There is debate going on about the statistics in the study on sexual assault, and causation versus correlation. And most assaults happen in the dorms. However, Harvard has to address this in order to maintain federal funding, I believe.
There are exclusive country clubs that still have the male name and then the wife as “Mrs. X” in parentheses. There used to be a continuum from prep school to Harvard finals club to country club and often investment management and such. This patrician culture is almost dead, aristocracy being replaced by meritocracy. The 60’s pretty much set this in motion.
I think the fact that certain minority-focuses single gender organizations are recognized and not affected by this new policy is very interesting. I suppose they can say the function of the organizations I mentioned above is more than social, and perhaps constitutes some sort of affirmative action. But I think that this kind of apparently discriminatory application of the new policy must pose legal issues.
This has nothing to do with campus safety or well being of the students and everything to do with punishing a group that represents something that makes some people uncomfortable.
My specific area of discontent with this has to do primarily with the inclusion of Sororities and Woman’s groups. It is highly doubtful that these organizations are contributing to the incidents of sexual assault on campus. These organizations are important as women are still not treated and recognized in the same manner socially and professionally as their male counterparts. I appreciate the elitism component of these considerations and I am not in favor of promoting anything or maintaining anything that excludes students. I am aware of the challenge in accomplishing that.
There are many outstanding young men and women who are in Final clubs, Fraternities and Sororities, to deny them leadership positions because of their membership in those organizations is ludicrous. Our daughter is deeply committed to several volunteer organizations at Harvard as well as serving on the executive board of a significant Harvard run student organization and she also works for the admissions office at Harvard, and oh yeah she is in a Sorority. The thought that her Sorority involvement would negate her ability to hold leadership positions in these organizations that she gives so much of herself to is beyond comprehension to me.
As an aside I will express again what I have expressed in previous posts regarding lack of social opportunities for students at Harvard. That anyone could think that perplexes me. There is always so much going on at Harvard I don’t understand how anyone could be challenged to find interesting and fun things to do. Lectures, presentations, museums, student performances, organized activities at the Freshman houses and Upperclassman houses, hundreds of clubs based on students specific interests, athletic events. There are so many opportunities to be socially involved.
I am sensitive to those students or families that have the impression that Harvard is lacking in this area but I do not understand it.
@coupmom How is this move associated with federal funding? I can’t think of any federal requirement that a school penalize membership in single sex clubs. As a private organization, Harvard does not have to honor freedom of association but the federal and state governments certainly do.
@gibby the title IX probe may have them skittish, but there’s absolutely no way the government could punish Harvard for not punishing students who engage in a legal organization off campus, even if said legal activity appears to be correlated with an increase in nonconsensual sexual contact. It would be akin to punishing the university for not banning students from attending a cambridge based nightclub with a reputation for employees assaulting students. Harvard would have the authority to self impose said ban, but no way the government could pressure them to police students’ involvement with off campus organizations.
The lawyers of the Harvard Corporation think otherwise and the administration is proactively doing something so that federal funding is not taken away – which would be the punishment. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/qa-sexharass.html
why doesnt this apply to female sororities? why just men? it doesnt seem fair, especially with the president being female and all… im a woman btw.
i think i can understand why they wouldn’t let frat kids be leaders in other groups IF there’s historical evidence that those frat kid leaders only end up choosing their fellow fratties to be a part of whatever group they’re a leader of.
but in that case i think they should just discipline people individually if they’re caught doing that, not just blocking all frat/sorority kids from leadership positions… that doesn’t seem to be fixing whatever problem it is they’re claiming to even have…
Thanks Gibby, I was having trouble finding this after reading it a couple of days ago. Hope it’s okay that I copied and pasted for the other thread over on the parents’ forum, where posters also questioned the connection to federal funding.
@otoribashi, this actually does apply to all female social clubs as well. The Sabliere Society has a lot of talented, intelligent young women that will no longer be considered for leadership positions on campus if they remain associated with their organization. I’m sure the administration would have preferred to single out men, but would have run afoul of the law. So if a few women are thrown under the bus, it’s apparently worth it if they can bring down the Final Clubs.
Women have been at Harvard for 50 year. The sororities are fairly new, maybe the last 10 years? The women at Harvard were obviously missing something they felt they needed at Harvard, so they formed the sororities. It is a lot more work when the school won’t recognize them, let them have a student meeting place, distribute literature on rush at orientation. The women must really have wanted/needed their own organizations.
I hope Harvard is planning a way to replace these groups. To make the groups dissolve and then provide nothing else will not solve the problem that the sororities were formed to address.
They weren’t allowed in the finals clubs though were they? Now, maybe two of them? if they’d been coed from the time the college went coed, then they might not have formed women-only groups.
Agree. Amherst (where, if you join an underground frat you can be expelled) just completed a trial of their new coed social clubs called “branches” this past semester.
@danstearns that’s so messed up. (wanted to use some other language there…)
especially that rhodes scholar thing… they won’t even be allowed to be considered for that stuff? im sorry but this has to be some sort of discrimination. it seems that yet again a school would rather throw away all liabilities for the sake of PR/face even if it means throwing a bunch of other students under the bus and robbing them of opportunities to succeed. absolutely disgusting.
So clearly Harvard has decided to go full potato (never go full potato). Will be interesting to see the dwindling of alumni contributions from now on and student backlash it engenders…
Ironically, President Faust is an alumae of Bryn Mawr college and sits on the board. Bryn Mawr, of course, is an all female college.
In my opinion, Faust has been a good leader. She hasn’t been one to kowtow to the whims of every SJW cause that finds its way to her doorstep. She seems to understand she’s the custodian of something much bigger than herself. Dean Kurhana, the Sociology prof that recommended pulling Rhodes endorsements and leadership positions on campus for anyone associated with a single gender organizations may be a little more shortsighted and consumed with destroying something that he dislikes.
Faust may have felt compelled to follow his recommendation just to keep peace in the ranks, but I would not be surprised to see the College back away from this position and Dean Kurhana be quietly reassigned elsewhere.
Quite frankly, I’m shocked that Harvard has taken such drastic steps to eliminate these organizations. I knew final clubs etc. were never a favorite of the administration, but I feel that this has jumped from 0 to 60. If this rule remains in place - and who knows if it will! - it will probably have desired effect of cleaning house at these clubs. At very least, they’ll become far less prestigious if the top student leaders don’t want to join.
@gibby that may be what Harvard is putting out but it’s BS and they know it. The Finals Clubs have been unrecognized by the university since 84, and while they may only have the numbers now, it’s a safe bet that even if there’s rampant assault happening there, it’s less now than it was in 84. We as a society simply won’t tolerate it like we did then which is why it may seem like things have gotten worse. Harvard admins don’t like that unrecognizing them did nothing to weaken them, and for some reason aren’t willing to stand 100% behind the conviction that they simply don’t want them around anymore. People (not necessarily on this thread) are incorrectly accusing Harvard of freedom of association violations, which as a private institution it has no obligation to uphold. The federal government withholding funds from Harvard because of the organizations its students participate in away from campus? Now there’s a freedom of association violation by a group that has to uphold that right.
“To the poster repeating the claim that the sexual assaults don’t take place in the final Clubs–well no, they are almost non-residential and do not have empty bedrooms”
Of course sexual assaults happen in the final clubs. You don’t have to have a bedroom to have a sexual assault. You don’t even really need a private space, though the clubs do have those.
“for some reason aren’t willing to stand 100% behind the conviction that they simply don’t want them around anymore.”
I don’t know that yet. It’s a hell of a penalty to expel somebody from Harvard. Maybe they can achieve their goal without the nuclear option. The fact that they’re planning to use guns rather than nukes to kill the clubs doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wishy-washy. It may mean that nukes are really serious and cause a lot of collateral damage, so you use them as a last resort, if at all.