If the Harvard administration wants to recenter social life in the Houses and decrease the power of these organizations, I would suggest they need to make the Houses a four-year experience (i.e., do it the way the peer school with the most similar housing system, Yale, does it). If freshman (who would still all live together in the Yard) arrived on campus already affiliated with a House, took a significant number of meals in that House, participated in intramural sports and other activities with other members of that House, dealt with the dean of that House on academic matters and went to parties/mixers in that house, they’d form close bonds with the 100 or so other frosh and the 300 or so upperclassmen in that House and the power of the organizations Harvard’s cracking down on would decrease significantly. Some at Harvard agree: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/2/14/pafs-consider-housing-change/ , http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/23/harvard-yale-housing-model/
Yale has frats and social clubs of all kinds, including the famous senior societies, but they’re not a threat to the social order and there’s no movement to ban them. I think this is the reason.
Undoubtedly this would be a big change, but there’s precedent. In the '90s, there was a kerfuffle when the Harvard administration was considering “randomization” of the Houses (i.e., assigning “blocking groups” to Houses randomly). Eventually, because it was the right policy, they adopted it. The world continued to spin on its axis: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/3/21/randomization-transformed-houses-in-the-late/?page=single
I think that one of the reasons the Finals Clubs have become more important may be because the Houses no longer have any personality. In my day, I only knew of one person who was even a member of a finals club. They were a non-issue for most people. (I came from a prep-school background, so by rights I should have known more.)
I also think that Deepblue’s idea of assigning freshman to houses is another idea that has merit. My understanding is that there is some notion that building a sense of class freshman year helps with fundraising in the long run. I lived up at Radcliffe my freshman year because I wanted to be around upperclassmen, but that is no longer an option, in retrospect I think that I missed more by not being in the Yard. I like Yale’s you can do both solution.
I am not a fan of the Finals Clubs, but I really don’t think Harvard should be regulating what kids do off campus on their own time. The Hasty Pudding has been coed going back to the 70s, puts on theatricals and always seemed quite harmless to me and very different from the other clubs. It was certainly not considered a finals club in my day, and I can’t believe it’s on the chopping block too.
Not to be picky but it is Final clubs not Finals clubs.
Less than 10 per cent of the students are in final clubs. They discriminate against minorities. Maybe they should just go away. Most of the Harvard students do have lots of fun and don’t pay any attention to the Final clubs
From a quora post about the Bee (a female club)
"Broadly, the Bee is seen as the wealthiest, most elitist club, with many members coming from prominent families and/or graduating from New England prep schools. It also seems like many Bee punches are drawn from the ‘Circle of Women’ membership. "
The Bee seems like it is fifty years behind the times. It is time for it to go away too.
“So, unless Harvard’s administration is going to take Williams’ lead and THROW ALL-CAMPUS parties, what are Harvard student’s going to do for F-U-N!!!”
Kids at Notre Dame seem to figure out a way to have F-U-N!!! without fraternities, sororities or secret clubs. I think the fact that the kids stay in the same dorms (generally) all four years helps. Well, that and some pretty good tailgates.
Having watched this on and off for awhile, it’s unclear to me why Harvard’s administration seems so hell-bent on picking a fight with organizations that serve 10% of their students and have (presumedly) significant alumni networks as well. Making the assumption that Khurana isn’t a quixotic ideologue or just plain stupid, he must have a reason for putting so much personal capital into this fight. While I normally have a guess at someone’s motivations, it’s entirely unclear what his might be as I can’t see this as a sword worth falling on nor do I see it as something that’ll pay any return on his personal brand. Likewise, I can’t even see it as a moral issue–single-gender clubs at a university are the most first-world of problems. Finally, I find the implications of the writeup interesting and disconcerting–we will punish you for creating an exclusive club for you and your friends. Really? In what context* is this a worthwhile idea?
BYU has similar policies but I have a significantly different expectation for them due to their significant religious component.
*some of the comments on the Crimson talked about $975M of funding at risk due to Title IX issues. That’s mind-bogglingly laughable. It would require an alternate universe to find a scenario where Harvard lost the ability to secure government funds.
“^^ Okay tell that to the members of A.D., Delphic, Fly, Fox, Owl, Phoenix, Porcelain, Bee, IC, Pleiades, La Vie, Sab, Spee, Alpha Epsilon Pi, Kappa Sigma, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Sigma Chi, Delta Kappa Epsilon, Alpha Phi, Delta Gamma, Kappa, Alpha Theta, or Kappa Kappa Gamma.”
I’m sure those kids will find plenty of ways to have fun without belonging to an exclusive club - just like 90% of current Harvard students already do.
In my opinion, this is a supremely foolish policy. As a private institution, Harvard has the right to be foolish, if it so desires.
I’ll just observe that none of the truly brilliant people of my acquaintance–and there are many–are in the least biddable. If you tell them something’s forbidden, they will only agree with you if they respect your reasoning. A desire for an earthly Utopia to break out on a campus freed of “exclusionary groups” is not a sign of reason.
I’ll also note that the plan calls for the Administrative Board to have a lot of time on its hand, subjecting undergraduates to the question for the crime of wishing to exercise the right of free association.
I am very glad I don’t have any children who would be interested in applying to Harvard.
I don’t even understand how they are planning to enforce this. Are they going to send their minions to the clubs to check IDs? They are private property!
When Faust discussed the decision and reasoning to do away with such societies it garnered the longest and loudest round of applause from the in-coming class at Veritas this April, of any utterance made during that event
Not if they model their policies after those of Williams or Bowdoin (as specifically recommended by the faculty committee).
Both Williams and Bowdoin banned frats and sororities long ago, but they still have Phi Beta Kappa chapters. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have other Greek-letter honor societies (as opposed to Greek-letter frats) as well. It looks like Williams also has a Sigma Xi chapter, for example.
Correction - they have banned some frats but not others. All frats are “societies” regardless of what you name them. And when I was inducted into PBK their materials were very clear that it was the FIRST collegiate greek-letter fraternity in the US. And it was a private induction ceremony. And it’s exclusive, to put it mildly.
Let’s allow Phi Beta Kappa itself to define what type of organization it is. And PBK itself now says that it is an “honor society”, not a fraternity. For example, the current PBK motto – which you will find at the top of every PBK web page – is “The Nation’s Oldest Academic Honor Society”. https://www.pbk.org/web
Oh OK, @Corbett - so it’s a matter of marketing? LOL. Go and check out the definition of “fraternity”. You say potahto, I say potato.
While you are at it, read about the origins of PBK in 1776 at College of William and Mary. It started, and continued, as a secret society with all the bells and whistles. Wiki will have the appropriate original and secondary sources:
“Founded at The College of William and Mary on December 5, 1776, as the first collegiate Greek-letter fraternity, it was among the earliest collegiate fraternal societies and remains the oldest existing American academic honor society.”
"Like the older, Latin-letter fraternities, the Phi Beta Kappa was a secret society. To protect its members and to instill a sense of solidarity, each had the essential attributes of most modern fraternities: an oath of secrecy, a badge (or token) and a diploma (or certificate) of membership, mottoes (in the case of the Phi Beta Kappa, in Greek rather than in Latin), a ritual of initiation, a handclasp of recognition; to these, the Phi Beta Kappa would soon add another attribute, branches or “chapters” at other colleges. "
It hadn’t changed much when I was inducted 30 years ago.
These nit-picking rules stating which students can associate with which particular “societies” is within the rights of private universities, assuming that they have not violated any federal law or DOE regulations. But saying they exist in order to fight “exclusivity” is laughable if they keep PBK.
And PBK says “academic honor society”. Their opinion trumps yours or mine.
I’m also a PBK member, and am familiar with the ancient history. I also know that PBK no longer functions as “a secret society with all the bells and whistles”. They now function as an academic honor society.
Many people and colleges don’t like “social exclusivity”, but have no problem with “academic exclusivity”. If a school grants exclusionary titles like “summa cum laude” or “honors in History” based on academic performance (which both Williams and Bowdoin do), then why would they object to PBK or Sigma Xi, which are also exclusionary based on academic performance?
If you think this distinction is “laughable”, that’s your prerogative. However, it obviously doesn’t bother schools like Williams or Bowdoin. I doubt that the Harvard faculty are concerned about it either.
@Corbett you are correct that they probably aren’t all that concerned. And whether a former secret society that professes to celebrate “excellence in the arts and sciences” opts to white-wash its own historical origins and operations is secondary to the main point here which is this: if banning “exclusionary” clubs and societies for being exclusionary, you might want to do good job explaining which such clubs and societies ARE NOT banned and why.
Many students are simply not going to be invited to join academically-exclusive-but-still-approved societies through no fault of their own. For them, the social societies would have been their primary entré to positions of leadership and influence; however, no more (at Harvard, Bowdown, Williams, etc). Are those colleges and universities comfortable with restricting such entrées to just to the academically strong? Or are they going to loosen the strings a bit and become more inclusive, perhaps changing the qualifications for any under-represented group so that they can join too? Perhaps they just want to be able to exercise more control over how their students enter those spheres of influence, so as long as it meets certain “institutionally-approved” requirements it can be as exclusionary as it wants (it’s not the exclusion per se, it’s the type of exclusion that the school is changing).
In any case, they seem at this point to be a bit inconsistent in what they are calling “exclusionary”. ALL societies - whether it be academic, social, something else, or a mix of any or all - are “exclusionary”. That’s what makes them a “society”.
My prediction is that it is actually a moot point. The only thing that happened at Harvard was that a faculty committee made a recommendation. That’s not actually a big deal, and it does not seriously threaten the status quo. I personally don’t expect Harvard (or any other Ivy) to dramatically shake things up.
The LACs have proven that banning fraternities and sororities can work – not just Williams and Bowdoin, but schools like Middlebury, Colby, and Amherst as well. Williams pioneered the phase-out of frats in the late 1960s, so their policy has been in place for nearly 50 years. And while it was controversial at the time, it’s now taken for granted; no one in the Williams community today has any interest in turning back the clock.
However, the Williams approach has little traction outside of the elite LACs. OK, so maybe the faculty at Harvard think it’s a good idea – that’s still not nearly enough to make it actually happen. The idea will be discussed, for sure, and there will be loud expressions of support and opposition. But that’s as far as it will go.
