Final Decision


Yesterday Harvard’s president announced that starting next year the school will effectively punish members of its all-male final clubs. Although the clubs are not directly afiliated with the university and are located on private property, the school will prevent members from campus leadership roles and opporttunities such as the Rhodes scholarship.

Harvard Magazine has a write-up here, and the Crimson here. — CC

26 Comments on "Final Decision"

  1. Will they be equal opportunity punishers?

  2. Bring on the lawsuits.

  3. Orange Fiji | May 7, 2016 at 2:47 pm |

    This will only drive the clubs underground. Much like how fraternities got started in the 1800’s when they really were “secret societies.” I do agree that this will bring on a lot of lawsuits is of dubious legality.

  4. So they’re not allowed a “safe space”? Seems everyone else is.

  5. But not everyone is equal. Marginalized victim groups are allowed safe spaces. The oppressor group must relinquish its spaces. That’s social justice.

  6. “Single-gender organizations that are recognized by the University, such as the South Asian Men’s Collective or the Association of Black Harvard Women, won’t be affected.”

    Now that’s interesting. Some single-gender organizations are more equal than others?

  7. Probably an unpopular viewpoint here, but I always that the exclusively male thing a bit odd. Then again, I happen to prefer the company of women in almost every undertaking.

  8. M Arthur | May 8, 2016 at 1:22 pm |

    The man with a napkin on his face gets the prize! In a sea of conformity, he goes his own way…

  9. I’m with Oli, I prefer the company of women…

  10. I thought these were smart people leading Harvard.

  11. I generally prefer the company of women as well, as most men are quite limited in conversational scope.

    However, having been brought up on American television, I often fantasized about being a member of the International Order of Friendly Sons of the Raccoons or the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo.

  12. Anything they can do to derogate the order and rituals of the Anglo-Saxon male. The educational semaphores propitiate the Social Justice crusaders with oblationary burnt offerings of white male flesh. Their ablution is made whole by these acts and their compunctions are satiated. This rank vitiating of the 1st Amendment will be struck down.

  13. Ezra Cornell | May 8, 2016 at 9:29 pm |

    There is an amusing irony here. Both “sides” of this debate are scrambling to claim that *they* are the true victim of the other side’s insensitivities. What’s delicious is that those styling themselves the “conservative” (Anglo-Saxon, male, etc., etc) opposition are simultaneously tut-tutting over the current “culture of victimhood,” while also claiming themselves the “victim” of left-wing ideology. To listen to both “sides” sounds like toddler combatants in a sandbox fight. I hate to see good rep ties and sack jackets ruined in such fashion, so, gentlemen, please get down to skivvies before getting down into the mud.

  14. It’s certainly possible to be the “victim” of someone who claims victim status. False accusations come to mind.

    I’m sure we’ve all had a family member, coworker or failed romance in which someone paints themselves as a victim and you as the evildoer, when in fact it’s passive-aggressive manipulation BS and they’re the real bully and jerk and you’re the one getting framed.

  15. Taliesin | May 9, 2016 at 4:23 am |

    The Crimson reports: “A yet-to-be-appointed committee of students, faculty, and administrators will craft the enforcement strategy for the broad proposal, likely a difficult task given that many unrecognized social clubs do not publicize their membership.”

    I would suggest that they call this committee the Star Chamber.

  16. Rick Woodward | May 9, 2016 at 10:08 am |

    ToTaliesin: I think Politburo works pretty well.

  17. Ezra’s point is well-taken. What is to be gained, either for one’s self or for our society in the general, by taking the low-road to power by claiming victimhood? Raising such an objection is at best a willful disempowerment in the long run, though it scores brownie points with the soft-minded in the short of it. Being above such things is probably the best way to, well, be above such things.

  18. As Jonathan Haidt noted over the weekend, until what’s left of the free speech left speaks out against the illiberal left, this will continue.

  19. Is nothing sacred anymore? Why must bleeding-heart liberals politicize everything? White males can’t have their private, non-university affiliated final clubs, but every non-male, non-Caucasian group is free to create and maintain, often with university funding, any type of club they want? I wonder in how many exclusive, elitist associations, clubs and societies President Faust and others like her hold membership. But that’s OK for the hypocrites.

  20. If Harvard really wanted equality, they’d disperse their endowments to less fortunate universities or support new tax codes to allow the taxman to stealing them. Why should such institutions with administrations that seem to admit are cesspools of bigotry, crime and rape culture be allowed tax exempt status?

    Secondly, there is no such thing as “social Justice” and Harvard takes a steaming dump on the 1st Amendment. Best and the Brightest?

  21. @MRS

    Where’s the Haidt quote from? I tried Google News and found his WSJ piece over the weekend, but not that particular quote.

  22. If any form of private association that perpetuates privilege must be dismantled, what justification is there for the continued existence of Harvard itself?

    • saigokun | May 9, 2016 at 1:45 pm |

      @Andrew Ingels – Harvard knows this is coming, so I’m sure this is more political placation to hold off their being dismantled.

  23. @Christian – it was a tweet – I noticed Jonah Goldberg retweeted it.

  24. Final clubs and the like are “enacting forms of privilege and exclusion”? Harvard is the living definition of privilege and exclusion! Faust exposes her hypocrisy by using the modifier “forms of…” which demonstrates that it isn’t privilege and exclusion she objects to, it’s only certain kinds. If college today is a loveless place it’s because of pinched-up Puritan bureaucrats like her in leadership roles.

  25. Let me uphold Godwin’s Law and point out that the Third Reich also cracked down on college fraternities, fearful of the possibility of divided loyalties. The fraternities went underground:

    ‘During the times of the Third Reich, the national socialist leadership chose to forbid academic fencing. They had recognized that Mensur fencing was an integral part to the internal strength of the last still-existing independent Studentenverbindung fraternities during the later 1930s. As Nazi pressure increased and fraternities were forced to officially suspend their activities, so-called comradeships were founded. These provided means for practicing and organizing the Mensur among former fraternities while remaining undetected to the Nazi secret police.’ (Wikipedia article: “Academic Fencing”)

Comments are closed.