Changing the game at Harvard
May 6, 2016 8:43 AM Subscribe
This morning, Harvard University announced that beginning with the Class of 2021, members of single-gender private clubs and Greek organizations will be banned from holding athletic team captaincies or leadership positions in all student groups, and will be ineligible for College endorsement for top fellowships like the Rhodes and Marshall scholarships.
A recent report by the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault included a recommendation to "address the distinctive problems presented by the Final Clubs and other unrecognized single-sex social organizations. The survey and our outreach activities have together persuaded us that the Final Clubs raise serious concerns (in terms of both culture and the well-being of our students) that require attention by Harvard. The increased and increasing presence of Greek organizations raise a related set of difficulties. We therefore recommend that President Faust ask the College for a plan to address the issues and express our strong support for those actions that would result in expanded membership practices that include all genders."
There are 9 fraternities and 6 sororities available to Harvard students.
A Guide to Harvard's Relationship with Final Clubs
A recent report by the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault included a recommendation to "address the distinctive problems presented by the Final Clubs and other unrecognized single-sex social organizations. The survey and our outreach activities have together persuaded us that the Final Clubs raise serious concerns (in terms of both culture and the well-being of our students) that require attention by Harvard. The increased and increasing presence of Greek organizations raise a related set of difficulties. We therefore recommend that President Faust ask the College for a plan to address the issues and express our strong support for those actions that would result in expanded membership practices that include all genders."
There are 9 fraternities and 6 sororities available to Harvard students.
A Guide to Harvard's Relationship with Final Clubs
As a former fraternity member, blow the whole thing up, but don't pretend that it will solve the problem. Assholes will find new and ingenious ways to be assholes.
posted by dudemanlives at 8:52 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dudemanlives at 8:52 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
these organizations propagate exclusionary values that undermine those of the larger Harvard College community
says one of the most exclusive universities in the world.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [26 favorites]
says one of the most exclusive universities in the world.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [26 favorites]
I'm not an expert on the Greek scene but wouldn't it be better to just ban frats? This is like saying "Hey, go ahead and join a frat, but just know that we HATE YOU."
posted by selfnoise at 8:58 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by selfnoise at 8:58 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not an expert on the Greek scene but wouldn't it be better to just ban frats? This is like saying "Hey, go ahead and join a frat, but just know that we HATE YOU."
Because they are de facto banned. Harvard doesn't have frats in the conventional sense. The houses are off campus and unaffiliated with the university.
posted by Talez at 9:02 AM on May 6, 2016 [19 favorites]
Because they are de facto banned. Harvard doesn't have frats in the conventional sense. The houses are off campus and unaffiliated with the university.
posted by Talez at 9:02 AM on May 6, 2016 [19 favorites]
im pretty certain this is intended as an administrative move to ban frats without having to ban frats.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:02 AM on May 6, 2016
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:02 AM on May 6, 2016
Harvard banned fraternities in the 1850s. It gets surprisingly complicated to ban what they refer to as "unrecognized single-sex social organizations" without infringing on students' rights to freedom of assembly.
posted by Wretch729 at 9:02 AM on May 6, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by Wretch729 at 9:02 AM on May 6, 2016 [23 favorites]
“[T]he discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances,” Khurana wrote. “The most entrenched of these spaces send an unambiguous message that they are the exclusive preserves of men. In their recruitment practices and through their extensive resources and access to networks of power, these organizations propagate exclusionary values that undermine those of the larger Harvard College community.”that all seems fair to me. it does look like they've proven increased risk and shown how even without the increased risk the gender discrimination is a problem worth seeking a solution for. we'll see how it shakes out in a few years.
[...]
“Captains of intercollegiate sports teams and leaders of organizations funded, sponsored, or recognized by Harvard College in a very real sense represent the College.They benefit from its resources. They operate under its name,” she wrote. “Especially as it seeks to break down structural barriers to an effectively inclusive campus, the College is right to ensure that the areas in which it provides resources and endorsement advance and reinforce its values of non-discrimination.”
[...]
This spring, the Task Force for the Prevention of Sexual Assault’s report upbraided the clubs for espousing “a culture often inimical to Harvard College.” The report found that 47 percent of surveyed senior women at the College who had “participated” in final clubs reported having experienced nonconsensual sexual contact during their undergraduate years, “ half again” the average of 31 percent for all senior women. One of the report’s six “key recommendations” advocated “address[ing] the distinctive problems presented by the Final Clubs and other unrecognized single-sex social organizations.”
posted by nadawi at 9:07 AM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
I am in no way in favour of these clubs. But what right does Harvard have to say what their students do outside of Harvard? These clubs are not affiliated with Harvard in any way. It's icky the way so many US schools try to regulate the lives of their students rather than their educations. What students choose to do when they're not in class should be up to the students.
So, I agree, President Faust, they're icky. They perpetuate inequality. They're bad all sorts of ways.
But that doesn't mean you have the right to try to force students not to join.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:11 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
So, I agree, President Faust, they're icky. They perpetuate inequality. They're bad all sorts of ways.
But that doesn't mean you have the right to try to force students not to join.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:11 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
But that doesn't mean you have the right to try to force students not to join.
No one is being forced. This is the whole point of this byzantine scheme.
posted by GuyZero at 9:13 AM on May 6, 2016 [30 favorites]
No one is being forced. This is the whole point of this byzantine scheme.
posted by GuyZero at 9:13 AM on May 6, 2016 [30 favorites]
What students choose to do when they're not in class should be up to the students.
I disagree with this, though. If a student were a member of a Neo-Nazi or some sort of hate group, and the college had notice, they most assuredly would not endorse their Rhodes Scholar application, right? They are saying that these clubs and Greek organizations lead to behavior that is hateful.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [36 favorites]
I disagree with this, though. If a student were a member of a Neo-Nazi or some sort of hate group, and the college had notice, they most assuredly would not endorse their Rhodes Scholar application, right? They are saying that these clubs and Greek organizations lead to behavior that is hateful.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [36 favorites]
Right... that's why I said "try to force" let's call it pressure.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:15 AM on May 6, 2016
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:15 AM on May 6, 2016
If only I had a penguin...: But that doesn't mean you have the right to try to force students not to join.
It's not that they're trying to force student not to join, they're just laying out the consequences of joining. I mean, if students were members of white only clubs, would you suggest that the school ignore that when they make decisions about who they name as student leaders / endorse for scholarships?
posted by macfly at 9:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not that they're trying to force student not to join, they're just laying out the consequences of joining. I mean, if students were members of white only clubs, would you suggest that the school ignore that when they make decisions about who they name as student leaders / endorse for scholarships?
posted by macfly at 9:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not force; it's coercion. Whether the coercion is justifiable depends on your point of view, but it's clearly meant to be coercive.
posted by Wretch729 at 9:16 AM on May 6, 2016
posted by Wretch729 at 9:16 AM on May 6, 2016
“Captains of intercollegiate sports teams and leaders of organizations funded, sponsored, or recognized by Harvard College in a very real sense represent the College.They benefit from its resources. They operate under its name,”
i mean, that seems to explain why they think it's their business. they're not saying you can't be part of the school, they're saying they're not going to allow you to hold club membership and also be a leader inside of harvard. if the clubs stay around and stay gender segregated, this will probably open those leadership positions more widely to the parts of the student body which haven't been able to join those clubs, so a double win in my book.
posted by nadawi at 9:16 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]
i mean, that seems to explain why they think it's their business. they're not saying you can't be part of the school, they're saying they're not going to allow you to hold club membership and also be a leader inside of harvard. if the clubs stay around and stay gender segregated, this will probably open those leadership positions more widely to the parts of the student body which haven't been able to join those clubs, so a double win in my book.
posted by nadawi at 9:16 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]
This is really interesting, watching with interest. I wholly endorse the ultimate goal, and these organizations (which are not Greek, by the way - I think they're actually something even worse, in many cases older, more deeply entrenched and linked to wider power systems) are pretty odious, but I do wonder about the constitutionality of it all.
posted by Miko at 9:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Miko at 9:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think this is a pretty reasonable move, all things considered. I certainly can't fault Harvard for it. It's not contradictory to try and make an institution that represents enormous privilege relative to the population as a whole more egalitarian and representative with respect to its own membership. For worse (and in no way for the better) institutions like Harvard — and Harvard especially — offer their students a slingshot to the American privileged class. If that's how things are, then it makes sense to try to ensure that everyone at Harvard has equal opportunities to reach the same rarified networks of power. Small relative gains are important and valuable, even if it comes against a backdrop of a society where wealth and power inequalities are getting worse.
It's just important not to celebrate the decision too much. It's important in its own sphere, but perhaps not outside of it.
posted by awenner at 9:20 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's just important not to celebrate the decision too much. It's important in its own sphere, but perhaps not outside of it.
posted by awenner at 9:20 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
I do wonder about the constitutionality of it all.
Harvard is a private university. Its students have little in the way of constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and association vis-a-vis the university.
posted by praemunire at 9:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
Harvard is a private university. Its students have little in the way of constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and association vis-a-vis the university.
posted by praemunire at 9:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
I predict that Harvard students are brighter than Harvard admins and in the long run will outwit this, but there'll be some interesting witch hunts in the meantime. I saw Goody Proctor drinking with the sorority in the pale moonlight!
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, if students were members of white only clubs,
I would wonder how they knew and I wonder the same about these final clubs. I mean obviously the finals clubs aren't submitting lists of members to the administration, I assume. Is the administration somehow asking that students account for what they do in their free time (I don't think they are, but really I don't see how the administration would even know who the members are). It does seem like it would be creepy for the university to ask students to provide a list of groups or activities they participate in.
On constitutionality, it is a private university, but like pretty much all private universities, it receives lots and lots of public funds, especially federal money. It's not unusual for this money to come with conditions about right-respceting things, though IANAL and do not know if it does in this case.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:24 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would wonder how they knew and I wonder the same about these final clubs. I mean obviously the finals clubs aren't submitting lists of members to the administration, I assume. Is the administration somehow asking that students account for what they do in their free time (I don't think they are, but really I don't see how the administration would even know who the members are). It does seem like it would be creepy for the university to ask students to provide a list of groups or activities they participate in.
On constitutionality, it is a private university, but like pretty much all private universities, it receives lots and lots of public funds, especially federal money. It's not unusual for this money to come with conditions about right-respceting things, though IANAL and do not know if it does in this case.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:24 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
"sexist behavior that is encouraged and enabled by the Greek system as it exists"
Every Greek organization I'm aware of has extensive sexual assault prevention training, and many go even further. When I was pledging, we went even further and had all sorts of chivalry classes. I was explicitly trained to walk on the street side of the sidewalk so as to shield my lady friend from any splashes or other unpleasantness that might come from the street. Members who commit sexual assault are frequently expelled from the organization. I am in no way denying that there is a rape culture in some fraternities, but the leadership of those organizations is working very hard to change that.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:25 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every Greek organization I'm aware of has extensive sexual assault prevention training, and many go even further. When I was pledging, we went even further and had all sorts of chivalry classes. I was explicitly trained to walk on the street side of the sidewalk so as to shield my lady friend from any splashes or other unpleasantness that might come from the street. Members who commit sexual assault are frequently expelled from the organization. I am in no way denying that there is a rape culture in some fraternities, but the leadership of those organizations is working very hard to change that.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:25 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a former fraternity member, blow the whole thing up, but don't pretend that it will solve the problem. Assholes will find new and ingenious ways to be assholes.
Ditto.
posted by schmod at 9:26 AM on May 6, 2016
Ditto.
posted by schmod at 9:26 AM on May 6, 2016
See, I'd argue that the problem isn't "assholes," but the problem is sexist behavior that is encouraged and enabled by the Greek system as it exists.
That is true. My comment was perhaps overly glib, I guess what I am getting at is that we shouldn't perpetuate organizations that tacitly or overtly promote sexist behavior, and there is value in breaking down the social structures that perpetuate these ideas. However, people who already think that way will become more covert, a la the "nice guy."
Eponysterical?
Yes. Steve Dudeman was an in joke some of my fraternity brothers and I came up with to represent the prototypical fraternity Dudebro. We were more a Belle and Sebastian crowd than Widespread Panic.
posted by dudemanlives at 9:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is true. My comment was perhaps overly glib, I guess what I am getting at is that we shouldn't perpetuate organizations that tacitly or overtly promote sexist behavior, and there is value in breaking down the social structures that perpetuate these ideas. However, people who already think that way will become more covert, a la the "nice guy."
Eponysterical?
Yes. Steve Dudeman was an in joke some of my fraternity brothers and I came up with to represent the prototypical fraternity Dudebro. We were more a Belle and Sebastian crowd than Widespread Panic.
posted by dudemanlives at 9:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Assholes will find new and ingenious ways to be assholes.
Yes, but now Harvard will have distanced self from that. That's not a bad thing.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, but now Harvard will have distanced self from that. That's not a bad thing.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
It looks like Harvard is trying to prevent replication and concentration of privilege within these, presumably elite, non-university-controlled organizations. (Harvard, of course, has no quarrel with replication and concentration of privilege as long as it is accessible to the university as a whole.)
But what about a slightly different kind of single-sex organization? I'm thinking here of mens' groups that had specific mandates to discuss issues of importance to their members - male roles, masculinity, relationships, and so forth. There are similar spaces intended for women only, that discuss similar matters of interest to women.
I suppose what I'm wondering is - is every single-sex group automatically a problem? Or is it because the finals clubs are viewed as some vestigial nucleus of WASP ruling class privilege that Harvard is determined to integrate them?
posted by theorique at 9:28 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
But what about a slightly different kind of single-sex organization? I'm thinking here of mens' groups that had specific mandates to discuss issues of importance to their members - male roles, masculinity, relationships, and so forth. There are similar spaces intended for women only, that discuss similar matters of interest to women.
I suppose what I'm wondering is - is every single-sex group automatically a problem? Or is it because the finals clubs are viewed as some vestigial nucleus of WASP ruling class privilege that Harvard is determined to integrate them?
posted by theorique at 9:28 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
> But what right does Harvard have to say what their students do outside of Harvard?
None. That's why the rules are about what students can do inside Harvard. If you want to captain a team, you have to make a choice.
posted by rtha at 9:28 AM on May 6, 2016 [20 favorites]
None. That's why the rules are about what students can do inside Harvard. If you want to captain a team, you have to make a choice.
posted by rtha at 9:28 AM on May 6, 2016 [20 favorites]
I saw Goody Proctor drinking with the sorority in the pale moonlight!
I'm pretty sure that if you are comparing the witch hunts, which primarily targeted women and people on society's margins, with Harvard secret societies that consist almost entirely of entitled wealthy men creating systems to preserve and protect their privilege, you have failed at understanding both the witch hunts and Harvard.
posted by maxsparber at 9:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [56 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that if you are comparing the witch hunts, which primarily targeted women and people on society's margins, with Harvard secret societies that consist almost entirely of entitled wealthy men creating systems to preserve and protect their privilege, you have failed at understanding both the witch hunts and Harvard.
posted by maxsparber at 9:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [56 favorites]
But what right does Harvard have to say what their students do outside of Harvard?
Every right in the world. As a public organization, legally there is a fixed list of things they are *not* allowed to be discriminatory about -- if it's not on the list an organization can do anything it damn well pleases.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every right in the world. As a public organization, legally there is a fixed list of things they are *not* allowed to be discriminatory about -- if it's not on the list an organization can do anything it damn well pleases.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
So far, we have #notallfrats and "assholes are gonna asshole so we might as well not try to change anything" (not what dudemanlives really intended, I'm betting, but this is really what stuff like that sounds like) and "oh no witch hunts." I got my bingo card well on its way to "winning."
posted by rtha at 9:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by rtha at 9:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]
assholes are gonna asshole so we might as well not try to change anything
Not at all what I intended.
posted by dudemanlives at 9:33 AM on May 6, 2016
Not at all what I intended.
posted by dudemanlives at 9:33 AM on May 6, 2016
Yeah, these clubs are certainly worth defending.
posted by Lyn Never at 9:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Lyn Never at 9:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
None. That's why the rules are about what students can do inside Harvard. If you want to captain a team, you have to make a choice.
that's what the rule is about, but that's not what they're trying to control. I mean which do you think they hope for:
1. Have finals clubs continue as they are, but keep those finals clubs members out of leadership roles in the university, thus freeing up those spots for non-finals-clubs members.
2. Have students avoid joining finals clubs so they can be in leadership positions or so they can keep the possibility of being in such positions open. By having the students most likely to want/seek/be able to attain leadership positions avoid finals clubs, make finals clubs less desirable to join and having many fewer students join over all.
If #1, then they're trying to control what students do in the university. If #2, they're trying to control what students do outside the university. Look, I think the goal and values are good ones, but if universities get to control what people do outside of class, then that just as easily fits with things I don't think should be allowed (e.g. telling students they can't cohabit, or can't go clubbing, or any of the many other etcs. that conservative schools do). Either they can try to control what people do outside of school or they can't, and I would prefer can't.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:36 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
that's what the rule is about, but that's not what they're trying to control. I mean which do you think they hope for:
1. Have finals clubs continue as they are, but keep those finals clubs members out of leadership roles in the university, thus freeing up those spots for non-finals-clubs members.
2. Have students avoid joining finals clubs so they can be in leadership positions or so they can keep the possibility of being in such positions open. By having the students most likely to want/seek/be able to attain leadership positions avoid finals clubs, make finals clubs less desirable to join and having many fewer students join over all.
If #1, then they're trying to control what students do in the university. If #2, they're trying to control what students do outside the university. Look, I think the goal and values are good ones, but if universities get to control what people do outside of class, then that just as easily fits with things I don't think should be allowed (e.g. telling students they can't cohabit, or can't go clubbing, or any of the many other etcs. that conservative schools do). Either they can try to control what people do outside of school or they can't, and I would prefer can't.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:36 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
And yeah, that chivalry classes thing is icky as all fuck.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:37 AM on May 6, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:37 AM on May 6, 2016 [38 favorites]
This is huge, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out nationally. The right-wing sites will go nuts, of course, but more interesting is what other universities will follow the lead?
posted by LarryC at 9:37 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LarryC at 9:37 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
but if universities get to control what people do outside of class, then that just as easily fits with things I don't think should be allowed (e.g. telling students they can't cohabit, or can't go clubbing, or any of the many other etcs. that conservative schools do).
You know, you can slippery slope anything, but my policy is not to oppose a good thing because of the remote possibility that a bad thing might somehow follow. Harvard is literally addressing entrenched sexism and a system that encourages and insulates sexual violence, and until they also start denying leadership roles to people who go clubbing, I don't think we need to worry about it.
posted by maxsparber at 9:39 AM on May 6, 2016 [17 favorites]
You know, you can slippery slope anything, but my policy is not to oppose a good thing because of the remote possibility that a bad thing might somehow follow. Harvard is literally addressing entrenched sexism and a system that encourages and insulates sexual violence, and until they also start denying leadership roles to people who go clubbing, I don't think we need to worry about it.
posted by maxsparber at 9:39 AM on May 6, 2016 [17 favorites]
Why are they called 'final' clubs, anyone know?
posted by bologna on wry at 9:40 AM on May 6, 2016
posted by bologna on wry at 9:40 AM on May 6, 2016
*howls with laughter*
I guess saying that they would rape any women members of their playclub had unintended consequences.
posted by Yowser at 9:43 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
I guess saying that they would rape any women members of their playclub had unintended consequences.
posted by Yowser at 9:43 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
I guess saying that they would rape any women members of their playclub had unintended consequences.
Oh, that's what this was about. :
Oh, that's what this was about. :
Final clubs are set to meet with Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana, who told the newspaper that “single-gender social organizations at Harvard College remain at odds with the aspirations of the 21st-century society to which the college hopes and expects our students will contribute.” But Storey countered that “forcing single-gender organizations to accept members of the opposite sex could potentially increase, not decrease the potential for sexual misconduct.”posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:47 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
But what right does Harvard have to say what their students do outside of Harvard?
Presumably the same right any private university has to enforce a code of conduct that the students agree to prior to enrollment. Isn't this the same mechanism the religious colleges use?
posted by bonehead at 9:49 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Presumably the same right any private university has to enforce a code of conduct that the students agree to prior to enrollment. Isn't this the same mechanism the religious colleges use?
posted by bonehead at 9:49 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
In general, I'm positive about the reason for this move, but there's already a huge perception of secrecy surrounding these clubs, and my concern is that this will simply drive the clubs further underground. After all, if the university doesn't know you're a member of a secret club, then you can't be denied those privileges.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:49 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 9:49 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yea, I really wish we hadn't gotten to "Do regulations really stop bad people?" so early in this thread.
I do have worries that in the short term, hosted parties will get worse and more dangerous. But I'm hoping that the miracle does happen, and instead of doubling down, these groups have an honest discussion on why they have such problems. Or that they start losing influence.
posted by halifix at 9:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I do have worries that in the short term, hosted parties will get worse and more dangerous. But I'm hoping that the miracle does happen, and instead of doubling down, these groups have an honest discussion on why they have such problems. Or that they start losing influence.
posted by halifix at 9:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes. Good. The world needs to change more and so old moldy "honored" "important" institutions need to flip their switches so the default behavior is better and reflects what society should be. We need more men who spend their whole lives viewing women as colleagues, so they see them as people first and subsequently promote them, vote for them, pay them equally. We need fewer ways to hide one's sexist, racist, othering tendencies.
As for universities controlling what students do outside of university, they already do. With honor codes, with codes of student conduct, with recognizing some clubs with financial support and not others, with policies that favor some institutions for internships (with class credit!) and not others.
posted by crush-onastick at 9:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
As for universities controlling what students do outside of university, they already do. With honor codes, with codes of student conduct, with recognizing some clubs with financial support and not others, with policies that favor some institutions for internships (with class credit!) and not others.
posted by crush-onastick at 9:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
After all, if the university doesn't know you're a member of a secret club, then you can't be denied those privileges.
The first rule of final club is, you do not talk about final club. The second rule of final club is, you do not talk about final club.
posted by theorique at 9:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
The first rule of final club is, you do not talk about final club. The second rule of final club is, you do not talk about final club.
posted by theorique at 9:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Halifix: the man of twists and turns has you covered with the source.
posted by Yowser at 9:52 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Yowser at 9:52 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
None. That's why the rules are about what students can do inside Harvard. If you want to captain a team, you have to make a choice.
They're still retaliating against students based on off-campus behavior, even if they're doing it using on-campus mechanisms. It might technically be within the rules, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that decision. It does feed into the whole 'the college is your substitute parent' vibe that I truly despise.
College students are adults, and as in the workplace, what you do when you're not at the college isn't any of their business. And the people here should support that, because just because you benefit from it this one time doesn't mean it won't be wielded against you more often (this is the principle that supports every stupid morality clause, for example).
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:53 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
They're still retaliating against students based on off-campus behavior, even if they're doing it using on-campus mechanisms. It might technically be within the rules, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that decision. It does feed into the whole 'the college is your substitute parent' vibe that I truly despise.
College students are adults, and as in the workplace, what you do when you're not at the college isn't any of their business. And the people here should support that, because just because you benefit from it this one time doesn't mean it won't be wielded against you more often (this is the principle that supports every stupid morality clause, for example).
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:53 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
"In any event, it's not exactly a controversy that Greek and Greek-like student organizations tend to have higher incidents of sexual assaults that other areas of campus life."
No one's denying that. In fact, my comment specifically said "I am in no way denying that there is a rape culture in some fraternities".
I should also add, my comment pertains to Greek organizations, which are not the same as final clubs.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:54 AM on May 6, 2016
No one's denying that. In fact, my comment specifically said "I am in no way denying that there is a rape culture in some fraternities".
I should also add, my comment pertains to Greek organizations, which are not the same as final clubs.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:54 AM on May 6, 2016
macfly I mean, if students were members of white only clubs
That's what Greek organizations are.
Ban 'em all, nothing of any value will be lost.
posted by sotonohito at 9:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's what Greek organizations are.
Ban 'em all, nothing of any value will be lost.
posted by sotonohito at 9:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
There's a certain sort of person who wants a better world only as long as everybody who's making the world worse will, out of the goodness of their hearts and subject to no persuasion or coercion, agree to it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:56 AM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:56 AM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]
"They're still retaliating against students based on off-campus behavior, even if they're doing it using on-campus mechanisms. It might technically be within the rules, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that decision."
I'm perfectly comfortable with that part. If someone robs a liquor store off campus, they should absolutely be expelled. I just think they're painting with too broad a brush in this case.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:56 AM on May 6, 2016
I'm perfectly comfortable with that part. If someone robs a liquor store off campus, they should absolutely be expelled. I just think they're painting with too broad a brush in this case.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:56 AM on May 6, 2016
Saying that you don't deny a correlation and then downplaying the correlation is a classic denialist tactic.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:59 AM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 9:59 AM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
I wonder does this also go for the Harvard Lodge? Freemasonry is a single gender private club
posted by Hoopo at 10:03 AM on May 6, 2016
posted by Hoopo at 10:03 AM on May 6, 2016
I'm curious what the reaction to this from alumni will be. The final clubs don't have all the power and social influence they once held, but they do have some deep pocketed alumni. I wonder what private consultations the Harvard administration made behind closed doors to make sure they don't take a hit to their donor base, or if they just decided they could take it in stride.
posted by Wretch729 at 10:04 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Wretch729 at 10:04 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
the idea that chivalry training dismantles instead of reinforces rape culture is ridiculous.
posted by nadawi at 10:06 AM on May 6, 2016 [65 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:06 AM on May 6, 2016 [65 favorites]
“forcing single-gender organizations to accept members of the opposite sex could potentially increase, not decrease the potential for sexual misconduct.”
My experience with co-ed college social clubs was that it seemed to reduce institutionalized hazing and sexual assault/harassment (but did not eliminate it), especially if you put women in leadership positions.
The final clubs don't have all the power and social influence they once held, but they do have some deep pocketed alumni.
Yeah finals clubs have an insane amount of money and social influence; their clubhouses for one thing are very expensive, prime-location houses. I have no idea how their powerful networks of alumni will fight back.
posted by little onion at 10:08 AM on May 6, 2016
My experience with co-ed college social clubs was that it seemed to reduce institutionalized hazing and sexual assault/harassment (but did not eliminate it), especially if you put women in leadership positions.
The final clubs don't have all the power and social influence they once held, but they do have some deep pocketed alumni.
Yeah finals clubs have an insane amount of money and social influence; their clubhouses for one thing are very expensive, prime-location houses. I have no idea how their powerful networks of alumni will fight back.
posted by little onion at 10:08 AM on May 6, 2016
The fact that there are people in this very thread defending chivalry classes is disturbing.
Burn the single gender clubs to the ground.
posted by Yowser at 10:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Burn the single gender clubs to the ground.
posted by Yowser at 10:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
I would wonder how they knew and I wonder the same about these final clubs. I mean obviously the finals clubs aren't submitting lists of members to the administration, I assume. Is the administration somehow asking that students account for what they do in their free time (I don't think they are, but really I don't see how the administration would even know who the members are). It does seem like it would be creepy for the university to ask students to provide a list of groups or activities they participate in.
I admit that this was my first reaction as well, but it’s kiiiiiinda concern trolling. You don’t need an aggressive enforcement plan in place in order to justify a policy designed to shift behavior.
posted by threeants at 10:13 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I admit that this was my first reaction as well, but it’s kiiiiiinda concern trolling. You don’t need an aggressive enforcement plan in place in order to justify a policy designed to shift behavior.
posted by threeants at 10:13 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
So what Harvard cannot get by persuasion they hope to get by force.
It is a life lesson for the student, useful for dealing with the real world.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:13 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is a life lesson for the student, useful for dealing with the real world.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:13 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I admit that this was my first reaction as well, but it’s kiiiiiinda concern trolling.
Concern trolling has a specific intent -- to undermine a policy you oppose by pretending to support it but raising issues with it. I raised the same basic concern, and I assure you, I'm not doing it to try to mask my dislike for the policy. I genuinely think there's a need to take some action here. I also genuinely worry that this particular action will backfire.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:19 AM on May 6, 2016
Concern trolling has a specific intent -- to undermine a policy you oppose by pretending to support it but raising issues with it. I raised the same basic concern, and I assure you, I'm not doing it to try to mask my dislike for the policy. I genuinely think there's a need to take some action here. I also genuinely worry that this particular action will backfire.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:19 AM on May 6, 2016
Considering your acceptance to Harvard is partly contingent on what clubs/extracurrs you participated in up to application, why is it such a leap that if you then join clubs while you're at Harvard, that could impact your access to other Harvard "frills" so to speak?
Like, if the admissions committee saw you were part of a club that was sexist and/or was known for high incidence of rape, maybe they wouldn't have let ya in in the first place.
posted by avalonian at 10:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Like, if the admissions committee saw you were part of a club that was sexist and/or was known for high incidence of rape, maybe they wouldn't have let ya in in the first place.
posted by avalonian at 10:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh my god, saying "we don't like your extracurriculars, no recommendation for you" is not force. No one's arm is twisted. No one gets arrested or fined.
An already very rich privileged dude (which is what you have to be to be in those clubs) will now not be able to access one small group privileges if he wants to take on a particular club membership.
If he wants privilege B, he has to give up privilege A. Either way, he's still a really rich privileged dude.
THE TRAGEDY
posted by emjaybee at 10:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]
An already very rich privileged dude (which is what you have to be to be in those clubs) will now not be able to access one small group privileges if he wants to take on a particular club membership.
If he wants privilege B, he has to give up privilege A. Either way, he's still a really rich privileged dude.
THE TRAGEDY
posted by emjaybee at 10:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]
So what Harvard cannot get by persuasion they hope to get by force.
You know that they also do things like expel students for cheating and drop them from sports teams if their grades fall below a certain point. All colleges do this, in fact.
I'm not clear on why it's so offensive in this instance.
posted by maxsparber at 10:24 AM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
You know that they also do things like expel students for cheating and drop them from sports teams if their grades fall below a certain point. All colleges do this, in fact.
I'm not clear on why it's so offensive in this instance.
posted by maxsparber at 10:24 AM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
Presumably the same right any private university has to enforce a code of conduct that the students agree to prior to enrollment. Isn't this the same mechanism the religious colleges use?
Yeah, there must be over a hundred religious colleges in the USA that have rules against unmarried students having sex. Telling students they can't be in a certain kind of club is pretty minor compared with the codes of conduct at a lot of private schools.
posted by straight at 10:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, there must be over a hundred religious colleges in the USA that have rules against unmarried students having sex. Telling students they can't be in a certain kind of club is pretty minor compared with the codes of conduct at a lot of private schools.
posted by straight at 10:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
actions being done by force are the members of these groups sexually assaulting other students. making conditions for recommendations and leadership positions within the school isn't 'force'.
posted by nadawi at 10:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
>I'm not clear on why it's so offensive in this instance.
It's authoritarian, but also going against rape culture.
Some people really don't like the authoritarianism, others don't mind it if it gets at the rape culture issue. Thus conflict.
posted by bonehead at 10:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's authoritarian, but also going against rape culture.
Some people really don't like the authoritarianism, others don't mind it if it gets at the rape culture issue. Thus conflict.
posted by bonehead at 10:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's ironic that the regulations will ban members of single-gender private clubs and Greek organizations. . . from holding athletic team captaincies when college athletic teams are most often single-gender organizations. And they are probably at least as likely as other single-gender clubs to foster and enable sexual misconduct.
posted by layceepee at 10:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by layceepee at 10:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
If he wants privilege B, he has to give up privilege A. Either way, he's still a really rich privileged dude.
THE TRAGEDY
Yeah, can we not do that? 20% of Harvard students come from a family that earns less than $65K a year in income. 60% come from a family whose income qualifies them for financial aid.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 10:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
THE TRAGEDY
Yeah, can we not do that? 20% of Harvard students come from a family that earns less than $65K a year in income. 60% come from a family whose income qualifies them for financial aid.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 10:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
Sorry, I didn't at all mean to attribute malintent by calling it "concern trolling"! Was just referring to the type of flaw in the argument as I see it and don't know another name, but I didn't mean to suggest anyone was actually trolling.
posted by threeants at 10:31 AM on May 6, 2016
posted by threeants at 10:31 AM on May 6, 2016
College students are adults, and as in the workplace, what you do when you're not at the college isn't any of their business.
I don't subscribe to the universal-surveillance model, but if I do something away from work that raises genuine questions about my ability to do my job well and fairly, I think my employer does have some interest in the matter.
In this case, Harvard has an explicitly-articulated set of values it expects to prevail in campus conduct, including the equality of the sexes and a total rejection of sexual violence. The finals clubs operate in contempt of those values. Harvard has every right not to confer honors--which is what leadership positions and prestigious fellowship recommendations are--on those who defy its values. The issue is not whether Harvard, a private institution, can enforce its values in certain ways, but whether the values it's enforcing are good and important ones. The more you fuss about the former, the more you suggest covert doubts about the latter.
posted by praemunire at 10:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't subscribe to the universal-surveillance model, but if I do something away from work that raises genuine questions about my ability to do my job well and fairly, I think my employer does have some interest in the matter.
In this case, Harvard has an explicitly-articulated set of values it expects to prevail in campus conduct, including the equality of the sexes and a total rejection of sexual violence. The finals clubs operate in contempt of those values. Harvard has every right not to confer honors--which is what leadership positions and prestigious fellowship recommendations are--on those who defy its values. The issue is not whether Harvard, a private institution, can enforce its values in certain ways, but whether the values it's enforcing are good and important ones. The more you fuss about the former, the more you suggest covert doubts about the latter.
posted by praemunire at 10:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
20% of Harvard students come from a family that earns less than $65K a year in income. 60% come from a family whose income qualifies them for financial aid.
While true, you maintain an enormous amount of privilege to have the education, intellect and support to get you to Harvard even without the ability to pay for it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:33 AM on May 6, 2016
While true, you maintain an enormous amount of privilege to have the education, intellect and support to get you to Harvard even without the ability to pay for it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:33 AM on May 6, 2016
20% of Harvard students come from a family that earns less than $65K a year in income. 60% come from a family whose income qualifies them for financial aid.
I think those arent the kids in finals clubs right? People right here are kind of hoping that the rich people stay in their little clubs so the rest of the campus can have a shot at the leadership roles.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:33 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think those arent the kids in finals clubs right? People right here are kind of hoping that the rich people stay in their little clubs so the rest of the campus can have a shot at the leadership roles.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:33 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, can we not do that? 20% of Harvard students come from a family that earns less than $65K a year in income. 60% come from a family whose income qualifies them for financial aid.
Do these statistics hold true when applied exclusively to Final Clubs?
posted by maxsparber at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Do these statistics hold true when applied exclusively to Final Clubs?
posted by maxsparber at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think it's ironic that the regulations will ban members of single-gender private clubs and Greek organizations. . . from holding athletic team captaincies when college athletic teams are most often single-gender organizations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't college sports teams' membership controlled by associations like the NCAA, and therefore out of the hands of the schools themselves?
posted by zombieflanders at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't college sports teams' membership controlled by associations like the NCAA, and therefore out of the hands of the schools themselves?
posted by zombieflanders at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016
Yeah, can we not do that? 20% of Harvard students come from a family that earns less than $65K a year in income. 60% come from a family whose income qualifies them for financial aid.
...if you are genuinely under the impression that the students from the sub-$65K/yr families (you can get financial aid from Harvard into the low six figures) are making up more than a tiny fraction of the membership of finals clubs, may I gently suggest that you could benefit from further research into the facts of the situation.
posted by praemunire at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
...if you are genuinely under the impression that the students from the sub-$65K/yr families (you can get financial aid from Harvard into the low six figures) are making up more than a tiny fraction of the membership of finals clubs, may I gently suggest that you could benefit from further research into the facts of the situation.
posted by praemunire at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
I suppose what I'm wondering is - is every single-sex group automatically a problem? Or is it because the final clubs are viewed as some vestigial nucleus of WASP ruling class privilege that Harvard is determined to integrate them?
I think the thing that you have to realize is that for the most part, we're talking specifically about all-male clubs that own large buildings in Harvard Square right outside of campus (in some cases literally across the street). There are all-female final clubs, but it's almost misleading to consider them together because they've only existed for the last fifteen years (I was an undergrad when the first one formed IIRC) and they aren't "landed": they have to sublet space from the male clubs essentially at their discretion. None of the frats and sororities own their own buildings and they're a very minor component of the social ecosystem with pretty low memberships relative to other universities. So one of the main problem with the final clubs is that they are one of the only student-run, off-campus venues with parties and alcohol, and a selected set of men totally control access; in other words, there are structural reasons (not just cultural) why women are less safe in those spaces. There isn't even the counterbalance of "sorority house" equivalents.
Honestly I think the university administration is really embarrassed that these clubs continue to play a (minor-ish but) canonical role in Harvard's social ecosystem, not only because of the higher sexual assault risk but also because the clubs have a reputation for perpetuating class divisions within the student body (you can't even rush without being pre-selected by a current member, except for one club which changed this policy literally within the last 10-15 years). There are other Ivies where this has changed: if you compare it to Princeton, something like 75% of the student body is in an eating (read: partying) club, they're all co-ed, and some of the clubs actually decide membership wholly by lottery. I think if the clubs democratized to that degree that would probably be an acceptable outcome to the administration.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]
I think the thing that you have to realize is that for the most part, we're talking specifically about all-male clubs that own large buildings in Harvard Square right outside of campus (in some cases literally across the street). There are all-female final clubs, but it's almost misleading to consider them together because they've only existed for the last fifteen years (I was an undergrad when the first one formed IIRC) and they aren't "landed": they have to sublet space from the male clubs essentially at their discretion. None of the frats and sororities own their own buildings and they're a very minor component of the social ecosystem with pretty low memberships relative to other universities. So one of the main problem with the final clubs is that they are one of the only student-run, off-campus venues with parties and alcohol, and a selected set of men totally control access; in other words, there are structural reasons (not just cultural) why women are less safe in those spaces. There isn't even the counterbalance of "sorority house" equivalents.
Honestly I think the university administration is really embarrassed that these clubs continue to play a (minor-ish but) canonical role in Harvard's social ecosystem, not only because of the higher sexual assault risk but also because the clubs have a reputation for perpetuating class divisions within the student body (you can't even rush without being pre-selected by a current member, except for one club which changed this policy literally within the last 10-15 years). There are other Ivies where this has changed: if you compare it to Princeton, something like 75% of the student body is in an eating (read: partying) club, they're all co-ed, and some of the clubs actually decide membership wholly by lottery. I think if the clubs democratized to that degree that would probably be an acceptable outcome to the administration.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]
Whoah. This is going to seriously piss off some influential donors and I'm surprised (and pleased) that they made this move.
That being said, it's not like inviting men and women to join the clubs will counter other issues with inequality in membership. Finals clubs draw from the most privileged of an already privileged group, and I can't see that changing just because they're inviting women as well as men. (Case in point: the Pudding has been admitting women for years but their punch lists are still wildly unrepresentative of the Harvard community in other ways. tl;dr summation: the exclusive clubs are drawing heavily on students coming out of selective secondary schools in the Northeast.)
On a completely different note, I have to wonder about the real estate side of this. For those who don't know, real estate in Cambridge is $$$$ and the College and University are currently working on expansion projects across the river. The finals clubs control some seriously choice real estate right in and around Harvard Square.
posted by pie ninja at 10:36 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
That being said, it's not like inviting men and women to join the clubs will counter other issues with inequality in membership. Finals clubs draw from the most privileged of an already privileged group, and I can't see that changing just because they're inviting women as well as men. (Case in point: the Pudding has been admitting women for years but their punch lists are still wildly unrepresentative of the Harvard community in other ways. tl;dr summation: the exclusive clubs are drawing heavily on students coming out of selective secondary schools in the Northeast.)
On a completely different note, I have to wonder about the real estate side of this. For those who don't know, real estate in Cambridge is $$$$ and the College and University are currently working on expansion projects across the river. The finals clubs control some seriously choice real estate right in and around Harvard Square.
posted by pie ninja at 10:36 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
In this case, Harvard has an explicitly-articulated set of values it expects to prevail in campus conduct, including the equality of the sexes and a total rejection of sexual violence. The finals clubs operate in contempt of those values. Harvard has every right not to confer honors--which is what leadership positions and prestigious fellowship recommendations are--on those who defy its values.
All of that can be used nearly as written for enforcement of religious or politically based 'values' by other organizations, including values I'm willing to bet you'd be diametrically opposed to. That's why it's important to consider whether the entire concept is a good idea.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:39 AM on May 6, 2016
All of that can be used nearly as written for enforcement of religious or politically based 'values' by other organizations, including values I'm willing to bet you'd be diametrically opposed to. That's why it's important to consider whether the entire concept is a good idea.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:39 AM on May 6, 2016
it seems like some people are saying that since this won't immediately solve all problems of inequality it's silly to even take this step. it wasn't one thing that caused the whole mess so it can't be one thing to dismantle it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remove these harmful societal structures brick by brick.
posted by nadawi at 10:39 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:39 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
So I wasn't aware but it looks like within the last year, in response to administrative pressure, two previously all-male final clubs have already decided to admit women, so it seems like this strategy is having the desired effect for the University.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:45 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 10:45 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was an undergrad when the first one formed IIRC
I was slightly wrong about this; the first one formed in 1991, but four out of five formed in 2000 or later.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:50 AM on May 6, 2016
I was slightly wrong about this; the first one formed in 1991, but four out of five formed in 2000 or later.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:50 AM on May 6, 2016
This is awesome. Guess what? No one is entitled to a spot at Harvard. No one is entitled to a spot in a finals club. No one is entitled to a student leadership position or a Rhodes Scholar recommendation. The closer and closer we get to a place where your family name, your family money, your privilege, or your gender "earns" you even more power and privilege, the better off we will be. You want to be a member of a club made of up all men, mostly white, mostly with a shit ton of money? Great! Own your choice, though, and own that it makes you a worse fit for the kinds of accolades the school reserves for people it's proud to be associated with. Let me play my tiny violin for you.
Banning Greek members from student leadership positions at my alma mater would have been a great boon to the school and cut back on corruption in the Greek system and uneven application of school rules.
lol at chivalry training being some kind of helpful sexual assault prevention measure ahahaha
posted by sallybrown at 10:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [29 favorites]
Banning Greek members from student leadership positions at my alma mater would have been a great boon to the school and cut back on corruption in the Greek system and uneven application of school rules.
lol at chivalry training being some kind of helpful sexual assault prevention measure ahahaha
posted by sallybrown at 10:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [29 favorites]
All of that can be used nearly as written for enforcement of religious or politically based 'values' by other organizations, including values I'm willing to bet you'd be diametrically opposed to. That's why it's important to consider whether the entire concept is a good idea.
Okay, seriously, in what circles do you normally travel that this would be a shocking revelation to your interlocutor? Do you really ordinarily spend your time around grownups who would have made my argument and not have thought of this? If so, that's a pity. If not, I'm not sure why you think this is a meaningful objection.
To what degree different private institutions are entitled to enforce their values on their memberships (and against the rest of the world) is a complicated issue and much dependent on circumstance. I actually do not have a problem with the mere fact that, say, Brigham Young University has a code of conduct for its students, who are fully apprised of the code in advance, have meaningful choice in where they go to school, and can leave if they can't endure it. I just think their values are hateful (and that the policies in that particular case are enforced selectively and arbitrarily). Talk about a public university, it's a different set of considerations. Talk about a high school, again. Talk about a private workplace, once more. It's idle to pretend that organizations don't enforce values--they all do. Only the most innocent or dim don't realize that these values can be more or less palatable. So when you tell me that institutional power can potentially be used to enforce values I don't like, well, okay. In this case, I think the mechanism is not objectionable and the values are both sound and important. You have to move along at least that far in the argument, or you're not being serious. In my experience, the people who make a blanket objection to the mere idea that an institution might enforce standards are people who know that they will never be in danger of the existing standards hurting them.
posted by praemunire at 10:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Okay, seriously, in what circles do you normally travel that this would be a shocking revelation to your interlocutor? Do you really ordinarily spend your time around grownups who would have made my argument and not have thought of this? If so, that's a pity. If not, I'm not sure why you think this is a meaningful objection.
To what degree different private institutions are entitled to enforce their values on their memberships (and against the rest of the world) is a complicated issue and much dependent on circumstance. I actually do not have a problem with the mere fact that, say, Brigham Young University has a code of conduct for its students, who are fully apprised of the code in advance, have meaningful choice in where they go to school, and can leave if they can't endure it. I just think their values are hateful (and that the policies in that particular case are enforced selectively and arbitrarily). Talk about a public university, it's a different set of considerations. Talk about a high school, again. Talk about a private workplace, once more. It's idle to pretend that organizations don't enforce values--they all do. Only the most innocent or dim don't realize that these values can be more or less palatable. So when you tell me that institutional power can potentially be used to enforce values I don't like, well, okay. In this case, I think the mechanism is not objectionable and the values are both sound and important. You have to move along at least that far in the argument, or you're not being serious. In my experience, the people who make a blanket objection to the mere idea that an institution might enforce standards are people who know that they will never be in danger of the existing standards hurting them.
posted by praemunire at 10:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
I was pretty solidly on board with this initially but I can think of at least one way that this will disproportionately harm underprivileged students (if you feel the need to argue with me that such people attend Harvard, please just stop reading). Joining a fraternity or exclusive club at an elite institution is one of the best established ways to build a network that exists outside of "people daddy and mommy know" (or "people I went to Exeter with"). It's also well established that students who come from underprivileged backgrounds are worse at developing relationships with their professors and advisors as well as seeking out informal mentorship -- these are the students who really need mentorship matching programs and formal advising and clubs that come with a readymade professional network.
In other words, I think the least privileged students at Harvard might stand to lose the most from these new regulations. It doesn't make them wrong, but it's a blunt tool.
posted by telegraph at 10:57 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
In other words, I think the least privileged students at Harvard might stand to lose the most from these new regulations. It doesn't make them wrong, but it's a blunt tool.
posted by telegraph at 10:57 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
are you under the impression that underprivileged students are any appreciable percentage of the membership of these clubs?
posted by nadawi at 10:59 AM on May 6, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:59 AM on May 6, 2016 [19 favorites]
I think all students are still welcome to join whatever mixed-gender clubs they want which seem like an adequate opportunity to network.
posted by GuyZero at 11:00 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 11:00 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
praemunire: Okay, seriously, in what circles do you normally travel that this would be a shocking revelation to your interlocutor? Do you really ordinarily spend your time around grownups who would have made my argument and not have thought of this? If so, that's a pity. If not, I'm not sure why you think this is a meaningful objection.
Oh, come on, it's the internet. You can't fault me for at least considering the possibility that someone's point of view might not be well thought out, even if it is.
In my experience, the people who make a blanket objection to the mere idea that an institution might enforce standards are people who know that they will never be in danger of the existing standards hurting them.
No, I think it's the opposite. I live in a super red state and I'm always worried that action might be taken against me due to my values. Plus, I see a lot of cases locally where action is taken against people due to 'values', most of which are horseshit (i.e. teachers being fired for being photographed in a bikini during their vacation). This has given me an extremely negative view of the very concept that an organization should enforce 'values' (or indeed, have them at all and not just be mission-oriented).
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:01 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, come on, it's the internet. You can't fault me for at least considering the possibility that someone's point of view might not be well thought out, even if it is.
In my experience, the people who make a blanket objection to the mere idea that an institution might enforce standards are people who know that they will never be in danger of the existing standards hurting them.
No, I think it's the opposite. I live in a super red state and I'm always worried that action might be taken against me due to my values. Plus, I see a lot of cases locally where action is taken against people due to 'values', most of which are horseshit (i.e. teachers being fired for being photographed in a bikini during their vacation). This has given me an extremely negative view of the very concept that an organization should enforce 'values' (or indeed, have them at all and not just be mission-oriented).
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:01 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
telegraph, you might want to check out the article pie ninja linked about the Pudding. The punch list contained only 15% public-school grads (vs. ~60% of the school's population), and exactly one student (out of 55) who went to a public school where the median income was below the national average. I can't imagine that the final clubs are doing any better, considering that their reputation is even more Boston Brahmin than the Pudding's.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:04 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 11:04 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
This piece from last fall as all this started to go down was somewhat enlightening for me as to legal views of the situation, especially in noting that it's really construal that the student-university relationship is contractual contract law, not the basic fact that Harvard is private, that would give legal grounds for defense. I still wonder about Title IX, because it's interesting that Harvard, given its many options, chose to make sports leadership off-limits. That makes me wonder if Title IX might also be coming into play in their legal analysis.
Experts said this week that Harvard can reasonably argue that it has the power to make the clubs essentially defunct. While administrators have not said that they want to eliminate the groups, if they chose to do so, the University would have a relatively strong backing in court, lawyers said.posted by Miko at 11:05 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
According to Gregory F. Hauser, an attorney and alumnus of the fraternity Delta Chi who has represented fraternities, the fact that the relationship between private universities and their students is essentially contractual gives the colleges a lot of leeway. Private institutions have the power to impose restrictions on joining certain organizations as a condition of enrollment, he said.
In 2014, Amherst College in Massachusetts did just that, prohibiting student participation “in off-campus fraternities and sororities and fraternity-like and sorority-like organizations,” according to its undergraduate policies.
Hauser said courts have not settled just how far such regulations can go, but he predicted that Harvard could successfully defend a policy banning students from joining final clubs.
“Because they limit their membership to Harvard students, because their activities are centered on the status of the members as Harvard students, I suspect a court would probably uphold a ruling by Harvard,” Hauser said.
The limitations on how strictly universities like Harvard can regulate their students’ private activities depend on whether the action in question is in sync with the larger institution’s mission, he added.
...Harvey A. Silverglate, an attorney who has advised Harvard students facing Administrative Board investigations, said he disagrees with the idea of Harvard becoming more involved in students’ private lives. But he nonetheless agreed that Harvard could place restrictions on final clubs.
“Harvard could issue a rule that disallows its students from joining these clubs or any clubs which have gender exclusive policies,” Silverglate said.
Using anti-sex discrimination law Title IX as a means to control the groups, though, might prove more difficult, according to Hauser and Peter F. Lake ’81, a professor at Stetson University College of Law and an expert in higher education law. They were both skeptical of the legal backing of using the law to further regulate or pressure single-gender social organizations to go co-ed.
“If you are using Title IX as sort of a weapon to control the groups, it’s probably not what Title IX is intended for,” Lake said.
How will this affect women-only safe spaces? or are they unaffected because there is no formal membership?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:09 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:09 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
This piece contains a sort of legal brief prepared by a Final Club alum laying out grounds for defense.
posted by Miko at 11:10 AM on May 6, 2016
posted by Miko at 11:10 AM on May 6, 2016
How will this affect women-only safe spaces? or are they unaffected because there is no formal membership?
Well, at present it looks like it's all going to come down to exactly how this is implemented. That legal brief I just posted seems to indicate that the enforcement mechanism is going to be some sort of pledge or agreement that students accept upon enrolling. The specific language isn't drafted yet - from the FPP:
posted by Miko at 11:16 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, at present it looks like it's all going to come down to exactly how this is implemented. That legal brief I just posted seems to indicate that the enforcement mechanism is going to be some sort of pledge or agreement that students accept upon enrolling. The specific language isn't drafted yet - from the FPP:
A yet-to-be-appointed committee of students, faculty, and administrators will craft the enforcement strategy for the broad proposal, likely a difficult task given that many unrecognized social clubs do not publicize their membership.Interesting really that they aren't yet talking about outright banning people from joining the clubs (as they clearly think they could), just joining the clubs while also holding these particular roles within Harvard. Given that there are so many possible roles and honors, and so many ways to benefit from the University's resources, I'm not really sure I follow Faust's thinking in limiting it to just the sports captainships, official leaderships and a couple of fellowships. I can only assume that those are what they've determined will be easiest to defend legally, and it's sort of an incremental strategy they hope will induce further culture change without having to draw the ire of a total ban. Either that, and/or, the alums have had their say and this is a middle-way compromise they've worked out for the moment.
posted by Miko at 11:16 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
That legal brief I just posted seems to indicate that the enforcement mechanism is going to be some sort of pledge or agreement that students accept upon enrolling.
A Faustian bargain, if you will.
posted by jedicus at 11:23 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
A Faustian bargain, if you will.
posted by jedicus at 11:23 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
But seriously, death to the Greek system. My undergraduate college abolished its Greek system several decades ago and nothing sprang up to replace it, all to the good as far as I can tell. My graduate and law school alma mater has been steadily pressuring fraternities by revoking charters and not replacing them. Although in that case I think it's motivated only partly by moral righteousness; the fraternities (and only the fraternities) own houses in prime locations on the main campus, which can't really expand outward. But I don't really care whether we get there by ethics or real estate.
posted by jedicus at 11:28 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by jedicus at 11:28 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was pretty solidly on board with this initially but I can think of at least one way that this will disproportionately harm underprivileged students
Well, first off, they're not making the finals clubs go away entirely, just making them admit women or face certain specific consequences. And shouldn't students of all genders have the ability to join and network in these clubs? If only male students are able to benefit, that's pretty fucked up. (Yeah, there are women's-only clubs, but as en forme de poire pointed out above, the women's-only clubs don't have the deep alumni pool or land holdings that the men's-only clubs benefit from.)
Secondly... yeah, the finals clubs do not typically admit the underprivileged. I suspect the numbers for the Pudding (linked above) are actually pretty good compared to the numbers for most of the actual male-only finals clubs.
posted by pie ninja at 11:47 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, first off, they're not making the finals clubs go away entirely, just making them admit women or face certain specific consequences. And shouldn't students of all genders have the ability to join and network in these clubs? If only male students are able to benefit, that's pretty fucked up. (Yeah, there are women's-only clubs, but as en forme de poire pointed out above, the women's-only clubs don't have the deep alumni pool or land holdings that the men's-only clubs benefit from.)
Secondly... yeah, the finals clubs do not typically admit the underprivileged. I suspect the numbers for the Pudding (linked above) are actually pretty good compared to the numbers for most of the actual male-only finals clubs.
posted by pie ninja at 11:47 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
The outcry from current undergraduate members of finals clubs and alumni is going to be amazing, but as a graduate of the University, this is fucking awesome. I only wish this policy had been in place when I was there. Finals clubs have had way too much influence on undergraduate social life, as well as perpetuating the most sexist and racist attitudes imaginable.
And the way the administration structured this policy was very well thought out, IMO. For most students the decision in favor of extracurriculars/scholarship sponsorship will be a non-brainer. There will almost certainly be some clubs that move "underground" but most students are not going to risk their eligibility for extracurricular leadership positions and scholarship sponsorship by still trying to participate in the club system.
The houses are off campus and unaffiliated with the university.
Most club buildings are literally just down the block or across the street from the Houses/Yard dorms (Harvard's campus is spread over much of Cambridge), so "off campus" is basically semantics. They're not on land the University owns, but they're very much a part of the social life of the University and this new policy will do a lot to undermine their outsized influence.
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:47 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
And the way the administration structured this policy was very well thought out, IMO. For most students the decision in favor of extracurriculars/scholarship sponsorship will be a non-brainer. There will almost certainly be some clubs that move "underground" but most students are not going to risk their eligibility for extracurricular leadership positions and scholarship sponsorship by still trying to participate in the club system.
The houses are off campus and unaffiliated with the university.
Most club buildings are literally just down the block or across the street from the Houses/Yard dorms (Harvard's campus is spread over much of Cambridge), so "off campus" is basically semantics. They're not on land the University owns, but they're very much a part of the social life of the University and this new policy will do a lot to undermine their outsized influence.
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:47 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Part of what private liberal arts colleges sell is the whole residential college experience, and (especially elite or well-monied) colleges take an active and comprehensive role in shaping that experience. Quite a few private liberal arts colleges in the Northeast have banned frats/single-sex frat-like organizations, going back to the 1970s in some cases. Saying that students cannot simultaneously hold membership in such an organization and a leadership position on campus is a comparatively mild measure.
posted by eviemath at 12:00 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by eviemath at 12:00 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most club buildings are literally just down the block or across the street from the Houses/Yard dorms (Harvard's campus is spread over much of Cambridge), so "off campus" is basically semantics.
Yes, it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about an urban university. The concept of "on-campus"/"off-campus" isn't the same as it would be in, say, Stanford.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:11 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about an urban university. The concept of "on-campus"/"off-campus" isn't the same as it would be in, say, Stanford.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:11 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hoopo: "I wonder does this also go for the Harvard Lodge? Freemasonry is a single gender private club"
I've got to admit while I care little what Harvard does I'm fascinated by how they are going to hair split this especially if some of the clubs decide to fight instead of acquiesce to the co-ed mandate. IE: is membership in a single sex gym a disqualifier? What percentage of the membership has to be of the non majority before compliance? If membership is open to the minority sex but no minority sex members ever make it through the membership process is that disqualifying. How often can I meet with my just happens to be all male gaming group to play 13th Age before such membership would be disqualifying?
A fight with vigor by people with money could be way more entertaining than any movie.
posted by Mitheral at 12:18 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've got to admit while I care little what Harvard does I'm fascinated by how they are going to hair split this especially if some of the clubs decide to fight instead of acquiesce to the co-ed mandate. IE: is membership in a single sex gym a disqualifier? What percentage of the membership has to be of the non majority before compliance? If membership is open to the minority sex but no minority sex members ever make it through the membership process is that disqualifying. How often can I meet with my just happens to be all male gaming group to play 13th Age before such membership would be disqualifying?
A fight with vigor by people with money could be way more entertaining than any movie.
posted by Mitheral at 12:18 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I totally get the problems with male-only clubs, but what is the impact on the sorority system? are they seen as being just as toxic, or are they safe-spaces for women that will be collateral damage to this new policy?
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:14 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:14 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
In 2007 I asked AskMetafilter about whether or not there was a movement to get rid of the Greek system. At the time I attended a Big Ten University and saw first hand how bad the Greek system was for students and the University community.
Luckily I got to study abroad at a University that had successfully transitioned away from a Greek-like system to a more inclusive one. Uppsala University has the "Nations" system. In the past it was very exclusive. Now they must accept any member who wants to join. That gets rid of a lot of negative stuff involving hazing and discrimination, though it obviously doesn't put much of a dent in things like binge drinking. But it gave a lot more people access to the resources of these formerly exclusive clubs like the housing, study halls, kitchens, beautiful historic buildings, etc.
posted by melissam at 1:15 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Luckily I got to study abroad at a University that had successfully transitioned away from a Greek-like system to a more inclusive one. Uppsala University has the "Nations" system. In the past it was very exclusive. Now they must accept any member who wants to join. That gets rid of a lot of negative stuff involving hazing and discrimination, though it obviously doesn't put much of a dent in things like binge drinking. But it gave a lot more people access to the resources of these formerly exclusive clubs like the housing, study halls, kitchens, beautiful historic buildings, etc.
posted by melissam at 1:15 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like anyone arguing that membership in women-only safe spaces or single-gender gyms would be considered on the same level as membership in an exclusive private club is being a bit disingenuous.
The Harvard final clubs and the single-gender Greek system are exclusive, status-providing, networking opportunities. You can petition to join or must be asked to join, and be denied for any number of reasons.
Single-gender gyms confer no social status (well, ok, so maybe you go to the super fancy high end gym instead of the cheap one, and that's status-related). Women-only safe spaces are open to all women (and if they're not, they damn well should be, but that's a different question) and confer no social status. A man who has paid for a membership at a men-only gym is just a man at a gym. A man who has been chosen to be in a Final Club has an elevated status.
Membership in a single-gender Greek organization or Final Club confers significant social status and broad networking opportunities that are denied to people who are not chosen for inclusion.
I seriously doubt that Harvard would conflate these very different spaces with very different standards for inclusion.
posted by erst at 1:39 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Harvard final clubs and the single-gender Greek system are exclusive, status-providing, networking opportunities. You can petition to join or must be asked to join, and be denied for any number of reasons.
Single-gender gyms confer no social status (well, ok, so maybe you go to the super fancy high end gym instead of the cheap one, and that's status-related). Women-only safe spaces are open to all women (and if they're not, they damn well should be, but that's a different question) and confer no social status. A man who has paid for a membership at a men-only gym is just a man at a gym. A man who has been chosen to be in a Final Club has an elevated status.
Membership in a single-gender Greek organization or Final Club confers significant social status and broad networking opportunities that are denied to people who are not chosen for inclusion.
I seriously doubt that Harvard would conflate these very different spaces with very different standards for inclusion.
posted by erst at 1:39 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Harvard final clubs and the single-gender Greek system are exclusive, status-providing, networking opportunities. You can petition to join
Actually, in the case of the finals clubs, you generally can't petition to join. You have to wait for them to punch you. (I mean you can pull strings -- I knew someone whose dad called a guy who was an alum and got him an initial punch card. But yeah, unless you Know Someone, ideally more than one someone, you are not on the list.)
posted by pie ninja at 1:47 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Actually, in the case of the finals clubs, you generally can't petition to join. You have to wait for them to punch you. (I mean you can pull strings -- I knew someone whose dad called a guy who was an alum and got him an initial punch card. But yeah, unless you Know Someone, ideally more than one someone, you are not on the list.)
posted by pie ninja at 1:47 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
pie ninja, that's why I said "you can petition to join or must be asked to join" -- I was talking about the traditional Greek system as well as the Final Clubs.
posted by erst at 1:49 PM on May 6, 2016
posted by erst at 1:49 PM on May 6, 2016
Former club member and officer here, please expose any bias I might exhibit but also hear my insider perspective.
1) I think this is an incredibly deceptive move by the administration. The report on sexual assault is tied to the current national outrage over sexual assault on campus, which is a good and overdue movement. However the statistics are presented in disingenuous and shrouded ways, numbers are cherry picked and make the usual correlation-causation error. A large portion of campus drinking takes place at these clubs, so of course unfortunate events will be tied to their activity and involvement; I believe they misuse the stats to dramatically overstate the link (stats minor btw!). They are using the clubs as a scapegoat in their movement to combat sexual assault, and they are using the demand for action against sexual assault to attack the clubs.
2) The clubs are under perpetual attack by parts of the student body and administration. The university is choosing to attack the clubs themselves, instead of taking other steps that might reduce the appeal and influence of them. In the 1920s they were worried about the different experiences offered to club members vs non members. What did the university do? They built the house system, dormitories that could house every student and had all the amenities of the clubs and today are the central, much treasured experience of Harvard College. What is the appeal of the clubs today? They are a place to hang out and do what you want without having a grad student knock on your door at 11:01 pm. Make more and better social space.
3) I truly believe the elitism is overblown. Do the clubs harbor elitism? Yes, just like every single organization at Harvard. But that elitism is mostly constrained to your undergraduate years. The networks of these clubs are exaggerated, really it's a just a few hundred alumni, doing all sorts of different things. Do you know what else is elite? The Harvard Crimson, pumping out editors and reporters and Pulitzer winners for generations. The rowing team, pumping out gold medalists for generations. The history department, pumping out tenured history professors. All of these groups maintain strong and influential alumni networks. Elitism is a broad and oppressive theme at Harvard, but that motivates the students. Some students want to be socially elite, they will find ways to do so. I foresee the sprouting of secret societies from these new rules.
4) The students were working towards equality on their own. Women's clubs were really coming into their own when I was there and seem to be very healthy organizations that are equal to the male clubs (except some lack dedicated space). All that social effort will be washed away. Is there really no place for single sex groups? Do we really fully dismiss their value? Is there really no irony that soon a person cannot be a member of a single sex organization and also be the captain of their single sex athletics team?
posted by abcanthur at 2:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
1) I think this is an incredibly deceptive move by the administration. The report on sexual assault is tied to the current national outrage over sexual assault on campus, which is a good and overdue movement. However the statistics are presented in disingenuous and shrouded ways, numbers are cherry picked and make the usual correlation-causation error. A large portion of campus drinking takes place at these clubs, so of course unfortunate events will be tied to their activity and involvement; I believe they misuse the stats to dramatically overstate the link (stats minor btw!). They are using the clubs as a scapegoat in their movement to combat sexual assault, and they are using the demand for action against sexual assault to attack the clubs.
2) The clubs are under perpetual attack by parts of the student body and administration. The university is choosing to attack the clubs themselves, instead of taking other steps that might reduce the appeal and influence of them. In the 1920s they were worried about the different experiences offered to club members vs non members. What did the university do? They built the house system, dormitories that could house every student and had all the amenities of the clubs and today are the central, much treasured experience of Harvard College. What is the appeal of the clubs today? They are a place to hang out and do what you want without having a grad student knock on your door at 11:01 pm. Make more and better social space.
3) I truly believe the elitism is overblown. Do the clubs harbor elitism? Yes, just like every single organization at Harvard. But that elitism is mostly constrained to your undergraduate years. The networks of these clubs are exaggerated, really it's a just a few hundred alumni, doing all sorts of different things. Do you know what else is elite? The Harvard Crimson, pumping out editors and reporters and Pulitzer winners for generations. The rowing team, pumping out gold medalists for generations. The history department, pumping out tenured history professors. All of these groups maintain strong and influential alumni networks. Elitism is a broad and oppressive theme at Harvard, but that motivates the students. Some students want to be socially elite, they will find ways to do so. I foresee the sprouting of secret societies from these new rules.
4) The students were working towards equality on their own. Women's clubs were really coming into their own when I was there and seem to be very healthy organizations that are equal to the male clubs (except some lack dedicated space). All that social effort will be washed away. Is there really no place for single sex groups? Do we really fully dismiss their value? Is there really no irony that soon a person cannot be a member of a single sex organization and also be the captain of their single sex athletics team?
posted by abcanthur at 2:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
A large portion of campus drinking takes place at these clubs, so of course unfortunate events will be tied to their activity and involvement
Total party attendance is probably a confounder, but I don't buy that it's the sole explanation. I did plenty of underaged drinking at Harvard without ever setting foot in a final club and I know that I'm hardly alone in that; the House system can certainly be a little staid and institutional, but I also don't remember a shortage of parties lasting until 2 am. I also don't believe that the clubs were really making much progress towards equality on their own, given that the two final clubs to go co-ed did so last year explicitly in response to university pressure and over the objections of their alumni.
As far as the secret society thing goes, I'm honestly not particularly bothered if some social climbers decide they want to do some spoopy confidential rituals and drink together. When you have secretive all-male societies controlling the main off-campus venues, though, that's a little different. Like I said, I don't want to overstate the role final clubs play for the student body; plenty of people don't feel that they're missing out on anything by avoiding them. But I also recognize that just avoiding those venues entirely isn't a solution for people who do want to party or network there, or whose social networks include a lot of club members, but who may also feel uncomfortable because women are structurally more vulnerable in those venues and are excluded from the decision-making structure. Heavily incentivizing the clubs to go co-ed is a good first step there, I think.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:34 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Total party attendance is probably a confounder, but I don't buy that it's the sole explanation. I did plenty of underaged drinking at Harvard without ever setting foot in a final club and I know that I'm hardly alone in that; the House system can certainly be a little staid and institutional, but I also don't remember a shortage of parties lasting until 2 am. I also don't believe that the clubs were really making much progress towards equality on their own, given that the two final clubs to go co-ed did so last year explicitly in response to university pressure and over the objections of their alumni.
As far as the secret society thing goes, I'm honestly not particularly bothered if some social climbers decide they want to do some spoopy confidential rituals and drink together. When you have secretive all-male societies controlling the main off-campus venues, though, that's a little different. Like I said, I don't want to overstate the role final clubs play for the student body; plenty of people don't feel that they're missing out on anything by avoiding them. But I also recognize that just avoiding those venues entirely isn't a solution for people who do want to party or network there, or whose social networks include a lot of club members, but who may also feel uncomfortable because women are structurally more vulnerable in those venues and are excluded from the decision-making structure. Heavily incentivizing the clubs to go co-ed is a good first step there, I think.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:34 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
The 47% figure for final clubs is also even higher than the 40% of women participating in Greek life; I don't know if that difference is significant because I don't know how many people were in each category (around 50% of the student body responded to the survey and I'm assuming those respondents were half women; I don't know the total number of women who had ever participated in final clubs and/or Greek life but I'd suspect a substantial minority of women may have gone at least once), but it's at least some kind of internal control for the frequency of partying.
Nevertheless, the actual report itself, far from cherry-picking, is pretty careful to put this number in context [pdf]:
Nevertheless, the actual report itself, far from cherry-picking, is pretty careful to put this number in context [pdf]:
We are not suggesting that the problem of sexual assault at Harvard is solely or even principally a byproduct of the activities and influence of Final Clubs. The behavioral and cultural problems run deep and implicate a range of institutional structures and behavioral choices that extend well beyond the Clubs. We also recognize that the survey data are not particularized, the information from the outreach was likewise often general in nature, that collectively they do not offer insight into potential variations among the Clubs, and that they do not permit us to untangle complex questions of causation. That said, the information in our possession makes clear that any effective response to unwelcome sexual conduct on the Harvard campus must include a serious and sustained examination of the contribution of Final Clubs to the problem.posted by en forme de poire at 3:52 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
[...]
For example, students shared their deep concern about the continuing presence of social spaces owned by male-only groups with exclusive membership practices. Students understand that Harvard’s centuries-long history as a predominantly white male institution creates an imprint on their educational experience, but they expect to see progress moving forward. While many institutional issues related to gender inequality were addressed in the 1970s-’90s, partly through the merger of Radcliffe with Harvard, male-only Final Clubs are a vestige of gender inequity that also perpetuates a significant divide on campus. This divide begins in freshman year, when freshmen men resent being denied entry to desirable social spaces and losing an opportunity to connect with female peers. Excluded women feel the same resentment, while women who are included as guests are exposed to a culture often inimical to Harvard’s mission and over which women have little control.
A large portion of campus drinking takes place at these clubs, so of course unfortunate events will be tied to their activity and involvement
I flat-out reflect the "of course" here. it's possible to have places where a lot of drinking occurs in which there is little to no sexual assault. It's not an automatic phenomenon, it's the result of creating a culture that disrespects women.
I believe they misuse the stats to dramatically overstate the link (stats minor btw!). They are using the clubs as a scapegoat in their movement to combat sexual assault, and they are using the demand for action against sexual assault to attack the clubs.
What do you see as their motivation to take this action? There's little upside for the administration that I can see, other than doing the right thing.
The students were working towards equality on their own.
Not in much seriousness. This issue has been bubbling for years, and only two organizations changed their policies. I think in 2016 it's not okay to be "working towards equality." In fact, the president of one of them just had to resign because his comments about not wanting to integrate the clubs read as a retaliatory threat to incite a greater incidence of sexual assault.
posted by Miko at 4:13 PM on May 6, 2016 [23 favorites]
I flat-out reflect the "of course" here. it's possible to have places where a lot of drinking occurs in which there is little to no sexual assault. It's not an automatic phenomenon, it's the result of creating a culture that disrespects women.
I believe they misuse the stats to dramatically overstate the link (stats minor btw!). They are using the clubs as a scapegoat in their movement to combat sexual assault, and they are using the demand for action against sexual assault to attack the clubs.
What do you see as their motivation to take this action? There's little upside for the administration that I can see, other than doing the right thing.
The students were working towards equality on their own.
Not in much seriousness. This issue has been bubbling for years, and only two organizations changed their policies. I think in 2016 it's not okay to be "working towards equality." In fact, the president of one of them just had to resign because his comments about not wanting to integrate the clubs read as a retaliatory threat to incite a greater incidence of sexual assault.
posted by Miko at 4:13 PM on May 6, 2016 [23 favorites]
Yes, there's lots of drinking outside the clubs, and many people lead happy and raucous social lives completely outside of them. But the high attendance at club parties implies that there is demand for social spaces that is not met by university or otherwise public facilities.
I was speaking of unfortunate incidents broadly, from yes, rape, to an unwanted kiss, but also on to fights and kids falling and getting injured. That said, I knew of no significant assaults that took place at my club when I was a member (of course, I wouldn't necessarily know about it if it did happen, but I never saw it). I did definitely see some crazy and creepy stuff go down at on campus parties, repressed intense nerds partying do bonkers shit. A all male group does not necessarily create a culture of disrespect to women. We didn't have awareness education, but we were intelligent and reasonable men, you don't do things that are wrong and stupid. Bad behavior was frowned upon, and occasionally disciplined with suspension from the club and sometimes full revoking of membership.
The progress towards gender equality I was thinking of was not a transition to co-ed memberships, but the rise of all female clubs to be nearly equal in population.
Making organizations co-ed would tend to reduce the prevalence of these things.
Absolutely. But what troubles me is that the university is making an attack on free association instead of actively trying to produce alternative, attractive environments on their own. The clubs are problematic, but they are also independent. There are already social penalties to membership, as some students will choose to dislike someone else based on their membership in a club.
What do you see as their motivation to take this action? There's little upside for the administration that I can see, other than doing the right thing.
It's an attack on the clubs! These clubs are very problematic on campus for many reasons, but it's also my most treasured experience. As an undergraduate I often said, "I wish everyone could be in a club." I liked the space, the group of friends, the access to booze and comfortable chairs. I got no buzz from being a member of an exclusive group. Many kids make similar situations for themselves with their student groups. Some groups were extremely social, throwing parties both closed and open. Very important note, almost every single student group at Harvard is not simply open to anybody, they often have long tryout processes which are very often followed by an election, where one may not gain entry even if all assignments were completed. All of these student groups are elite. I was accepted to some, and rejected from others. The final clubs are not the only closed part of the college.
The two main problems with the clubs are the single sex and the elitism. If this rule pushes the clubs to go co-ed, guess what, they just doubled the elitism because now there are the same number of spots open to more than twice as many students.
Just a note Re: greek life, it is very significantly less prominent on campus than the clubs. Many of them are rather new charters. I never really experienced the more common frat system of other universities, but it's not a stretch to simply interpret these clubs as frats.
posted by abcanthur at 5:32 PM on May 6, 2016
I was speaking of unfortunate incidents broadly, from yes, rape, to an unwanted kiss, but also on to fights and kids falling and getting injured. That said, I knew of no significant assaults that took place at my club when I was a member (of course, I wouldn't necessarily know about it if it did happen, but I never saw it). I did definitely see some crazy and creepy stuff go down at on campus parties, repressed intense nerds partying do bonkers shit. A all male group does not necessarily create a culture of disrespect to women. We didn't have awareness education, but we were intelligent and reasonable men, you don't do things that are wrong and stupid. Bad behavior was frowned upon, and occasionally disciplined with suspension from the club and sometimes full revoking of membership.
The progress towards gender equality I was thinking of was not a transition to co-ed memberships, but the rise of all female clubs to be nearly equal in population.
Making organizations co-ed would tend to reduce the prevalence of these things.
Absolutely. But what troubles me is that the university is making an attack on free association instead of actively trying to produce alternative, attractive environments on their own. The clubs are problematic, but they are also independent. There are already social penalties to membership, as some students will choose to dislike someone else based on their membership in a club.
What do you see as their motivation to take this action? There's little upside for the administration that I can see, other than doing the right thing.
It's an attack on the clubs! These clubs are very problematic on campus for many reasons, but it's also my most treasured experience. As an undergraduate I often said, "I wish everyone could be in a club." I liked the space, the group of friends, the access to booze and comfortable chairs. I got no buzz from being a member of an exclusive group. Many kids make similar situations for themselves with their student groups. Some groups were extremely social, throwing parties both closed and open. Very important note, almost every single student group at Harvard is not simply open to anybody, they often have long tryout processes which are very often followed by an election, where one may not gain entry even if all assignments were completed. All of these student groups are elite. I was accepted to some, and rejected from others. The final clubs are not the only closed part of the college.
The two main problems with the clubs are the single sex and the elitism. If this rule pushes the clubs to go co-ed, guess what, they just doubled the elitism because now there are the same number of spots open to more than twice as many students.
Just a note Re: greek life, it is very significantly less prominent on campus than the clubs. Many of them are rather new charters. I never really experienced the more common frat system of other universities, but it's not a stretch to simply interpret these clubs as frats.
posted by abcanthur at 5:32 PM on May 6, 2016
We didn't have awareness education, but we were intelligent and reasonable men, you don't do things that are wrong and stupid. Bad behavior was frowned upon, and occasionally disciplined
are you sure that every woman who interacted with members of your club would say the same thing? it's my experience that men who think there are no bad apples in their sizable group of only men are more blind to these issues rather than they just happened to find the one group of men that didn't include rapists.
the issue of campus sexual assault is not because drinking happens and then rape happens, as if it's just the way things have to go. it would be good for you to look into how those things happen from a less victim blaming/assaulter excusing framework.
posted by nadawi at 5:47 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
are you sure that every woman who interacted with members of your club would say the same thing? it's my experience that men who think there are no bad apples in their sizable group of only men are more blind to these issues rather than they just happened to find the one group of men that didn't include rapists.
the issue of campus sexual assault is not because drinking happens and then rape happens, as if it's just the way things have to go. it would be good for you to look into how those things happen from a less victim blaming/assaulter excusing framework.
posted by nadawi at 5:47 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
These clubs are very problematic on campus for many reasons
...so it's really hard to understand why you're defending them.
It's no surprise that nice houses with free booze and comfortable chairs would be appreciated by lots of people. It doesn't represent a "demand" on campus - that demand is constant no matter what - and it's not like the clubs are providing a valuable social service. They're enabling people to break the law, for one thing.
The progress towards gender equality I was thinking of was not a transition to co-ed memberships, but the rise of all female clubs to be nearly equal in population.
Do you understand that an equal number in all-female sex-segregated clubs does not mean "equality?"
We didn't have awareness education, but we were intelligent and reasonable men, you don't do things that are wrong and stupid.
If only this were true! But evidence reveals it is not. Also, I think it's really easy to overestimate the degree to which "intelligent and reasonable" equates to "awareness."
I think you would have found something nice to do with yourself had these clubs not existed, or been co-ed and perhaps excluded you because there were fewer spaces. I have faith in the students to do the same. They're a pretty together bunch in general.
posted by Miko at 5:47 PM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
...so it's really hard to understand why you're defending them.
It's no surprise that nice houses with free booze and comfortable chairs would be appreciated by lots of people. It doesn't represent a "demand" on campus - that demand is constant no matter what - and it's not like the clubs are providing a valuable social service. They're enabling people to break the law, for one thing.
The progress towards gender equality I was thinking of was not a transition to co-ed memberships, but the rise of all female clubs to be nearly equal in population.
Do you understand that an equal number in all-female sex-segregated clubs does not mean "equality?"
We didn't have awareness education, but we were intelligent and reasonable men, you don't do things that are wrong and stupid.
If only this were true! But evidence reveals it is not. Also, I think it's really easy to overestimate the degree to which "intelligent and reasonable" equates to "awareness."
I think you would have found something nice to do with yourself had these clubs not existed, or been co-ed and perhaps excluded you because there were fewer spaces. I have faith in the students to do the same. They're a pretty together bunch in general.
posted by Miko at 5:47 PM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
> but we were intelligent and reasonable men, you don't do things that are wrong and stupid.
Oh dear. Are we really going to No-True-Scotsmen "intelligent and reasonable men"? Are men who do things that are wrong and stupid - especially when they are young and away from home for perhaps the first time - never to be found among that group?
I went to Dartmouth. There were lots of really intelligent and reasonable men there, many of them my friends, and a great many of them did indescribably wrong and stupid things. Often when drunk.
posted by rtha at 5:59 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
Oh dear. Are we really going to No-True-Scotsmen "intelligent and reasonable men"? Are men who do things that are wrong and stupid - especially when they are young and away from home for perhaps the first time - never to be found among that group?
I went to Dartmouth. There were lots of really intelligent and reasonable men there, many of them my friends, and a great many of them did indescribably wrong and stupid things. Often when drunk.
posted by rtha at 5:59 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
Often when drunk.
And often, I should add, at the behest of their brothers - their fellow intelligent and reasonable men who were theoretically supposed to look out for and care for one another's well-being.
posted by rtha at 6:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
And often, I should add, at the behest of their brothers - their fellow intelligent and reasonable men who were theoretically supposed to look out for and care for one another's well-being.
posted by rtha at 6:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
May this be the first of many. Harvard has the clout to make such precedent. Its long past time.
posted by yesster at 8:07 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by yesster at 8:07 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seems like some of the men had a bit of a problem, back in the day, with female final clubs, anyhoo.
posted by Miko at 8:36 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:36 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
If this rule pushes the clubs to go co-ed, guess what, they just doubled the elitism because now there are the same number of spots open to more than twice as many students
Check your logic again there.
abcanthur, I was an undergrad at Harvard many years ago. I have no doubt you have fond memories of your club. Spare a thought to the many people who cannot say the same, due to "unfortunate incidents" that may have happened to them while visiting a final club, be that it may that you have no knowledge of any "significant assaults" at your particular club. Think about what sort of dynamic and culture the final clubs perpetuate, implicitly or explicitly.
I've never felt compelled to donate to my alma mater. Until now.
This is unequivocally fantastic news!
posted by nemutdero at 12:05 AM on May 7, 2016 [10 favorites]
Check your logic again there.
abcanthur, I was an undergrad at Harvard many years ago. I have no doubt you have fond memories of your club. Spare a thought to the many people who cannot say the same, due to "unfortunate incidents" that may have happened to them while visiting a final club, be that it may that you have no knowledge of any "significant assaults" at your particular club. Think about what sort of dynamic and culture the final clubs perpetuate, implicitly or explicitly.
I've never felt compelled to donate to my alma mater. Until now.
This is unequivocally fantastic news!
posted by nemutdero at 12:05 AM on May 7, 2016 [10 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Please don't offer innuendo about the identity of other commenters; if you suspect something fishy, bring it to the contact form.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:54 AM on May 7, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:54 AM on May 7, 2016
College students are adults, and as in the workplace, what you do when you're not at the college isn't any of their business.
Don't know about your particular workplace but in general, in most states, a private employer can fire you for just about anything you do when not at work. You can be fired for your political activities. You can be fired for having the wrong bumper sticker on your car. You can be fired for drug use. You can be fired for blogging. You can be fired for smoking cigarettes. You can be fired for drinking alcohol. You can be fired for moonlighting. You can be fired for dating other employees. You can be fired for risky hobbies. You can be fired if you are overweight.
posted by JackFlash at 8:22 AM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Don't know about your particular workplace but in general, in most states, a private employer can fire you for just about anything you do when not at work. You can be fired for your political activities. You can be fired for having the wrong bumper sticker on your car. You can be fired for drug use. You can be fired for blogging. You can be fired for smoking cigarettes. You can be fired for drinking alcohol. You can be fired for moonlighting. You can be fired for dating other employees. You can be fired for risky hobbies. You can be fired if you are overweight.
posted by JackFlash at 8:22 AM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Has anyone looked at the report? It's damning. It far exceeds the scope of just the final clubs, though those are identified as a significant contributing issue. And the report committee? Not some group of disgruntled students massaging data, but a committee of faculty and advisers with academic expertise in related issues and study design that exceeds the standards of most sociological research.
This piece in the Atlantic discusses a bit more about the way these clubs work in campus society and why the effect is perncious.
posted by Miko at 9:27 AM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
This piece in the Atlantic discusses a bit more about the way these clubs work in campus society and why the effect is perncious.
posted by Miko at 9:27 AM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
Some relevant excerpts:
The survey data on locations in which sexual misconduct occurred give further reason for concern. Here, too, students were offered the opportunity to identify the locations where nonconsensual sexual contact occurred. Choices included university residence hall/dorm, fraternity or sorority house, other space used by a single-sex student social organization, other residential housing, non-residential building, other property (e.g., outdoors). Not surprisingly for a residential campus, the majority of nonconsensual sexual contact involving Harvard College females took place in dormitories. The next most common location was “other space used by a single-sex student social organization.” (In fact, the rate of sexual assault occurring at “other space used by a single-sex student social organization” was more than double that of the next most frequent location.) Given the separate listing for fraternities and sororities, the category “other space used by a single-sex student social organization” mainly refers to Final Clubs at Harvard.2 Of the Harvard College women reporting nonconsensual penetration through the use of force, 17 percent designated this “other space used by a single-sex student social organization” as the location (the corresponding number for nonconsensual penetration through incapacitation was 10 percent). The numbers for nonconsensual sexual contact occurring at this “other space” were 19.5 percent (force) and 13.9 percent (incapacitation).3 These rates are alarming, especially given the limited time non-members spend in the Final Clubs.posted by Miko at 10:11 AM on May 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
...In addition to conducting the AAU survey, the Task Force also gathered information from outreach interviews. These conversations provided distressing context to the statistical picture that emerged from the survey. In short, we heard reports by many female students of unwelcome sexual encounters involving Club activities. These experiences ranged from unwanted advances to involuntary sexual encounters to comments and actions that contribute to a harmful sexual culture on campus. Incidents were described as happening on Final Club dance floors, in hallways, and in private rooms at the Clubs.
Specifically, we heard reports from students of a strong sense of sexual entitlement within some of the male Final Clubs, stemming in part from the members’ control of social spaces that are imbued with a certain historical tradition and that elevate members’ social status on campus. A woman’s physical appearance is often seen as the basis for entry to these spaces, and female students described a general expectation that entering Final Club spaces could be read as implicit agreement to have sexual encounters with members. We understand that many of the Clubs typically exclude non-member men from parties, which gives an unambiguous frame to social events, eliminates non-member male bystanders, and enables a gender ratio that makes it easier for members to have a sexual encounter. Party themes and invitations have reflected a misogynistic view of women and reinforced a sense of sexual entitlement. Students pointed to competitive games between members where a man will “win” a particular woman or compete for the most sexual triumphs.
As largely unsupervised social spaces, Clubs also present special opportunities for underage and dangerous drinking.... In fact, a culture of heavy alcohol use has been institutionalized as inherent to students’ social and sexual culture, and alcohol is often seen as a tool for getting sex. Many students voiced concern, based on personal experience, over the ability to return to their dorm room safely after a Final Club party, when it can be difficult to get back alone without someone “walking them home” and seeking a sexual encounter, especially when they have been separated from friends. Students raised specific concerns for freshmen women and for female guests from other schools, who may be less aware of the unsafe culture the Clubs can present.
We are not suggesting that the problem of sexual assault at Harvard is solely or even principally a byproduct of the activities and influence of Final Clubs. The behavioral and cultural problems run deep and implicate a range of institutional structures and behavioral choices that extend well beyond the Clubs... That said, the information in our possession makes clear that any effective response to unwelcome sexual conduct on the Harvard campus must include a serious and sustained examination of the contribution of Final Clubs to the problem.
It is important to underscore our view that the problem goes beyond the number of sexual assaults that are completed or that originate in a Club’s physical spaces, as significant as that is. As we have noted throughout this report, culture — both on our campus and in society at large — matters tremendously, both in creating an environment where nonconsensual sexual assaults can take place and for any prevention efforts to be sustained and successful. Our outreach interviews indicate that Final Clubs have a disproportionate influence on campus culture — and, more importantly, one that is in many respects negative and helps perpetuate an environment where sexual assault occurs with the frequency reported in the AAU survey.
For example, students shared their deep concern about the continuing presence of social spaces owned by male- only groups with exclusive membership practices. Students understand that Harvard’s centuries-long history as a predominantly white male institution creates an imprint on their educational experience, but they expect to see progress moving forward. While many institutional issues related to gender inequality were addressed in the 1970s-’90s, partly through the merger of Radcliffe with Harvard, male-only Final Clubs are a vestige of gender inequity that also perpetuates a significant divide on campus. This divide begins in freshman year, when freshmen men resent being denied entry to desirable social spaces and losing an opportunity to connect with female peers. Excluded women feel the same resentment, while women who are included as guests are exposed to a culture often inimical to Harvard’s mission and over which women have little control.
Count me in as another person concerned about the effects this will have on women's spaces and clubs, many of whom would have sprung up specifically to counter the male-only spaces. The article mentions sororities, and a couple of other commentors have asked about this, but no answers yet.
posted by divabat at 4:37 PM on May 7, 2016
posted by divabat at 4:37 PM on May 7, 2016
My interpretation is that women only spaces, clubs, sports teams, a capella choirs, etc. with charters as student organizations will be fine. Sororities and women's final clubs, which are explicitly banned from being chartered student organizations, will be treated the same as fraternities and other final clubs.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:50 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 5:50 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
no answers yet
I think hydropshyche's analysis is right, but there can't be definitive answers on that until the Class of 2021 agreement criteria are drafted and approved for implementation. So that's the thing to watch for next.
posted by Miko at 7:19 PM on May 7, 2016
I think hydropshyche's analysis is right, but there can't be definitive answers on that until the Class of 2021 agreement criteria are drafted and approved for implementation. So that's the thing to watch for next.
posted by Miko at 7:19 PM on May 7, 2016
Many of my family members have ties to frats and sororities over multiple generations, so I don't talk with them about my feelings about the Greek system or post on Facebook, but yeah I think it's time for it to go. It seems Harvard is willing to do as much as they can within their authority to discourage them. It's welcome news and long overdue.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:36 PM on May 7, 2016
posted by krinklyfig at 9:36 PM on May 7, 2016
Sororities and women's final clubs, which are explicitly banned from being chartered student organizations, will be treated the same as fraternities and other final clubs.
That seems like a really terrible idea, given that the issues that sparked this move to begin with happened in men's spaces.
posted by divabat at 12:10 AM on May 8, 2016
That seems like a really terrible idea, given that the issues that sparked this move to begin with happened in men's spaces.
posted by divabat at 12:10 AM on May 8, 2016
I don't think so. I think what's really interesting about this move is that Harvard is thinking very deeply about what it wants a campus community to be. And they can see that these exclusive groups that operate solely through social networks are harmful to the kind of campus community they want to create. Say what you will about Harvard, they are unique even among ivies and have their own sometimes quirky ideals, they don't do things just because everyone else is doing them, and they give careful and deliberate consideration to issues like this. I see it as a strong assertion that student life is for everyone, and that exclusive social clubs have no place in that system. There could still certainly be clubs focused on women's issues and topics, they just couldn't be exclusive. In fact, heck, there can still be sororities, it's just that as a student you'd have to choose which was more important, a sorority network or campus leadership.
This is part of the rationale behind the development of the Holyoke Center, too. A former campus services office building, it is being completely rehabbed into the Smith Campus Center, a student center with a lot of study, recreational, meeting and performance space. Most campuses have a hub, and Harvard at present really doesn't, so this should make a big difference in giving every student a place other than a library to be included.
posted by Miko at 6:32 AM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is part of the rationale behind the development of the Holyoke Center, too. A former campus services office building, it is being completely rehabbed into the Smith Campus Center, a student center with a lot of study, recreational, meeting and performance space. Most campuses have a hub, and Harvard at present really doesn't, so this should make a big difference in giving every student a place other than a library to be included.
posted by Miko at 6:32 AM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Harvard already treats sororities and female final clubs/similar orgs in the same way as male final clubs: they're not recognized as student organizations and aren't allowed to advertise events on campus by postering, etc. And there's still ways for groups of women to be in control of parties via the House system since most of the big party suites (which are lotteried) are single sex.
posted by en forme de poire at 2:18 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 2:18 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
JackFlash: Don't know about your particular workplace but in general, in most states, a private employer can fire you for just about anything you do when not at work. You can be fired for your political activities. You can be fired for having the wrong bumper sticker on your car. You can be fired for drug use. You can be fired for blogging. You can be fired for smoking cigarettes. You can be fired for drinking alcohol. You can be fired for moonlighting. You can be fired for dating other employees. You can be fired for risky hobbies. You can be fired if you are overweight.
Yes, and all of that is a really bad thing that we need to fight to get rid of. Not support it because we can use it as a cudgel against things we don't personally like. All of it just feeds into the creation of a world in which nobody is allowed to be themselves but the elite.
Also, that's largely only true in the US.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, and all of that is a really bad thing that we need to fight to get rid of. Not support it because we can use it as a cudgel against things we don't personally like. All of it just feeds into the creation of a world in which nobody is allowed to be themselves but the elite.
Also, that's largely only true in the US.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Harvard Women Rally Against Single Gender Policy [i.e. against the newly announced restrictions]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
But Harvard officials contend the new policy is part of a broader push to eliminate all forms of gender discrimination on campus.
The more I think about it the wiser I think this is. The university does lots of projection and is certainly aware that the number of transgender and genderfluid or agender students is going to increase. In some ways this policy seems to me a way to get far ahead of the game, having the university proactively opt out of having to adjudicate anyone's gender and how it affects their right to belong to a campus organization or take a leadership role in a campus organization. Harvard's already been working through this with Schuyler Bailar's swimming career. This does seem like a strong statement about where the future of gender-based organizations might be going.
posted by Miko at 9:18 PM on May 10, 2016
The more I think about it the wiser I think this is. The university does lots of projection and is certainly aware that the number of transgender and genderfluid or agender students is going to increase. In some ways this policy seems to me a way to get far ahead of the game, having the university proactively opt out of having to adjudicate anyone's gender and how it affects their right to belong to a campus organization or take a leadership role in a campus organization. Harvard's already been working through this with Schuyler Bailar's swimming career. This does seem like a strong statement about where the future of gender-based organizations might be going.
posted by Miko at 9:18 PM on May 10, 2016
But Harvard officials contend the new policy is part of a broader push to eliminate all forms of gender discrimination on campus.
This just sounds like "but reverse sexism is real!!!"
posted by divabat at 11:30 PM on May 10, 2016
This just sounds like "but reverse sexism is real!!!"
posted by divabat at 11:30 PM on May 10, 2016
« Older Evidently Mom has the hots for weirdo weatherman | 19.52 Megatons per Pound Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Wow, this is sure to not backfire.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:50 AM on May 6, 2016