Sexual assault is a disgusting act that has no place in any part of society, an institution of higher education or elsewhere. But efforts to eliminate it should not be manipulated to curtail freedom in the process.
In a stunning display of academic totalitarianism, Harvard is essentially forbidding new students from joining fraternities, sororities, or independently run single-sex “final clubs”, which are Harvard’s cross-pollination between Greek organizations and secret societies. Under a new policy, members of the class of 2021 who join such groups will be forbidden from holding leadership positions on athletic teams or other recognized student organizations, and they won’t receive school recommendations for such academic honors as the Rhodes Scholarship.
This decision comes on the heels of a scathing sexual assault survey in which 31 percent of Harvard women reported experiencing “non-consensual sexual contact” over the course of a year. After the dormitories, final clubs were the second-most cited location for assault. But in making the announcement, Dean of Harvard College Rakesh Khurana disparaged the idea of single sex final clubs altogether: “Ultimately, all of these unrecognized single-gender social organizations are at odds with Harvard College’s educational philosophy and its commitment to a diverse living and learning experience.”
This thinking should cause great pause.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly as a form of speech are vital to a free and just society. (Perhaps that’s why the Founding Fathers specifically named this right as the First Amendment.) Playing with this privilege in any way requires great caution.
As such, the Harvard administration’s argument struggles on three pillars.
First, it is deeply concerning whether this move will actually help solve the sexual assault crisis. All-male clubs provide a wonderful target for progressives and provides much in the way of politically expediency. But symbolic action is not a solution.
The majority of reported attacks occurred in the dormitories. To follow the administration’s logic, Harvard should immediately disband them. But it won’t, of course. So instead, let’s also ask: what is the culture of the dorms? Three quarters of the sexual assaults took place in the dormitories, while 15 percent occurred in “single-sex organizations that were not fraternities or sororities.”
Second, Harvard should pay attention to the fact that many of the school’s women want all-women groups. Three members of the graduate board of one such group, the Sablière Society, wrote in the Harvard Crimson that the new policy could cause all-female final clubs to die out, putting the benefits of their networks and support systems to “tremendous waste.” In the words of Harvard women who protested the school’s action, the policy destroys their “safe space.”
The idea is that all-female groups help women tackle specific issues, grow intellectually, and learn in nurturing environments. I think that’s a fantastic resource, and so do the members of the all-female final clubs who will now be forced to disband against their will.
Third is the attack on equity. If the all-male clubs exist solely to “propagate exclusionary values” and harness power for themselves, then by not admitting women, they would ultimately fail in their goal. By ignoring the spectacular accomplishment of women these groups would have less powerbrokers from which to choose membership. Skull and Bones, the Yale undergraduate secret society, is committed to advancing each member’s societal status. As such, they acknowledged the power women could bring to their organization by voting females into the society in 1991. This, in theory, would make their organization more competitive than their Harvard counterparts.
There is also a logistical issue. Where do you stop blacklisting? It’s hypocritical. Harvard broadcasts a vibrant student life. Some of these clubs appropriately target people with specific heritage or gender. Finals clubs do participate in exclusion but so do other university clubs. Should university funding stop for any organization that is not inclusive of everyone’s interests? Would a Harvard College Republican actually be welcome to join the Harvard College Democrats?
This is dangerous decision. An institution of learning is forbidding its students from freely joining a private lawful organization of their choosing. It is a very slippery slope, one that deserves even more scrutiny given the lack of political diversity at Harvard. Eighty-four percent of Harvard University faculty donations went to Democratic candidates in 2014.
As such, it follows that this decision transcends more than just survey data. It’s about institutional identity. It’s homogenous group-think from the far-left. The administration doesn’t like the finals clubs, and it doesn’t like what they represent. Harvard wants to break its ties to elitism and sees final cubs as “a stereotype of a white, privileged, male enclave” operating with a ” reinforced a sense of sexual entitlement”. The only problem is that finals clubs are not exclusive to white males.
Harvard is to be commended for addressing the problem of sexual assault on campus. We can stress the importance of this point while also recognizing that historical abuses against the right to assemble still make us cringe. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly mean nothing unless we tolerate the very speech or very organization of which we disapprove.
Richard Menger is a physician and a Master in Public Administration candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is the 2015-16 Hale Champion Public Service Fellow.
