That is fair. And I think Harvard is totally fair to prevent use of its name. But I believe sanctioning the groups – likely to the point of dissolution – sets a dangerous precedent. What, in the future, could constitute an “objectionable” group with which to affiliate oneself? The article says that the single-gender organizations do not reflect “21st century values” – how does Harvard define such a vague set of values? Harvard recognizes, one on end of the spectrum, a BDSM sex group student club. On the other end of the spectrum, it recognizes a pro-life group that supports no abortions, no exceptions, in addition to many groups that are anti-gay marriage. There is a Republicans Club and a Democrats Club. I am not condemning or condoning any of those groups, but based on the views held by those groups, Harvard clearly does not endorse the views of any of the groups it “recognizes” – yet it does not recognize “single-gender organizations” because Harvard finds those objectionable. Based on these sanctions, and with the current political climate at Harvard, who is to say that in 10 or 15 years, Harvard will sanction students who are pro-life or women who want to be mothers and not have careers or Catholic students? Harvard would very openly say that it doesn’t consider any of those groups to reflect “21st century values.” On an unrelated but relevant note, since Harvard is full of former high school presidents and valedictorians and students who ran every club in high school, and there are so, so many student groups, and extracurriculars are so important at Harvard, virtually every student has a leadership position in some recognized group or another. Just thoughts, thanks for yours.
But they don’t. The sororities use names like “Cambridge Alpha Phi” and “Crimson Theta” for that very reason. None of the groups are affiliated with the University.
This article and comment are COMPLETELY inaccurate – these groups are not “banned” at the college at all. In fact, the administration has been clear that even with these sanctions, if people want to remain in these groups and relinquish their leadership positions in school clubs and not apply for fellowships they are completely allowed to do so. These groups are just not “recognized” by the college – all that means is they may not use college-owned spaces for events or receive money from the college. That is all. They’re not “banned.” The groups all have buildings/spaces mixed into the “on-campus” buildings owned by the college (it is an urban campus) and the Harvard University Police Department is regularly hired as security for events. Groups hold philanthropy events very publicly. Big difference between being “banned” and being not “recognized”/not affiliated with the university (which is yet another reason the college should have no legal authority over students’ membership in these groups – Harvard has as much legal authority over these groups as it does the Catholic Church). Further, there are a myriad of single-deD groups that are “recognized” (aka funded and provided spaces by) the College – including the Black Men’s Forum, the Organization of Asian American Women in Service, Women in Business, Women in Computer Science, Asian American Brotherhood, a ton of a cappella groups, etc. (Those groups get around the issue by allowing anyone to “rush” or “comp” but generally not taking anyone not in their affinity/gender group.)
That is fair. And I think Harvard is totally fair to prevent use of its name. But I believe sanctioning the groups – likely to the point of dissolution – sets a dangerous precedent. What, in the future, could constitute an “objectionable” group with which to affiliate oneself? The article says that the single-gender organizations do not reflect “21st century values” – how does Harvard define such a vague set of values? Harvard recognizes, one on end of the spectrum, a BDSM sex group student club. On the other end of the spectrum, it recognizes a pro-life group that supports no abortions, no exceptions, in addition to many groups that are anti-gay marriage. There is a Republicans Club and a Democrats Club. I am not condemning or condoning any of those groups, but based on the views held by those groups, Harvard clearly does not endorse the views of any of the groups it “recognizes” – yet it does not recognize “single-gender organizations” because Harvard finds those objectionable. Based on these sanctions, and with the current political climate at Harvard, who is to say that in 10 or 15 years, Harvard will sanction students who are pro-life or women who want to be mothers and not have careers or Catholic students? Harvard would very openly say that it doesn’t consider any of those groups to reflect “21st century values.” On an unrelated but relevant note, since Harvard is full of former high school presidents and valedictorians and students who ran every club in high school, and there are so, so many student groups, and extracurriculars are so important at Harvard, virtually every student has a leadership position in some recognized group or another. Just thoughts, thanks for yours.
But they don’t. The sororities use names like “Cambridge Alpha Phi” and “Crimson Theta” for that very reason. None of the groups are affiliated with the University.
*single-sex groups
This article and comment are COMPLETELY inaccurate – these groups are not “banned” at the college at all. In fact, the administration has been clear that even with these sanctions, if people want to remain in these groups and relinquish their leadership positions in school clubs and not apply for fellowships they are completely allowed to do so. These groups are just not “recognized” by the college – all that means is they may not use college-owned spaces for events or receive money from the college. That is all. They’re not “banned.” The groups all have buildings/spaces mixed into the “on-campus” buildings owned by the college (it is an urban campus) and the Harvard University Police Department is regularly hired as security for events. Groups hold philanthropy events very publicly. Big difference between being “banned” and being not “recognized”/not affiliated with the university (which is yet another reason the college should have no legal authority over students’ membership in these groups – Harvard has as much legal authority over these groups as it does the Catholic Church). Further, there are a myriad of single-deD groups that are “recognized” (aka funded and provided spaces by) the College – including the Black Men’s Forum, the Organization of Asian American Women in Service, Women in Business, Women in Computer Science, Asian American Brotherhood, a ton of a cappella groups, etc. (Those groups get around the issue by allowing anyone to “rush” or “comp” but generally not taking anyone not in their affinity/gender group.)