans to consider merger in the same year, 1969, still debated whether it was to Harvard’s benefit to make closer ties with Radcliffe, even though the consensus of the meeting was that Radcliffe “girls” did not get the same advantages as Harvard students. One faculty member maintained that they were “obligated to right a situation in which the girls are in an intrinsically inferior position,” but most discussed the costs of any such moves, and as one future Harvard dean noted with foresight, the savings that would come from closer Radcliffe integration could not be overlooked either.(54) Even though some faculty viewed the inequitable arrangements for women as a reason to integrate, the emphasis remained on the advantages Radcliffe could bring to Harvard through merger and coresidence.

    In 1971, when women took up residence in all of the Harvard Houses (but not in the freshman housing in picturesque Harvard Yard), they were outnumbered in some Houses seven to one. Meanwhile, Harvard, much like Oxford, feared that an increase of women would hurt their science departments and swell their liberal arts fields while decreasing future alumni contributions. In the course of the year, Harvard lobbied lawmakers extensively on the national level to defeat a bill requiring that all universities receiving state aid abolish undergraduate sex quotas immediately. Citing “educational and financial risks” to the university in the event of their abolition, Harvard and several other elite private institutions succeeded in destroying the first bill that would have mandated women’s academic equality.(55)

    The outsider status of women at Oxford and Harvard contributed to great divides of student opinion along gendered lines. For the most part, students of both genders favored coresidence in principle, but the nuances of men and women students’ opinions, and the reasons they gave for holding similar views, often varied greatly. Additionally, students’ attitudes changed significantly over time, especially after coresidence was enacted. The trajectories of these changes help reveal complexities that administrators often ignored or of which they were unaware.

    At Oxford, the key argument for male students initially hinged on the need to get more women to Oxford, but gradually transmogrified into the argument that coresidence would create a more “natural,” less stressful environment with more chance for interaction with the opposite sex on a casual basis. Women undergraduates saw the general crux of the issue quite differently, supporting coresidence mainly because they wanted to finally become members of the most prestigious and well-equipped Oxford colleges, and also because they wanted more places for women applicants. Often women made plain their resentment that coresidence might find more support on the basis of social instead of purely academic and ethical arguments. Student editorials reflect this division subtly, but unmistakably. In one, a male undergraduate begins, “social life in Oxford is very much affected by the fact that the population is divided into twenty-three men’s colleges and five women’s colleges,” while the woman writing in the next issue leads with, “the women’s colleges at the periphery of the town [are] condemn[ed] to being the poorest and worst equipped,” as well as being vastly outnumbered in students.(56) While her male counterpart talked about the social benefits of a mixed college, she angrily claimed that this type of irrelevant “social argument” gave segregationists their best ammunition by painting women students as an “other,” an opposite-sex distraction.

    Axiomatic of this division is the 1969 report, “Towards Co-education: The Case for Exeter College Becoming Co-residential,” written by John Gray, a second-year Politics, Philosophy, and Economics undergraduate who later went on to become a professor of political theory at the London School of Economics. The report comprises more than 30 pages of meticulous, single-spaced type, by far the longest report on coresidence produced by any single university member, faculty included. Largely because of its length and because the Student Union published copies for circulation, Gray’s report became one of the focal points of the debate and the exemplar of the “sensitive” male undergraduate’s view of the issue. Gray’s point, to which he was doggedly devoted, was twofold: Oxford needed more women on ethical grounds, and, “even if it were possible to set up new women’s or mixed colleges, coresidence would be a desirable end in itself, and that in practice the only viable solution . . . is for several of the men’s colleges to become co-residential and admit women in the near future.”(57) Over 20 percent of the report was devoted exclusively to a discussion of the salutary effects women would have on men’s social, psychological, and sexual lives, including, but not limited to, alleviating loneliness, discouraging rowdiness and abusiveness, and affording men a womanly perspective. Gray also followed the usual line of men who harangued the women’s colleges for their desire to preserve themselves, and used the royal “we” to proclaim, “if and when the women’s colleges were ever in a position where becoming mixed was a necessary expedient, we would not find anything wrong in this.”(58)

    Gray’s pamphlet was lauded by many for its lucidity, but also attacked by women students who saw its emphasis on men’s social, psychological, and sexual comfort as highly problematic. One woman undergraduate editor, Gillian Rose, described the tone of the debate as “Men will take our bodies but not our minds,” and she pointed out that Gray vacillated between advocating coresidence on the grounds that it would make more places for women and on the grounds that it would somehow help solve, “the sexual maladjustment of this unbalanced, segregated community of scholars,” and end the “hungry stares across the Bodleian,” the main library where students did much of their studying and eyeing of the opposite sex.(59) Though Rose did not disagree with the idea that coresidence might have favorable social effects, she took issue with the fact that Gray and others used this idea as a main, and often the most important, support of their arguments. Rose promoted women’s inherent right to have access to places that excluded them on the grounds of gender alone and noted that Gray’s argument smacked too much of allowing women into men’s colleges for the sake of men, not for the sake of the traditionally marginalized and outnumbered population of Oxford women.

    In an era when the student newspaper still ran weekly contests for photographs of the prettiest undergraduates and managed to slip in more images of bikini-clad women than could generally be considered newsworthy, most male editors denigrated the academic, social, or psychological arguments for all-women’s colleges while focusing on their own desires.(60) One extremely unusual editorial in the undergraduate newspaper painted a positively bleak picture of Oxford society, but rather than calling for the addition of women to remedy the situation called for a greater sensitivity from men: “while we in our arguments are making them into everything from political machines to sex-symbols, the real flesh-and-blood women of Oxford are suffering gross misunderstanding and neglect. We are giving them a pretty rotten deal, and it’s time we did something about it.”(61) But, unlike this writer, few mentioned the “petty injustices and cruel degradation” woman had to put up with to hold their own at Oxford, and women students angrily pointed out the hypocrisies of the coresidence debates, even as they allied with male undergraduates to support coresidence. By 1975, a year after limited coresidence had come to Oxford, male editors became much more quiescent, but women redoubled their efforts, creating women’s action groups and an explicitly all-women protest group against Oxford’s quotas.(62)

    Only a late shift in opinion by male editors and the male-run union of students changed the model of consistently blaming the women’s colleges for hurting coresidence and women through an “irrational” fear that there were not enough good women applicants. In 1979 the effects of coresidence began to show the prescience of the women’s colleges’ fears, and student newspapers reported on the close to 25 percent drops in the number of applications to the women’s colleges as the rest of the men’s colleges went coresidential in a group.(63) But old stereotypes still died hard, and the “ladies colleges” continued to be dismissed as “slow as ever to adapt to new trends.”(64)

    At Harvard, remarkably similar gendered trends in undergraduate opinion prevailed. Radcliffe students, like their Oxford counterparts, desired access to the more prestigious and better equipped men’s Houses and wanted the quota on women at Harvard lifted, whereas male undergraduates favored coresidence for the supposed social 390 and sexual improvements it would bring.(65) The rigid parietal rules governing the scant few hours when women could come into certain parts of men’s colleges or Houses were not effectively abolished until coresidence was about to begin in each university. Students went from sharply restricted contact with the opposite sex to theoretically unlimited contact nearly overnight.

    Some of the most interesting expressions of students’ views are found in letters to Radcliffe’s President Bunting. Many Radcliffe and Harvard students wrote to her about coresidence after the university had made clear that not until Radcliffe merged could coresidence be considered. None of the letters were against coresidence, but the motives and reasons for favoring coresidence varied greatly. One Harvard freshman wrote to express his desire for coresidence, claiming, “Enforced separation between the sexes is unnatural at this stage of life when nearly all of us will spend the rest of our lives with our wife.”(66) This writer universalized a heterosexual masculine perspective and repeated many of his classmates by labeling dining hall restrictions the greatest impediment to socializing. Right up until women moved into men’s Houses, they were not allowed in men’s dining halls except on certain nights, and then only if they were the “date” of a House member who would accompany and pay for them.(67) Given the responses of men and women in house polls on coresidence and inter-House dining, it seems clear that if dining restrictions had been relaxed earlier, the demand for coresidence would have been substantially reduced.

    The real imbalance of the two colleges’ resources and student body sizes greatly contributed to lowering enthusiasm for coresidence. Most men in the Harvard Houses, while favoring coresidence in principle, did not want to participate in the coresidential plans because they feared they would be forced to leave their nicer, more centrally located Houses to move to the distant and austere Radcliffe Quadrangle. When Lowell House planned its experimental 1970 exchange with one of the Radcliffe Houses, 75 percent of the men responded in favor of the exchange, but fewer than one-quarter wanted to participate, because it would entail moving to inferior living quarters.(68) Responses on the Lowell questionnaire ranged from “need stronger incentive to move to the `Cliffe” to “Move to Cabot? Are you kidding?”(69) For other Lowell respondents, the disadvantages of moving to Radcliffe were clearly outweighed by social considerations. Said one, “I’d love to have the Cliffies next door,” while another simply wrote, “Want to go! (pant).” A few men took the opportunity to critique the habits of their housemates, as did one who claimed, “[Lowell] is nothing but a god-damned glorified whorehouse and friendships here are few between the sexes. Males bring girls in here--pay for their meals and movies and then take them back to their room for ---. . . . Changes are needed and I think coed housing is a good start.”(70) Indeed, the fact that the student House Committee voted to put Playboy magazine back on the shelves of the House Library the same spring that fifty women moved in for the experimental exchange shows the lack of concern most Harvard men had for the comfort of their Radcliffe classmates.(71) The male-headed student newspaper also displayed similar crassness in reporting the Radcliffe merger, jibing on the front page of a special extra edition that with men allowed in Radcliffe the innovative new Hilles Library would now be turned to a more useful function: a motel.(72) Radcliffe students also had strong and conflicted feelings about coresidence. In response to an inquiry from President Bunting, several Radcliffe dorms held meetings to decide their collective views on coresidence and, implicitly, merger. One dormitory proclaimed, “We want to retain the name of Radcliffe, we can’t be Harvard women; we’re Cliffies.”(73) They favored coresidence, but did not like the idea of merging “under the Harvard Faculty” and wanted female counselors and tutors provided in the event of merger. Another dorm agreed that coresidence would be best if a ratio of two to one, or one to one if possible, were enforced, rejecting the idea that women be required to move into all of the men’s dorms and thus be outnumbered by four to one. They strongly favored the men’s system of House tutors, instead of their resident assistants, but felt that it was crucial that some dorms remain all-women. They worried about women’s position in the university, especially on the faculty level. Highly ambivalent about the merger, these students concluded that perhaps they should forgo coresidence if merger was inextricably linked: “Maybe after careful consideration, we don’t want to join them, after all. . . .”(74) However, they felt that coed dining was “a necessity,” and posited the idea of Harvard-Radcliffe House alliances, as well as demanding much-needed renovations for the Radcliffe dorms.

    One of the Radcliffe students who wrote personally to President Bunting supporting the merger gave a thoughtful critique of women undergraduates’ position in the university. “Radcliffe is a paradox,” she wrote. “It calls itself a college, and yet does not educate its student body. Instead, it collects tuition, provides a place of residence, and sends its students to another college for classes,” resulting in a total loss of a feeling of college community. Meanwhile, Radcliffe students remained outsiders to Harvard, feeling like “guests” and “exceptions,” and being seen as “curve-wreckers” and “untouchables” by Harvard students. Radcliffe students were torn, having no home community in the university, plagued by what this writer termed a “feeling of universal loneliness.”(75) Many other women clearly agreed with her, as their refusal to be isolated in the men’s houses with low numbers of women shows.

    The Harvard dean’s office set up a committee in 1974 to investigate the effects of coresidence on students. Both men and women students rated the Radcliffe Quadrangle’s coed atmosphere, with equal numbers of men and women, very positively, and claimed this was the most positive aspect of their House environments. However, according to a “happiness index,” men and women rated the Radcliffe Houses, with their lesser amenities, lower than those Harvard Houses, which had a “high” ratio of women to men (one woman to every 2.5 men). Women stuck in the Harvard Houses where the ratio of women to men was “low” (one woman to every five men), rated their atmospheres lowest and also gave the lowest happiness index ratings.(76)


    Men at Oxford and Harvard both tended to view coresidence in terms of the benefits of increased social and sexual interaction, though with notable public exceptions. Women, on the other hand, focused in their writings and correspondence on the urgent need for equality of treatment and greater opportunity for women and were concerned first and foremost with ending their obvious second-class status at Oxford and Harvard. The cautious and complex feelings Radcliffe students had about coresidence and the merger it necessitated were similar to, though less vehemently against merger than, the ideas of the Radcliffe Alumnae Association and the many alumnae who took the time to write long letters to President Bunting. Women at Radcliffe and at Oxford both saw the limits of coresidence as a strategy for advancing the status of women.

    In 1964 a principal of one of the Oxford women’s colleges told the Franks Commission that more creative thinking on women’s issues was needed if women were really to advance in all levels of higher education. “The Americans are doing it—notably at Harvard,” she said, in what was certainly a scathing jab for Oxford, which tended to regard itself as superior to any American university.(77) Though Oxford undoubtedly needed to consider more creative solutions to the problems of women in higher education, this principal’s faith in Harvard proved misplaced. In 1972, the year Mary Bunting left Radcliffe, murmurs of dissatisfaction with the merger agreement from the year before had already surfaced in the Radcliffe administration. Indeed, by 1977 a new Radcliffe president renegotiated the terms of the 1971 Radcliffe merger to symbolically, if not truly, return more control to Radcliffe’s administration, which had come to feel that its interests had not been adequately served after it integrated with the university.


    • 1. Gillian Rose, “Coeducation,” Isis [Oxford student magazine] (Feb. 12, 1969), 8.
    • 2. Christine P. Almy, letter to Mary Bunting, Feb. 19, 1969, folder 656, Papers of Mary Ingraham Bunting [hereafter, PMB], Radcliffe College Archives [hereafter, RCA].
    • 3. L. Grier and Lucy S. Sutherland, “Women’s Education at Oxford,” in The Oxford University Handbook (Oxford: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press, 1965), 305-11, and Lucy Sutherland, “Women in Oxford since 1945,” typescript of Seminar at Nuffield College, Oxford, on March 11, 1986, Bodleian Library [hereafter, BOD].
    • 4. Sir William Hayter, “How It All Began,” Ten Years of Women in New College (Oxford: New College, 1990), 15-16. The tutor in question, Harry Bell, had noticed the favorable effect of male tutorship on his college-age daughter at the coed Trinity College, Dublin.
    • 5. G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Fellow of New College, “The Admission of Women to New College,” The Oxford Magazine [hereafter, OM] (Oct. 15, 1964), 4-7..
    • 6. Agenda, “[For the Hebdomadal Council only] Admission of Women to New College: Memorandum by Mr. Vice Chancellor,” Nov. 9, 1964, W/12 file 1, Oxford University Archives [hereafter, OUA]. Don is the term used to refer to a teaching member of the university. Franks, who formerly taught philosophy at Oxford, had also served as british ambassador to the United States, 1948-1952.
    • 7. Dame Janet Vaughn, “The Higher Education of Women,” OM (Oct. 22, 1964), 24-25. Also see “The Number of Women at Oxford,” ibid. (May 6, 1965), 312-13, and “Women at Oxford,” ibid. (Oct. 1966), 405-6.
    • 8. Lady Ogilvie, principal of St Anne’s College, Franks Commission Oral Evidence, Nov. 24, 1964, typescript, BOD.
    • 9. Dr. Lucy Sutherland, principal of Lady Margaret Hall, ibid.
    • 10. University of Oxford, Report of Commission of Inquiry vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press, 1966), para. 102.
    • 11. Editor, “Women,” OM (May 13, 1965), 1.
    • 12. Vice-chancellor, Note for the W/12 registry file, June 24, 1965, W/12 file 1, OUA: “A motion put to the Stated General Meeting of the Warden and Fellows of new College on the 24 June to amend the Statutes to permit the admission of women did not achieve the necessary two-third’s majority. The voting was 17 in favour and 14 against, with 4 absent.”
    • 13. Letter to University Registrar, Feb. 22, 1971, W/12 file 1, OUA.
    • 14. “Oxford [Lincoln] College may take women,” The Oxford Mail (May 7, 1971), clipping, W/12 file 1, OUA.
    • 15. Lucy Sutherland, letter to vice-chancellor, May 25, 1971, W/12 file 1, OUA; Mary Trenamen, principal of St. Anne’s, letter to all the women’s colleges, Nov. 16, 1971, Coresidence file, Somerville College Archives [hereafter, SCA].
    • 16. Mary Bennett, letter to Vice-chancellor Alan Bullock, Feb. 3, 1972, W/12 file 2, OUA.
    • 17. Ibid.
    • 18. Pauline Adams, Somerville for Women, 1879-1993 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 277. Adams suggests that the rising scores of the women’s colleges directly affected the desire of some men’s colleges to go coresidential. Based on the available evidence, however, it seems clear that the men’s colleges were more concerned with being able to attract better men undergraduates by admitting women.
    • 19. Mary Warnock, “Coresidence at Oxford?” OM (May 26, 1972), 6.
    • 20. Notes from Meeting of the Departments of Administration, April 21, 1967, folder 21, Radcliffe Deans of Residence Papers, RG VII Series 6, RCA.
    • 21. The Harvard House system, established in the 1930s, is modeled on the Oxford system of Colleges. Each House provides its member students not only with a place to live, but also with academic and personal guidance through tutors, professors, and university officials resident in the House. The Houses, like the Oxford Colleges, have individual dining halls and “Junior” and “Senior” Common Room memberships for recreation, meetings, and functions. The Houses are also responsible for disciplining students in many instances.
    • 22. Dean [Franklin] Ford, letter to Mary Bunting, Sept. 22, 1965, folder 473, RGII Series 4, PMB.
    • 23. Mary Bunting, letter to Nathan Pusey, Nov. 29, 1965, folder 473, PMB.
    • 24. Mary Bunting, letter to an Alumna, April 7, 1969, folder 656, PMB.
    • 25. Mary Bunting, letter to director of Continuing Education at Claremont College, Feb. 21, 1969, folder 656, PMB.
    • 26. Mary Bunting, speech at alumnae conference, June 1969, folder 618, PMB.
    • 27. As the chairman of the Radcliffe Alumnae Committee on Merger noted, this “was taken to imply that Radcliffe would vote itself out of existence.” Alice Blackmer Skinner, “Association News: against and for merger,” Radcliffe Quarterly (March 1970), 21.
    • 28. Mary Bunting, letter to a parent, Dec. 18, 1969, folder 687, PMB.
    • 29. “Women and the University” Conference, March 1, 1969, Coresidence file, Radcliffe Vertical Files (RVF), RCA.
    • 30. Mary Bunting, letter to Nathan Pusey, Feb. 22, 1969, History-Harvard-Radcliffe Merger Discussions file, RVF, RCA.
    • 31. “Mrs. Crevoshay’s Statement,” Feb. 22, 1969, Radcliffe College Alumnae Association’s Portfolio of the Study Committee on Merger, RVF, RCA.
    • 32. “Report to the Overarching Committee,” 1969, History-1970-Merger file, RVF, RCA.
    • 33. Committee on Harvard-Radcliffe Relations, “Second Draft,” Sept. 30, 1970, folder 775, PMB.
    • 34. Barbara Voss, letter to Hugh Calkins, Nov. 11, 1970, folder 775, PMB.
    • 35. Deborah Batis, “Response to the draft of the merger,” History-1970-Merger file, RVF, RCA.
    • 36. Jenifer Hart, interview with Sally Emerson, Isis no. 1650 (1973), 14. See Jenifer Hart, Ask Me No More (London: Peter Halban, 1998), 142-43.
    • 37. Lady Margaret Hall Admissions Tutor, letter to Warden of Wadham, Feb. 2, 1972, “Coresidence, 1968-73” file 2B/I, WCA.
    • 38. Ste. Croix, “The Admission of Women to New College,” 6.
    • 39. A correspondent, letter to Editor, OM (Feb. 7, 1957), 250.
    • 40. Six years after Brasenose College went coresidential it had no women faculty on a staff of close to eighty; Jesus College represented the best men’s college in this respect, having five women on a staff of a similar size. Oxford University Calendar 1980-1981 (Oxford: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press, 1980), 300-304, 342-45.
    • 41. By contrast, only one year after they allowed in men, the women’s college Lady Margaret Hall had seventeen men faculty on a staff of about forty, St. Anne’s had sixteen men on a staff of the same size, and St. Hugh’s had twelve men on their staff of forty. ibid., 355-58, 424-26, 454-57.
    • 42. Oxford University Calendar 1998-9 (Oxford: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press, 1998), 190-95.
    • 43. Professor Harvey Mansfield, as quoted in Calvin Mosley, “The Impact of the Merger of the Offices of Admissions and Financial Aids at Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges,” Harvard School of Education, Analytic Paper, 1981, Gutman Library, 75-76.
    • 44. Ibid., 76-77.
    • 45. Liva Baker, I’m Radcliffe, Fly Me (New York: Macmillan, 1976), 50. Helen Maud Camm had died in 1968; Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin was emerita.
    • 46. Harvard University News Office, June 30, 1971, 1969-1970 press release file, Harvard University Archives [hereafter, HUA], and Communications Office of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, inquiry, March 2000.
    • 47. Kagan Committee Report, folder 687, PMB, 4.
    • 48. Ibid., 3-4.
    • 49. Ibid., 5.
    • 50. Ibid., 6.
    • 51. Dean Skiddy von Stade, letter to David K. Smith, Radcliffe Dean of Admissions, Aug. 25, 1969, reprinted in “Von Stade Wrote Letter Against Merger, Saw No Benefit in Educating More Women,” Harvard Crimson, Nov. 6, 1970, 1.
    • 52. Katherine Fletcher, letter to Harvard Crimson and Mary Bunting, Nov. 6, 1970, folder 776, PMB.
    • 53. Mary Bunting, reply to Fletcher, folder 776, PMB.
    • 54. Notes of Meeting, Aug. 6, 1969, folder 716, PMB.
    • 55. Peter Shapiro and Susan F. Kinsley, “The No Sex Quota Provision: Harvard Lobbies for Time,” Harvard Crimson, Nov. 9, 1971, 1.
    • 56. Anthony Slade, “Is the College System an Anachronism?” Isis (Jan. 30, 1965), 13, and Sally Hunt, “Monasticism--or Mixed Colleges?” Isis (Feb. 13, 1965), 13.
    • 57. John Gray, “Towards Coresidence: The Case for Exeter College Becoming Coresidential,” (Oxford: Oxford University Student Council, 1969), preface, emphasis added.
    • 58. Ibid., para. 162.
    • 59. Gillian Rose, “Coeducation,” Isis (Feb. 12, 1969), 8.
    • 60. See Cherwell [Oxford student newspaper], 1963-1975.
    • 61. Simon Thrush, “It’s Not a World for Women at Oxford,” Cherwell, Nov. 10, 1962.
    • 62. Jackie Ashley, “Women in Oxford,” Isis (Oct. 10, 1975), 6.
    • 63. Tony Carritt, “Sex-Change Revelation,” Cherwell, Nov. 24, 1978.
    • 64. Editor, “Coresidence,” Cherwell, June 8, 1979.
    • 65. Kagan Report, folder 687, PMB, 3.
    • 66. Harvard student, letter to Mary Bunting, Feb. 20, 1969, folder 656, PMB.
    • 67. Minutes of House Committee, March 19, 1969, Lowell House Office Files [hereafter, LHOF], general records, 1968-1972, HUA.
    • 68. Lowell Questionnaire Results Poster, 1969, ibid.
    • 69. Collected comments, Lowell House Questionnaire, 1969, ibid.
    • 70. Ibid.
    • 71. Lowell House Committee Minutes, April 21, 1970, LHOF, general records 1968-1972, HUA.
    • 72. Photo Caption, Harvard Crimson Sunday Extra, Feb. 23, 1969, folder 655, PMB.
    • 73. Notes from Daniels Hall meeting, March 11, 1969, folder 655, PMB.
    • 74. Notes from Briggs Hall meeting, March 11, 1969, ibid.
    • 75. Christine P. Almy, letter to Mary Bunting, February 19, 1969, folder 656, PMB.
    • 76. Dean K. Whitla and Dan C. Pinck, Perspectives on the Houses at Harvard and Radcliffe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1974), 80-82.
    • 77. Lady Ogilvie, principal of St Anne’s College. Franks Commission Oral Evidence, Nov. 24, 1964.