by Greg Mayer

Harvard Magazine reports that a university committee has proposed that, starting with next year’s class, Harvard students be banned from joining certain off-campus groups. The policy recommended by the committee states (full report here):

Harvard students may neither join nor participate in final clubs, fraternities or sororities, or other similar private, exclusionary social organizations that are exclusively or predominantly made up of Harvard students, whether they have any local or national affiliation, during their time in the College. The College will take disciplinary action against students who are found to be participating in such organizations. Violations will be adjudicated by the Administrative Board.

The intent of the policy is to eliminate membership by Harvard students in single-sex and other clubs disapproved by Harvard administrators. Jerry commented here (1, 2, 3) at WEIT on an earlier Harvard policy, enacted last year, that banned members of such social organizations from student leadership positions and from getting Harvard’s support for post-graduate fellowships. Here’s part of what Jerry wrote at the time:

This [the earlier sanctions policy] is ludicrous. While I’ve never belonged to a single-sex organization (I didn’t try to join a fraternity at William and Mary), they exist, and a student has the right to join one without University action if the group is not part of Harvard. To formally penalize students by withholding leadership positions and those crucial letters of support is a reprehensible and unconscionable act, although one driven by good motives.

Jerry also noted the irony of Harvard railing against “privilege” and “exclusion”: “Harvard thrives on privilege and exclusion,” he wrote.

The new proposal goes considerably further than the current policy, banning (rather than merely punishing) membership. It also extends to groups not previously thought to be problematic, including the Hasty Pudding Club (which is coed). The report notes that an unspecified minority of the committee opposed its recommendations, and one member of this minority, professor and evolutionary biologist David Haig, wrote a dissent appended to the report. He criticized the report’s recommendation for being a poor balance between students’ rights and the need to be non-discriminatory:

The report proposes an escalation of the conflict between unrecognized social organizations and Harvard College. Rather than certain benefits being withheld, the recommendation is that membership in these organizations be considered incompatible with being a Harvard undergraduate. Moreover, the scope of the policy has been expanded to include groups that admit both men and women but are considered socially exclusionary.

The sanctions policies have involved a conflict between competing goods: on the one hand, respect for student autonomy and freedom of association; on the other hand, non-discrimination and inclusivity. The report strongly favors the latter over the former goods. I continue to favor a balance more on the side of student autonomy because I am unconvinced that the policy, when implemented, will solve the latter problems.

He also noted that the report took a rather selective view of student input on the issue of outside club membership:

There is a disconnect between these numbers on student opinion [60 % of students opposed the sanctions in a 2017 student referendum that had an over 40% participation rate by the students] and the general tone of this committee’s report which emphasizes deep unhappiness among students with the social environment created by the clubs  … The various committees on USGSO policy, including this one, have never sought quantitative unbiased data on student opinions but have relied on selected comments of students opposed to the clubs. … There is no doubt that some students, faculty, and deans find the clubs deeply offensive but well-informed social policy requires knowledge of the full-range of student opinions. Harvard College can do better in reasoning with data.

Last year, when the earlier sanctions policy was announced, both Jerry and I wrote to Drew Faust, the President of Harvard, to protest. Here’s what I wrote to her (June 4, 2016):

Dear President Faust–

I was appalled to learn that the University intends to monitor students’ participation in non-Harvard affiliated organizations, and to penalize those students who associate with groups that Harvard disapproves. This is a frankly shocking development. That you could even contemplate such illiberal, authoritarian, and coercive measures confounds me. The objections to the policy are several:

It is a gross abrogation of students’ freedom of association.

It proposes guilt by association. Most sexual assaults occur in the houses– are we to judge all students who live on campus guilty, and penalize them?

It forces Harvard to make what seem to be arbitrary, or perhaps even unprincipled, distinctions. Why are some single-sex organizations exempted, while others are subject to sanctions? Many religions enforce sex segregation to a greater or lesser degree– are these also candidates for disapproval?

It forces Harvard to become the arbiter of a potentially unlimited number of organizations’ worthiness. Although this round of sanctions is designed to address the very worthy goal of eliminating sexual assault, what next goal will require Harvard to further scrutinize the associations of its students to insure conformity?

It will require an Orwellian scheme of surveillance, because the organizations penalized are private, off campus groups, whose membership is not public knowledge.

The way to promote Harvard’s ideals of equality, opportunity, non-violence, and civility is by exemplifying these values in its campus life, University policies, and pedagogy, not by instituting illiberal policies that would require monitoring of unprecedented scope. I urge you to reconsider your decisions with regard to these matters.

Jerry got a pro-forma email response to his note, but I actually got a phone call from Rakesh Khurana, Dean of Harvard College (who had initiated the earlier sanctions policy, and chaired the committee now proposing a ban), to discuss my concerns. We had a civil and respectful conversation, but neither of us succeeded in convincing the other. I still stand by what I wrote last year. If anything, the new proposal expands, just as I feared, the scope of what Harvard might choose to sanction. To enforce the policy, the committee even considered requiring a sort of ‘loyalty oath’ affirmation (“Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Hasty Pudding Club?”), similar to what some other colleges have instituted, but decided not to recommend one, though adding, ominously, “at present”.

The policy is in the lap of Harvard’s president, Drew Faust. The reporter for Harvard Magazine seemed taken aback by this, having expected formal faculty participation:

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the report is that it seems to make clear that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences [the dean of FAS appointed the committee] will not be given an opportunity to vote on any of the committee’s recommendations. Instead, the report invites faculty feedback through a website, email, or during “open faculty discussions” that will take place at the beginning of the academic year. Such feedback, the report says, “will be taken into account” when the recommendation is presented in the fall to President Faust, who “will make the final decision.”

Based on a quick perusal of the comments section at Harvard Magazine, the proposal, is a taking quite a shellacking, with a number of commenters noting that President Faust belongs to and/or supports a number of all-female organizations and institutions. However, commenters at Harvard Magazine will probably be dismissed as ‘cranky alumni’.

_________

JAC: I’ve added one comment about Faust’s membership in a women-only organization (the graduate school does admit men):