Back in May I reported (see also here:1, 2, 3) how Harvard University, under the aegis and urging of President Drew Faust, had proposed punishing students who join single-sex (or rather, single-“gender”) social organizations that aren’t affiliated with the University. These include the famous “finals clubs,” which include all-male and all-female as well as co-ed versions. And these punishments can be quite severe. As I wrote in May:
Beginning with the class of 2017 [now with students entering in 2018; see below], any Harvard student found belonging to a gender-exclusive group will experience these sanctions (taken from the Post article):
- Those students won’t be able to hold any leadership position in Harvard’s undergraduate organizations, including sports teams. That means that if you belong to an off-campus fraternity, you can’t be captain of the all-male football team. Or if you belong to a sorority, you can’t be president of the women’s crew team. Ironic, isn’t it?
- Those students will not be able to apply for prestigious fellowships, like the Rhodes and Marshall scholarships, that require endorsements from Harvard. Harvard will not support the students by sending the required university recommendation and endorsement.
I thought, and continue to think, that this is a terrible idea, for it violates Harvard’s own policy of allowing students freedom of association. Why should they be punished for what they do off campus so long as they adhere to the student code of conduct on campus? And I’m not the only one who thinks this; Steve Pinker weighed in here, agreeing with many Harvard faculty as well as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which sent a letter of protest to Harvard.
Under Drew Faust, Harvard hasn’t done much to burnish its image, but rather has descended into a form of authoritarian leftism increasingly afflicting Ivy League schools (see, for instance, here and here). I don’t think Faust’s been a particularly visionary President, and I’m not unhappy that she’ll be retiring next June after a decade on the job. Because I got my Ph.D. at Harvard, really enjoyed my time there, and am a bit protective of its academic reputation, I do care what happens to the school. And of course I’m always monitoring the attempts of colleges everywhere to erode student freedoms.
When I wrote Faust as a Harvard alumnus, I got this tepid response, but it was all I expected.
Dear Mr. Coyne,
Thank you very much for taking the time to write. I appreciate having your perspective on this important set of issues, and I have taken the liberty of sharing your concerns with Dean Khurana.
Sincerely,
Drew Faust
It’s ironic that Faust, who has pushed these punishments for single-sex association to a faculty vote, is a member of Board of Trustees for her own alma mater, Bryn Mawr College, a college that does not accept men as undergraduates, even transgender men.
Nevertheless, as Harvard Magazine reported, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) voted on November 7 to impose the sanctions (rejecting a motion to derail them by a vote of 130 against, 90 in favor). And yesterday the same magazine reported that imposition of the sanctions will begin very soon: in May of 2018, before this year’s class of new students enters. The report quotes a statement by Faust and Harvard Corporation fellow William F. Lee that was read to the FAS meeting yesterday. All the sanctions above will be applied, and students who want postgraduate fellowships or hope to have a leadership role on a sports team will have to quit their clubs. And that, of course, may kill the clubs, which is surely a goal of the new policy.
Not that I like these clubs: I wouldn’t be a member (I didn’t participate in fraternity rush in college), and I object to their exclusionary policies. But that’s irrelevant to the principle of freedom of association. Further, Faust and Lee deny that they’re “punishing” the students; rather, they are simply controlling their behavior and defining their identity:
The policy does not discipline or punish the students; it instead recognizes that students who serve as leaders of our community should exemplify the characteristics of non-discrimination and inclusivity that are so important to our campus. Ultimately, students have the freedom to decide which is more important to them: membership in a gender-discriminatory organization or access to those privileges and resources. The process of making those types of judgments, the struggle of defining oneself, one’s identity, and one’s responsibilities to a broader community, is a valuable part of the personal growth and self-exploration we seek for our undergraduates. The USGSOs, in turn, have the choice to become gender-neutral and thus permit their members full access to all institutional privileges.
This is really disingenuous, because of course the new rule punishes and disciplines students who belong to off campus single-sex clubs (remember, several of these prohibit men from joining): it forbids them from getting certain positions on College teams and from applying for scholarships. You simply can’t get a Rhodes or Marshall scholarship, for instance, without a letter of endorsement from your college.
It’s perfectly acceptable (and laudable) for the College to prohibit sex discrimination in its own organizations, but I see no right they have to enforce such behavior for organizations that are private. It’s as if sexist, racist, or anti-religious epithets were also punished when uttered in students’ private homes or apartments—on the grounds that they don’t contribute to the “Harvard identity”. But that violates freedom of speech, and such a rule wouldn’t stand in court.
As Faust and Lee issued their statement, Dean Khurana (see above) also issued a statement to the incoming class—the first class subject to the new policy. While the goals outlined by the Dean are laudable, the sanctions they’ll impose smack of Big-Brotherism. Here’s an excerpt (see more documents and statements at the Harvard Magazine piece); noet the allusion to Trumpian America:
Because we are a diverse community, we will not always agree —on our priorities, on the right solutions to our problems, or even on what a Harvard education means and should be. But we have much common ground. As applicants to Harvard, each of you inspired us with your plans to make a difference in the world and your hopes to inspire those around you. Each of you sought out this unique opportunity to learn from your peers who come from different backgrounds and from all over the world. Now, as Harvard students, you each play a part in helping Harvard College create this diverse, multi-generational, and inclusive community of learning. Our debates about how to create our community may be intense, but we must continue to see each other as fellow members of one community, with obligations to each other.
Changes here at Harvard are occurring against the backdrop of so much division and anger in the United States. Those divisions will not be easily repaired, and the community we create here on campus matters more than ever. . .
How will the University find out who belongs to single-sex clubs? A statement from another dean notes darkly that “enforcing any regulatory policy relies on self-reporting (or perhaps reports from other students.)” In other words, ratting is encouraged. Don’t like one of your classmates? If he or she is a member of a finals club, just tell the dean!
In the end, this is a black mark on Harvard, on the faculty who voted for the measure, and on the legacy of Drew Faust, which, I think, will not be a good one. I agree with what Professor of English Helen Vender said at the November 7 faculty meeting (Vender, like me, doesn’t like finals clubs). This is one of her five reasons for voting against the measure:
Punishing a student for having joined an unrecognized single-sex group by ruling out his or her access, on that account, to overseas fellowships and leadership positions on campus is to confuse two distinct areas of college life by making access to intellectual progress or leadership consequent on private behavior.
h/t: Greg Mayer