---------------
This drastic recommendation is the product of anecdote and
generalization, rather than data and analysis. The anecdotes are largely about
men’s clubs, and though the report doesn’t mention it, most of the students
affected by the policy would be women. Rather than targeting the malefactors
and placing them in statistical context, the report uses dramatic stories to
justify moves against clubs that have done nothing wrong. It is as though an
attack by somebody’s Rottweiler was justification enough for taking away other people’s
service dogs, St. Bernards, and poodles.
The use of “exclusivity” to consign all the women’s clubs to
the same fate as the most drunken of the men’s final clubs seems almost
certainly designed to meet the President’s condition of not inviting a lawsuit—which
recent Crimson reporting suggests may
happen anyway. Women members will testify that these organizations have grown
for reasons that have nothing to do with the drunken parties that happen at some
male final clubs; alumnae have told me that the support they received from
other members was not just enjoyable, but essential to their success at
Harvard. The report offers no evidence that getting into one of the women’s
organizations is particularly competitive, relative to the psychic rewards of
membership (it is probably less stressful than repeatedly being “lotteried by
application” out of limited-enrollment FAS courses). The report’s vague call
for “increased efforts to foster other social opportunities for students”
sounds a good deal like a recommendation to “repeal now and replace later.” Of
course, the argument that women’s organizations are “discriminatory” is
irrefutable—but also entirely abstract: no evidence is offered that men have ever
wanted to join them.
But these are practical details. Even if we were to conclude
that the clubs “should” not exist, and that our students and alumnae are
exaggerating their importance, the whole idea of punishing students for joining
private, off-campus organizations—for peaceably assembling, as the Bill of
Rights puts it—is deeply wrong.
It is true that the rights enumerated in the First Amendment
are dangerous to established order. As Americans, we can ridicule our
president, and can gather peaceably together in groups that cause the
authorities to suspect that we are up to no good. It took supreme confidence on
the part of the Founders to build into the Constitution the assurance that the
government would not interfere with these activities. It might watch us closely
and stand ready to respond when we break a law, but Congress could not make the
speech or assembly itself unlawful. The reason these things are allowed, even
when they are considered obnoxious or worse by prevailing social standards, is
that the Founders understood that society is not static, and they had
confidence that an enlightened if not always harmonious society will in the
long run be better off, that social progress will occur, if people are allowed
to speak and assemble peaceably even for reasons the authorities find offensive.
Harvard is a private institution and is under no legal
obligation to follow the principles that apply right outside Harvard Yard. On
the other hand, we should consider ourselves to be, if anything, more enlightened than the average place
in America, more capable of governance through the rule of reason. This absolute
ban—modeled on a policy for rural institutions where fraternities were
residential and the entire social structure was drastically different—projects a
lack of confidence that students should be allowed the same freedoms that the
Constitution guarantees to all citizens. It is as though we don’t think that appeals
to facts and reason will work with our students, and therefore there is no
other way to proceed except by making a rule and then enforcing it with
discipline. Yes, something must be done, but it is simply not true that everything
else has been tried. For example, as I testified to the committee, the College
has never tried (that I am aware) even the simplest of campaigns: to tell students
not to join or go to the worst of the clubs, and why, and to explain the same
forcefully to the parents of incoming freshmen. My own freshman advisees last
year, who entered the College when it was at peak alarm about the ills of
USGSOs, reported that no one had said a word to them about this subject in any
orientation, proctor meeting, or written communication.
We are an educational institution. We teach students in
everything we do. If we can teach students to guard themselves against
infectious diseases without quarantining them, we can get them to stay away
from those clubs where we have good reasons to think they should not go. Let’s
give our students, and ourselves, more credit than to say that the only possible
response is an outright ban, which to be effective would have to be enforced by
some system of tips from informants, surveillance of off-campus restaurants where
suspiciously regular dinner meetings might be taking place, and Ad Board
punishments.
To proudly adopt a ban would be to teach by example that
when a national leader attacks the free press or peaceful protests, he may be
responding quite appropriately to the irksome downsides of citizens’ exercise
of their civil liberties. Just because the rest of the world is finding authoritarianism
more congenial than personal freedom, that doesn’t mean Harvard has to follow
suit.
