“An “advisory committee” will deal with those “enforcement” issues, Harvard says. Also on its agenda may be a contradiction between the new edict and the constitution of Harvard’s elected Undergraduate Council, which expressly opposes “restriction of any one’s freedom of public speech, assembly, expression, or association.” As the president and vice president of that Harvard-recognized body point out in an open letter, “vetting of elected members of student government based on affiliation in certain groups is detrimental, and fundamentally opposed, to . . . the democratic process.””
“By its terms, Harvard’s new policy implies administration veto power over the selection of editors at the school’s literary magazine and radio station, raising knotty free-press issues. More work for that advisory committee.”
It seems like a bit of a slippery slope, doesn’t it?
The way Caltech runs (or at least ran) its house system they come pretty close to being a fraternity.
I was using model minority ironically. Probably should have used some winky faces. I’m guessing Patrick’s friends from Milton punched him and probably helped pay his dues, but who knows.
It is beyond slippery. It is an attempt to create a totally fake community from which students, who buy into this nonsense, graduate and then get drop-kicked by the real world.
Well, even with winky faces, I still would not get it. Given the rest of your post, it must be an inside thing among some, which I am glad I am not privy to.
You do seem to live in a world of stereotypes and presumed discrimination and all that other “I am oppressed” world-view stuff. I know nothing about the guy you are talking about, but because he is a minority I would not assume that he was poor and needed help paying his dues, so not sure about that part of your post either. Another inside joke I am glad I am not privy to.
According to what I have read about this, the members of all female organizations are simply pointing out that the ban --which is largely prompted by a desire to reduce the incidence of sexual assault associated with the all-male clubs–will actually harm Harvard women in dismantling the effort they have put into building the same kind of networking/support systems for women that apparently did not exist before the female final clubs.
I have a female relative who is a recent H grad and a member of one of the female final clubs. When asked her thoughts, she said essentially that.
I have always thought that one of the best things about Harvard–and Yale–was the residential college system, which was supposed to provide that kind of bonding experience. Of course, the reality for a few hundred years has been that some are more equal than others, but since most people didn’t belong to final clubs, most people could shrug it off.
They don’t seem to be saying that it is okay to close down the men and spare them. Can you show me where that is stated?
BTW, two of the male final clubs recently added female members.
No I don’t live in a world of stereotypes. I think the finals clubs are icky. I’m pretty sure that in the late 70s (when Patrick and I were at Harvard) there were very few people of color in any of the finals clubs. Those that were admitted almost certainly had prep school connections. But they were not part of my life there. I only knew two people who admitted to being members. When I was there there were no female finals clubs and no Greek organizations. The first female finals club was created in 1991 long after I was out of there.
soccergyw315, limiting rapes is the reason Harvard gave, not the women’s groups. The women’s groups are responding that many of their groups work to eliminate the rapes or support women after assaults.
@soccerguy315, it is my understanding that there have been a significant number of sexual assaults reported at some of the male final clubs, typically linked to underage drinking on their private premises, often by inexperienced underclasswomen. It isn’t a matter of people making wild assumptions that any and all male clubs are necessarily “rapey.”
The ban wasn’t the idea of the women in the female final clubs. They are PROTESTING it, for doG’s sake.
The entire fiasco, which is taking a hit from both the left and the right, is a naked attempt to instill a politically correct ideology, while using sexual assault as its cover. Nothing more. The steps being taken just do not add up.
OK, let’s accept the premise that there is underage drinking (duh) and sexual assaults related to this drinking (duh) at the male finals clubs. Can someone logically explain why and how adding more females to the club by going co-ed is going to change the male behavior and the subsequent problem, especially given the fact that there is no concurrent ban on the underage drinking? All this policy does is conveniently add more potential female victims to the mix, and for some reason, the admin thinks by simply calling these females members of the club that things will change and less sexual assault will occur. Huh?
Additionally, why does the admin think by going coed that the troublesome males, who are taking advantage of females, are going to magically change? If I were a guy out looking for vulnerable females at my club, and you force me to change my club that I like, but in the process, you also supply my “new” club with more potential victims, do you think I would now become a nice guy? Or would I be angry and say “thanks” under my breath, accept female members, and just continue the same behavior? A rhetorical questions, obviously,
In short, nothing in the new policy changes anything about underage drinking, male drunken behavior, female drunken behavior, and the follow-on sexual assaults alleged by females. These all stay the same, but are now done under the new moniker ‘coed.’
Therefore, I call BS on the entire thing, and it is really a politically correct move to disband male groups, but ended up messing up the all female groups, who like their all female groups.
Suggestion for Harvard - how about a diversity of groups and (male, female, coed) and students can choose which environment they like? A novel idea, I know. And yes, I thought of it myself.
I totally agree with the female finals clubs protesting this ban on co-ed given that the logic of the admin position does not add up in the least.
However, it seems that the female finals clubs are at odds with some other females who want to disband the male finals clubs, as someone had to lobby the admin for this and we know it was not men. Whether these were female students lobbying for this or females in admin, I do not know; suspect some of both.
Some women are protesting the end of exclusionary clubs, but there is no evidence that they are the majority of Harvard women. Rather they are women who want to exclude. Excluding behaviors happen, if they are allowed to happen.
Actually the Harvard Crimson conducted a survey on the finals clubs in 2013. I believe 2000 sophomores and juniors responded to the survey. 49% of the men who responded said that the clubs had a negative social effect on campus life. The survey also showed that women rather than men were more likely to be “undecided” on whether both male and female clubs should be abolished.
Well no, the suggestion was made by a task force convened by Harvard in 2014, led by Steven Hyman, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. The task force was to to make suggestions about how the University could significantly improve its efforts to prevent sexual assault at Harvard. Membership included faculty, students and staff from across Harvard’s Schools. One of their recommendations was:
These endless Harvard threads always amaze me. There are about 17.3 million undergraduate college students in the US. About 6700 of them are enrolled at Harvard. That’s about 0.04%. Four one hundredths of one percent. Yet CC constantly ties itself up in knots over every nuance of the plight of that 0.04%
Consolation,
"Ah, MiamiDAP, your ability to discern reasons not to consider Ivy League schools never ceases to delight me! " - Very nice to hear from you too! I am glad that I keep you entertaining and more so on Friday! Have a great weekend!
@scipio - it gets smaller than that for this thread. Not sure what percentage is covered by eating clubs and single sex groups. My guess it is takes it down to 0.01% or less.