That reasoning is gobbledygook because it provides no basis or proof that anyone is being undermined or shorted anywhere The admin just says that students are. That is solely a chosen ideological position by the admin, not a proven condition.
And to say that same sex clubs/environments undermines students kind of throws a nuclear bomb into feminism. Who knew men were totally necessary for women to fully develop their potential? And all this time I thought women needed men like fish need a bicycle. Gloria Steinem call your office, as the females in Harvard admin seems to have not gotten your memo.
So are people now saying that females at all-women colleges are being shorted in development and in life preparation by not associating with men in clubs and groups during their college experience? I guess they being shorted according to Harvard admin. I better tell my recruiters at my company that we have been screwing up on which school produce the most competent women who can also deal intellectually with men on an equal basis.
Is there any evidence that these all-women colleges produce females who are shorted in inter-sex social skills and in ability to relate to men in general? No. In fact, the argument is that these all women institutions strengthen women’s ability to deal with men.
Go figure - Wellesley, Smith, Mt. Holyoke etc. will be surprised to learn that their existence is not good for women and that their female students need to have men around to strive, and their students are less equipped to deal with men precisely because the admin at Harvard says its female students are shorted by not being part of coed clubs/groups.
Anyone get the feeling that these admins are just making stuff up to justify an ideology instead of actually looking at reality. They are giving smart people a bad name and becoming a laughing stock as their ideology trips all over itself.
The best part of this ideology tripping on itself is that in the same breath Harvard is calling for more inclusivity and diversity. Then it turns around and limits choice of clubs and groups that students can join. I guess inclusivity and diversity of choice in clubs and groups is not part of the ideology. Admin is in for a real surprise when it learns the real world is more diverse than Harvard pretends to want to be.
Those clubs are neither inclusive nor diverse. In the extensive threads about Greek culture, posters often say, if you don’t like a school where Greeks dominate, choose one where they don’t. This administration is trying to make that choice available to interested students. And if you like that sort of socially exclusive organization, there are many fine leading Universities to choose from.
I may be wrong but I don’t believe that Harvard offers single sex housing. They have moved toward, not away, from integration and diversity. They did away with the ability to choose Houses because of the resulting loss of diversity. You can make up what you like about what they might think about single sex colleges. It’s simply not the experience they want to provide at their institution.
It’s interesting to observe this as a Yale alum and parent. At Yale, the closest thing to the finals clubs, the secret/senior societies, have all gone co-ed, mostly voluntarily, despite strong resistance by alumni. On the other hand, there has been a significant growth in Greek organizations, both fraternities and sororities. Perhaps because they have emerged together, I haven’t heard many complaints about the fact that they are single-sex. There are some other single-sex entities on campus, such as acapella groups, most notably the Whiffenpoofs. (There is a separate and not really equal group for women.)
So perhaps what needs to happen at Harvard is for the Greek organizations to put pressure on the finals clubs to go co-ed, so the Greek system can be saved. I’ll bet there is a substantial overlap in membership.
That would depend on the amount of leverage and perceived positioning vis a vis Greek organizations and final clubs.
My understanding is that the latter have little incentive to listen to the Greek organizations as they are complete independent organizations with a greater proportion of wealthy well-connected powerful alums AND the seeming perception among many Harvard undergrads that among classmates who are into final clubs…the final clubs are much more prestigious and harder to get into.
While there is some overlap…not everyone who is in a Greek organization will get selected to join a final club and I doubt Greek members, especially those who haven’t been selected yet and who aspire to be a final club member would desire to jeopardize their selection chances/exclusivity aura by pressuring final clubs.
Also, do Greek organizations have much leverage to even pressure final clubs considering all this?
I suspect that many current members of finals clubs are also members of Greek organizations. I’m just suggesting that if the finals clubs cave, the Greeks might be able to escape the application of the new rule. If nobody caves, nobody will get out of the application of the new rule. The Greeks won’t cave, because their national organizations won’t let them.
I don’t think they need to make the Glee Club coed. If you want to sing in a large single sex group you sing with the Chorale. If you want a capella there are numerous groups - both single sex and mixed. I think there are reasons beyond camaraderie for single sex music and sports groups.
I would have guessed that members of finals clubs would not also be in Greek organizations. Seems like too much redundancy to me. I always figured the Greeks at Harvard were finals club wannabees.
I do think that Harvard wants the residential colleges to provide what traditionally Greek organizations provided. I’m sad that apparently so many students think they aren’t. They did in my day.
I’m just wondering as based on what I’ve gathered from Harvard undergrads/alums that if push comes to shove, the final club members tend to overwhelmingly prioritize their final club over their Greek affiliation.
I’m not sure how inclusive the clubs and Greek organizations are at Yale and I’m not sure I’d hold them up as a goal for Harvard to emulate. The reviews I have read tend to underscore a hierarchical social scene within those clubs and the criteria for inclusion, at least at some, appear to be based on (1) money, (2) connections, and (3) appearance. There was a comment about one of the “lower tier” (whatever that means) sororities that over 100 women were cut from rush and people should be happy to be included in any chapter that accepts them.
I agree with @Hanna that those who want that sort of experience have more than 1000 schools from which to choose. Harvard has repeatedly emphasized that what they really want their students to experience connections with those different from themselves.
I guess I don’t get the point. The Post thinks that minorities, women, and students from low SES backgrounds should be treated as second class students because it’s hard to get into Harvard and Harvard has a lot of money?
In order to get to your position, one must start out believing that the clubs are explicitly treating “minorities…and students from low SES backgrounds” as second class citizens. No one has proved that in any way; they just say hoping it sticks as fact.
If students choose to associate together, Harvard should leave them alone. But to then say that those students are explicitly discriminating just because they want to be around their friends is the easy way out without having to prove actual discrimination. This is a premise, a conclusion and a solution looking for supporting evidence, which it is solely lacking.
Not sure why you included women in your list of second class citizens because there are all female clubs and no one was ever complaining about them. Therefore, you must think that female discrimination against males is OK, but the reverse is somehow going against some holy grail. This entire situation is lacking in consistency.
Do the finals clubs have scholarships for model minorities? They might. I’m basing this on the fact that Deval Patrick (former governor of Massachusetts) was originally from Chicago’s South Side and grew up in public housing. He was a scholarship student at Milton. While at Harvard he was a member of the Fly Club, but he quit in the 1980s. (After graduating from Harvard, before running for governor.)
Most of the social organizations being discussed do not admit women. If you can’t see that as discrimination, I don’t think there’s any more to discuss. I’m willing to bet that minorities and low SES students are far under-represented in these organizations as compared to the student body.
I’m not a fan of sororities either, contrary to what you’d like to make up about me. I believe that all these socially exclusive clubs are undermining the undergraduate experience that the administration is trying to create.
How many of the top 20 universities provide Greek-free campus life? I’d be interested to see a list.
If you mean the USNWR top 20 national universities, Caltech, Rice, Notre Dame.
Among the USNWR top 20 liberal arts colleges, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Carleton, Naval Academy, Haverford, Vassar, Harvey Mudd, Colby, Grinnell.
However, there may be “underground” fraternities and/or sororities at some of these schools, and there may also be entities that have some fraternity/sorority-like characteristics (e.g. coed “social houses”).
Using your own words as the basis, it follows that: "Most female-centered social organizations (not just sororities) at Harvard do not admit men. If you can’t see that as discrimination, I don’t think there’s any more to discuss."I fine with this as long you understand the women’s groups are being as equally discriminatory as the men’s groups.
OK, we may actually agree that both male and female groups do discriminate on whom they choose as members.
However, we do differ in that I happily accept that all-female groups would not want me as a member. I do not see that as discrimination against me; I see it as confirmation that those females want to have some single-sex comaraderie time to themselves. I see nothing wrong with that at all, and I would not want to break that up - none of my business to do that.
And note that no men were complaining about not being admitted to all female organizations. I suspect it is because we males get it - there are times we do not want the other sex around and just want to be with the guys in our guy club. We suspect there are times women want the same, as the all-female clubs prove.
I do give Harvard admin credit in realizing that all-female groups do discriminate against men, and thus the blanket co-ed policy change. It is the fairest way to resolve whatever Harvard is trying to resolve. That said, what I disagree with is that it is absurd not to acknowledge the sexes are very different (get over it - we are not the same) and there are times when both sexes would rather socialize only with their own sex.