in any way. that means that it had the ability to forbid the teachers to teach anyone in the annex. they seeked a new contractual relation. again, this was innovation. agosy negotiated an agreement that turned the annex into radcliffe college. harvard's president and fellows became members of the visiting committee of the institution, responsible for appointing instructors and examiners. in 1893, agosy persuaded the collegiate instruction of women, to take the name radcliffe college, and give the full ability to grant degrees. in time, under effective leadership, radcliffe emerged as

a strong institution with a firm material base. we know the brilliant students it attracted and the fine education they received. but there may have been costs of which we do not know. what did it mean that all the faculty were men? what can we learn from this statement by radcliffe alum. she wrote about her feelings that at radcliffe, she had entered into the great company of scholars, you felt how much there was to learn and how little you could attain to, it was humbling and inspiring. so did the fact that the great company of scholars were all male deter her from becoming one herself? for better or worse, professors are models as well as inspirers. what does it mean to a woman

student that there are no female models, did that make learning humbling rather than especially powering. to harvard's faculty, all seemed normal. even as wise a man as alport, could write at late as 1940, to a woman academic who was seeking employment in the summer school, "radcliffe" he stated" has to faculty and summer school, only harvard teachers teach there and harvard has no women teachers, silly, perhaps, but traditional and unexpectational." i want to dwell for a moment on the story of mary calk ins, a member of the faculty. i do so, because it allows some insight into the range of forces operating at harvard and the stubborn of the governing

bodies. a young and talented smith graduate. calkins was hired by welslee, to teach greek in 1970. but the head professor in philosophy was looking for someone to introduce the new field of psychology and saw her potential. she offered calkins the position under the condition that she take graduate work in psychology. here was the problem. german universities were the mecca, they refused to teach women or made life difficult for them. other schools taught women but lacked a psychology laboratory. harvard had a famous one and william james and royce, requested that she be allowed in the seminar, and she was refused out right. than calkins' father wrote on

his daughter's behalf, he stated, using the rule rules, d his inclusion of his daughter did not use the rules of inclusion, for we ask post graduate and professional instruction for one who is already a member of a college faculty. >> harvard agreed on those terms. but it was officially noted, by accepting this privilege, ms. calkins is not a student in the university, entitled to registration. in the fall of 1890, the principals book of psychology came out, and calkins began working with him, she turned out to be the only student in his course. she also began to study at clark university. when she returned to teach psychology at wellsly in the

fall of 1891, she set up a psychology laboratory at the college, one of the first dozen in the country. when she inquired about further study, she learned that hugo munsterberg was moving to harvard and would conduct the psychology lab. beginning in 1892, she studied with him for three years and from the outcert published in important psychological journals. he sought her admission to the ph.d. program, writing to elliott and the governing board and i quote. her publications and her work here do not let any doubt to me that she is superior so all candidates of the philosophical ph.d. during the last years. more than that, she is surely one of the strongest professors of psychology in this country. the records for the harvard corporation, october 29, 1894

noted that his request was considered, and refused. nonetheless, calkins submitted her thesis. she is stubborn, on association of ideas to the department and was examined by its members. the report read that she was examined by james, royce among others, these were no slouches and they quote unanimously voted that she satisfied the requirements of the ph.d. and this was noted in the harvard corporation records. her thesis became published articles and her work in welsly's labs were published studies, she wrote her first book, "an introduction to psychology," she was offered the ph.d., but she did not accept. she continued to teach, and served as president both of the american psychological association, and the american

philosophical society. i'm sure not at the same time. and she wrote four books and over 100 articles evenly divided between psychological and philosophy. in 1929, a group of fill aus fehrs -- scholars sent a letter to grant her the ph.d., it-ed to her international reputation. the university concluded, quote, there was no adequate reason for granting her the ph.d. case closed. there's nothing rational to be argued here. i think it's essentially a case of exclusion, history, tradition and privilege now being joined by taboo. but looked at in another way, it's clear from the account that radcliffe became the side door, opening graduate education in arts and sciences to women.

in 1894, president elliott responded to a powerful alumnist on giving ph.d.s to women. no he said, the degree must be read by radcliffe. otherwise it will lose legitimacy. they offered ph.d.s from the beginning. given the difficultys that calkins faced, harvard degrees were declared open as early as the 1894 charter. and by 1962, when radcliffe ceased to admit women or grant degr degrees, 784 ph.d.s had been gr granted to women. i have my own history. little did i know in fall, 1962 when i first applied to harvard

graduate school that i was stepping on new ground. when i did not get accepted, i knew i had been discriminated against, and in spring of 1963 went in to protest my rejection to dean miller. the recently displaced dean of radcliffe graduate school who was trying to act then as the advocate for women. she looked at my record and told me i was right. i clearly had been discriminated against. she then informed me, that she would not take my case. why? i asked. because she had lost two better ones in the last week. i did not know then the full meaning of what she was probably trying to tell me. now, that she no longer had control over or voice in graduate admissions, harvard was free to discriminate against women. in the year following, i was

instructed by a member of the history faculty not to apply in history but in american civilization because it did not discriminate, minor accomodation, the one steps away from harvard college, a more complex picture emerges. access seems not so mandated. perhaps the prestige factor weighs less heavily here, or perhaps we might express it in this formula. the less the prestige, the easier the access. the harvard graduate school of education, by the way, prestige is not related to greatness. the harvard graduate school of education became the first of the post graduate schools to take in women. in 1920. as graduates were the first women to receive harvard degrees. it's dean, the first female dean

at the university would patricia graham please stand so we can acknowledge her? [ applause ] harvard medical school is very interesting. medicine is one of the first professions in which women who had long been health practitioners saw entry. harriet hunt wrote to dr. holmes to ask permission to attend medical lectures, he supported this but the harvard corporation denied the request. in 1850, hunt applied again, she too was stubborn. this time, the male medical students protested her admission, along with that of three male african americans.

during world war oi, there was shortage of physicians and a plan emerged for women to study medicine at radcliffe, but it was not realized. a later plan allowed women to study at the harvard school for radcliffe ph.d. in medical sciences. the first admission came in 1945, granting the first mds in 1949. the medical school was distinctidi distinctive in one record, it appointed a professor position. at the harvard law school, petitions by women to enter began as early as 1871 and continued. their numbers included inez, a graduate. in 1915, 15 women petitioned and

were denied. in a letter to harvard president litman, he said harvard is one of the few institutions for men alone and in our opinion had better remain so. the law school was successful. but the admission of women might effect it. it should be noted in 1915, women were still a small minority in the legal profession. but the number of female lawyers was growing quickly. major law schools were open to women by 1930. the harvard law school admitted its first women in 1950. in 1893, approximate harvard divinity school, denied the ability to admit women. it was only open to women for graduate study in 1955. 1955 was the first year that

women were granted access to morning services at apple ton chapel. the business school worked out an arrangement with radcliffe in the late 1930s to build a program in business administration. again with a radcliffe degree. beginning in 1959, graduates of the program were admitted to the second year of the mba program at the harvard business school. and then they were in. finally, arts and sciences. it took first a father's desire to honor his late son and daughter and then a genius to break the lock keep women out of the faculty. the professorship was established in 1948. for a woman's cycle -- scholar.

the current holder is kathryn park in the history o science. is kathryn here? [ applause ] >> so, ceclian payne, whose 1925 thesis was declared undoubtedly the most brilliant thesis written in astronomy, was the first woman to rise through the ranks to the first woman professor. this leads to equality. it has been a long and complicated struggle and it's still going on. to get there has required protest, and innovation. many of the changes came from

mary bunting's years as radcliffe's president, 1959 through '72. facing what she called, quote, the climate of unexpectation for girls, which resulted in the waste of highly talented educated woman power, bunting's fought it. many of the changes moving women into the center of harvard's life began in her administration. a key one was pure innovation. the institute for study and later the bunting, the origin of the institution's sponsoring this lecture this afternoon. beginning at the end of buntings' radcliffe years, the woman's movement brought the issues shefrs addressing to the front. you, my audience, are likely more familiar with the

milestones than i am. but certain moments are key. 1967, when the library opened to women. 1971, the nonmerger/merger. leading to the gender integration of the houses. it is striking to me that this agreement came just as radical ended their celebration of international women's day with a week long building take over. 1975, the merger of radcliffe and harvard admissions. the critical date for me, 1977, when the 4-1 ratio of men to women, harvard men to women ended. with sex blind admissions. women's numbers gradually were allowed to increase to reach pairity and this was achieved finally in 2007. in 1999 came the agreement ending harvard -- ending radcliffe as a degree granting

body and being into being the radcliffe institute as we know it today and in 2007, it's first dean, drew gilpenfast, became president of harvard university. [ applause ] fas, in its under graduate and graduate admissions set a goal of women graduates. it came at a time of commitment not to just women as a category but to women in all their diver diversity. the same years, the african american and latino students grew in pace. it has been argued that while women were empowered by the movement for women's liberation, the men were likely persuaded by

the civil rights movement. once you have removed the barriers for african americans how do you justify a quota from women or bar them from a library. the struggle was not easy, and nor was the outcome sure. what raised the opposition was the fight waged at the turn of the 1970s by students and n.o.w .to get a 1-1 female/male ratio. listen to this expert. when i hear -- see bright well educated, but relatively dull housewives who attended the seven sisters, i honestly shudder of changing the balance of males versus females at harvard, quite simply i do not see highly educating women

making strides and contributing to our future. this is 1971 i think. they are not going to stop getting married and having children, they will fail in their role as women if they do. i'm sure his niece, would have shaken her head at this, if her scheduled permitted. more over in his official peterson report of 1970, harvard -- excuse me, is that me making that noise? no. ah. harvard admissions dean chase peterson, in 1971 opposed changing the 4-1 ratio, but the 1975 strauss committee report in favor of sex-blind admissions

gave the harvard's president the needed weaponry to gain faculty report. they saw real and symbolic changes during that time. i want to name a few. 1968, saw the first time a woman could walk through the front door of the faculty club. 1970, the first woman elected to the board of overseers, look at them now. and 1977 the first woman to attain high office. 2007, the first woman to serve as president of the university. moving in institution toward equity turns out to be hard work. the president has stated that it's easier to change an administration than a faculty. and there's been success at the administrative level. of the 16 members of the harvard council of deans, seven of them

are women and these include deans of law school, and school of engineering and applied sciences. what is impressive is not just those who are at the top, but also those at the next level. seeing to the hard work of running the university. for example, of the 15 associates eight are women. opening the faculty to women has proven to be a more difficult task. harvard got a boost for the demand for more female professors came during a period of rapid growth, allowing the number of women to rise. by 2001, there were 134 women, by 2008, the high point, 185, comprising roughly a quarter of the faculty. women were more heavily bunched in the ranks of tenure track rather than tenures. but what is important is that there's now a clear tenure track

system in place in the university. which means promoting from within. but as was admitted to a "new york times" reporter, senior faculty is hard to change because 95% of them were here last year, so it's mostly a function of who you can bring in. there's still an old guard to be honest, to whom this is not a priority. it seems high in the math and sciences, which remains largely male domains. the math department's first tenured woman, sophi arrived two years ago. about the same time that the earth and planetary sciences department tenured their first woman. and physicss and chemistry, they remained low in number. the natural sciences chaired by barbara gross, it was stated, issues go beyond tenure, to deal

with the pipeline that feed women in the sciences. further reports made it clear that changes are necessary in departments of government, and economics to keep young faculty women from leaving harvard prior to the tenure decisions they believe are stacked against them. although each professional school as autonomy they are moving forward in fits and starts. this is important not just for equality for the women seeking professional positions but because of the way the imbalance may work in many students' minds. i'm haunted by ruth hubbard's statements about the impact on her generation of radcliffe students of not being taught by women. sitting, she wrote, at the feet of harvard's great men, may mean

students do not awaken to the expectation that we might some day become great women. i'm also haunted by what we are not seeing. what we are not able to see. as a story and i'm a wear of the traps of present consciousness. slaves were granted freedom, the passage of the amendment for women's sufferage meant the struggle for women's freedom was unstoppable. world war i was the war to end all wars. as i read more dealing with this issue, i become aware again of the unresolved issues linked to family formation and care giving. i'm reminded of the "inside the clockwork of male careers," a remarkable article. women and men have different

biological clocks. this gives women a different set of problems as they negotiate their adult years. to acquire the education, they have a flexible career clock, enabling the ability to balance work and care giving. to be gender blind about this is to be blind about the reality of many women's lives. what else do i worry about? right now is the drum beat of the hyper sexuality, with the impact on high school students and under graduates. it's the new mommy culture with the impossible demands that pull women out of the still inflexible workforce. will the loss of women's institutions such as radcliffe college and the bunting leave women more vulnerable in the future? this is one of my concerns. what else is out there? put in the context of women in

harvard, now 375 years in existence, what bars to true equity are hiding in plain sight. today, compared with 25-50 or 75 years ago, there's a lot to celebrate. but there's a lot on try and change and a lot to worry about too. yes, the history of women hat harvard is complicated. [ applause ] >> now, we have time for questions and answers. and which helen has very generously agreed to participate in. i would like to ask you to identify yourself, when you speak, and to ask a question, not make a statement, and also

to be as concise as possible so we can get as many voices speaking as we can. thank you. >> my name is susan wear, and getting ready for this lecture, i pulled a favorite book off of my shelf, barbara solomon's "in the company of educated women," and i noticed of her four themes the fourth one was what she called the "uneasy relationship between feminism and women's educational achievement" and i wondered if you felt that the word "uneasy" also applied to the relationship between radcliffe and feminism or if you had other words you would like to supply at different times? >> thanks for that wonderful question. yeah, i think that "uneasy" is a

very good word, i like that. i'm sorry i did not review that. we, susan ware and i both benefitted so much from barbara solomon's influence in our li lives. and i think she got it right, it is an "uneasy" relationship. let's just leave it there. who is next? >> nancy, princeton university, does the history of radcliffe mean that the situation of women under graduates faculty and administrators at harvard today is less complicated than at princeton or yale that had no such history? more complicated or what would