Apples and oranges, unlike the headline would imply. This is no longer about gender, or micromanaging an off campus entity. This is very clear cut. A private university can determine their admissions policies, and their retention policy. A college can revoke the privilege if the terms of the 'agreement' - the handbook states the rules clearly- are not adhered to.
So what your saying is that bevause Harvard is s private college they can tell their students which groups they can belong to and which they cannot. They could say if your a registered Democrat or Republican you could could get kicked out of school. Do you agree with this?
Bluejay - you put your finger on the issue. Legally, Harvard could ban republicans if the deemed republican values to be inconsistent with Harvard values. They can make any such rules as they see fit. They just cannot violate anti-discrimination laws in the process. But political parties and social clubs are not protected classes. The risk Harvard takes in doing all of this is the loss of support from alumni and students. Dictating which off campus associations students may have is ultimately a slippery slope towards a chilling, Orwellian end. Is being a member of the John Birch Society a violation but being a member of the American communist party is fine? Who really decides which groups, clubs, parties and organizations are consistent with Harvard values? This is all nonsense and the people behind it should be fired.
If Harvard does not own the clubs' real estate, they really do not have leverage. The clubs' lawyers would argue that Harvard is seeking to eliminate the current use of valuable property in order to acquire it at bargain prices.
"Wesleyan, like Harvard, is trying to improve what it considers a discriminatory and unsafe social scene fostered by exclusive, all-male organizations."
> And what a noble cause, to shut down all-male organizations while encouraging all-female ones.
"Instead of asking the male clubs to admit women, a committee of administrators and faculty released a report that recommends the university forbid students from joining unrecognized single-gender clubs altogether, with a goal to “phase out” the clubs by 2020."
> Unbelievable. "Phase out" clubs over which they have no control and for which there is no official connection? I can only ask, what is the penalty for "being a member" of the Alt-Right and what is the date for that to be "phased out"? Does this also extend to Republicans?
What "we the people" need to face and understand (and clearly we don't now) is that many women are very light on principles (like those of the Founding Fathers, Democracy, Liberty, Freedom, fairness, judgement). And many are also very light on caring what happens to males. To women these things mostly matter "in a relationship" -- when the relationship is not there or goes away there is no need to care any longer.
For all of human history women have taken care of the cave, the kids, the cooking, the cleaning, and managed (and in some cases exploited) the husband to be a provider, and defender for the family (in return for the female benefits, including sex).
Meanwhile, men are out hunting for food for the family, operating fairly with other men (so as not to be punished), helping or hurting other men as either competitors or collaborators, controlling the protection of the area, and the individuals living in the area, getting together to determine "rules" for the area, and how individuals would be treated within it. In short, lots of experience with the whole society and issues of fairness, conflict, and principles.
Women were learning how to relate to and satisfy or manipulate the male who controlled the cave and the family (but did not manage it). That often meant long term planning (or scheming) and indirection.
So, where in that have women learned how to adjudicate issues between people (female and male)?
Many women are good at indirectly, and over time, getting what is good for women (in general). Do women really care about what is good for men? Their husbands now either keep THEM happy or they divorce them and the state takes the husband to the cleaners. Sure, they care about the male kids. But do they know how to challenge them and train them to be adults, or do they more nurture them (mother them), protect them.
So, sure, women may want to be fair and understand principles that apply to everyone but do they really have the tools and understanding (from history and genetics and hormones) to do an effective job at it? I'd say the numbers that do are few for both males and females, but the numbers of women are fewer than men.
There are lots of men who have no wisdom or common sense and who want to "help women" that are also willing to throw other men under the bus. Time for these guys to wise up to what is really going on.
Are you so ignorant to truly believe women have been "scheming" to undermine men since "cave" times? This isn't an issue of men versus women; rather, it is an issue of offering an inclusive environment for the many and diverse types of people attending Harvard and other like-minded universities and colleges with the goal of providing an education that bridges and embraces cultural differences to create well-rounded, flexible students capable of thriving in a global community. Whether it is constitutional or just of schools to regulate their students external social engagements is beyond the dialogue you've opened up, and I beg you to reconsider your understanding of the relationship between women and men and further, the importance of inclusivity in our greater community.
“Though we disagree with the decision, we appreciate the judge and jury’s time and consideration,” he wrote, adding that “Wesleyan believes very strongly in the principle of coeducation.”
> This has absolutely nothing to do with "coeducation".
This is a sloppy article. Not only did the reporter fail to get any input from anybody but the plaintiffs, she apparently failed to recognize the importance of the difference between these two situations. The fact that DKE was involved in the housing setup at Wesleyan was absolutely critical to their suit. DKE's central argument was that Wesleyan acted as it did in hopes of gaining control of their house. From what I've seen Wesleyan's failure to rebut this argument was why the jury found for DKE. In other words, concerns about equity and justice were (the jury decided) merely a pretext. The question was really about who was going to get the benefit from a piece of prime real estate at the heart of the campus. When the Harvard spokespersons Ms. Krantz reached out to said the Wesleyan case was irrelevant they were absolutely right.
If I were a female nubile, fertile college student, I would definitely want in to those all-male party clubs. I would be just one conjugal encounter away from collecting over $50 grand in tax-free child support for 23 years plus whatever Junior's trust fund can cough up, plus Masshealth and subsidized housing. Who cares about those biddies 'Cliffie clubs when the big bucks is beckoning.
If Harvard wants to become a model of inclusion, they should stop the practice of each school funding themselves so The Business School grows and the Education School suffers. Just compare the salaries of their graduates. I read all the comments above and think you all missed an important point. As divide between the powerful and rich and the people who work for them continues to grow, it is the connections one makes at the Final Clubs and on the golf course that get you on the Boards of the Corporations. Women are vastly under represented there, and like it or not, as Corporations have more power than people, that is where the power resides. Not allowing women into the Finals Clubs, not spreading Harvard's wealth among the schools, etc. all keep women, teachers, public health workers, and minorities away from the powerful elite that runs the country.
Where does it say that Final Clubs can only exist if they foster economic equality? Also, you should be aware (and if you are not then you are not "in touch" with contemporary culture) that women and women's group typically proclaim that one of their agenda items is to assist other women in getting higher paying and more powerful jobs -- not men, just women. So, in other words, women do not and will not reciprocate being helped by men "to rise". So, it's blatantly one-sided.
"Administrators say the clubs foster an out-of-control drinking and party culture that leads to sexual assault and permits excluding people based on appearance or social status."
This is total BS and the lefty nitwits at Harvard (and Wesleyan) know it.
Harvard excludes many categories of people based on quotas and academic status. Not many lousy students get into Harvard. How unfair.
It's all part of the nauseating pc movement. What a bunch of wimps
1) Harvard famously does nothing to support social life for undergraduates. Rents are so high in Harvard Square there is almost nothing left but boring chain restaurants and banks, lots of banks. Finals clubs provide one social outlet for some students who want to party on the weekend. Does no one remember being 18? 2) All of Harvard's policy-making is done in secret, with no transparency and with faked "votes" (a total of 7 -- count 'em -- 7 faculty members voted in favor of the new policy). 3) The policy outlaws both men's and women's clubs, so attacking freedom of association based on gender seems to be fair game. Not clear whether African-American Student Association, Japanese Student Club, etc, will also be banned. Maybe freedom of association along racial or national lines is ok, just not gender? Is the LGBTQ club to be banned one wonders? 4)The policy was original set up to combat sexual assault, but the Harvard was embarrassed when the facts showed that most sexual assault at Harvard occurs in the dorms, not the clubs. Hence the pivot to "inclusivity", proving that this is some kind of strange ideology at work. Attempts to explain the ideology don't make much sense. 5) Good idea for all alumni to immediate cease all donations and support for fundraising until the politburo running Harvard now can be replaced.
In short, getting the "right result" (that you and you alone decide is "right") by "manipulating the process". But, "manipulating the process" violates fairness to everyone (each individual) and hands success to certain people while working against other people attaining it (even all by themselves). So, get the right looking result by violating the principles of fairness and equal opportunity that are the very principles upon which our country is based. And, in this case, the process being manipulated is not even in the purview of Harvard -- namely, punishing individuals for free association completely outside the authority of Harvard.
ohmohn, I agree, Harvard grads should cease donations until the administration ends these kinds of behaviors (and make the reasons for deferrals clear).
I turned down the chance to join a final club - not that I was a purist feminist at age 19, just didn't have the money. Also felt my dad's influence, as a GDI (can't expand that here at the Globe).
But I think Harvard is overstepping its bounds even more than Wesleyan. These clubs are private organizations. They own their own buildings. They have no university-supported role. They should get to set their own rules - within the constraints of only of law, not of Harvard rules.
Do the clubs "foster an out-of-control drinking and party culture that leads to sexual assault and permits excluding people based on appearance or social status"? If there's culpable behavior, punish the culprits - that's how American law works and should work, not this sort of group punishment.
Oh, and excluding people based on appearance? Yeah, that's going to keep happening. Social status? Yeah, that too.
Now, I'm off to my suburban poker buddies. All male. We're not that good-looking, nor that high in social status. Somehow we get by.
This comment has been blocked.
This comment has been blocked.
This comment has been blocked.
This comment has been blocked.
> And what a noble cause, to shut down all-male organizations while encouraging all-female ones.
> Unbelievable. "Phase out" clubs over which they have no control and for which there is no official connection? I can only ask, what is the penalty for "being a member" of the Alt-Right and what is the date for that to be "phased out"? Does this also extend to Republicans?
they will want only communist, socialist or democrats...not republicans...and black only commencements
For all of human history women have taken care of the cave, the kids, the cooking, the cleaning, and managed (and in some cases exploited) the husband to be a provider, and defender for the family (in return for the female benefits, including sex).
Meanwhile, men are out hunting for food for the family, operating fairly with other men (so as not to be punished), helping or hurting other men as either competitors or collaborators, controlling the protection of the area, and the individuals living in the area, getting together to determine "rules" for the area, and how individuals would be treated within it. In short, lots of experience with the whole society and issues of fairness, conflict, and principles.
Women were learning how to relate to and satisfy or manipulate the male who controlled the cave and the family (but did not manage it). That often meant long term planning (or scheming) and indirection.
So, where in that have women learned how to adjudicate issues between people (female and male)?
Many women are good at indirectly, and over time, getting what is good for women (in general). Do women really care about what is good for men? Their husbands now either keep THEM happy or they divorce them and the state takes the husband to the cleaners. Sure, they care about the male kids. But do they know how to challenge them and train them to be adults, or do they more nurture them (mother them), protect them.
So, sure, women may want to be fair and understand principles that apply to everyone but do they really have the tools and understanding (from history and genetics and hormones) to do an effective job at it? I'd say the numbers that do are few for both males and females, but the numbers of women are fewer than men.
There are lots of men who have no wisdom or common sense and who want to "help women" that are also willing to throw other men under the bus. Time for these guys to wise up to what is really going on.
This comment has been blocked.
> This has absolutely nothing to do with "coeducation".
This comment has been blocked.
This comment has been blocked.
This comment has been blocked.
you cannot compare a CEO and a school teacher in power of running huge companies that provide thousands of jobs.
This is total BS and the lefty nitwits at Harvard (and Wesleyan) know it.
Harvard excludes many categories of people based on quotas and academic status. Not many lousy students get into Harvard. How unfair.
It's all part of the nauseating pc movement. What a bunch of wimps
2) All of Harvard's policy-making is done in secret, with no transparency and with faked "votes" (a total of 7 -- count 'em -- 7 faculty members voted in favor of the new policy).
3) The policy outlaws both men's and women's clubs, so attacking freedom of association based on gender seems to be fair game. Not clear whether African-American Student Association, Japanese Student Club, etc, will also be banned. Maybe freedom of association along racial or national lines is ok, just not gender? Is the LGBTQ club to be banned one wonders?
4)The policy was original set up to combat sexual assault, but the Harvard was embarrassed when the facts showed that most sexual assault at Harvard occurs in the dorms, not the clubs. Hence the pivot to "inclusivity", proving that this is some kind of strange ideology at work. Attempts to explain the ideology don't make much sense.
5) Good idea for all alumni to immediate cease all donations and support for fundraising until the politburo running Harvard now can be replaced.
But I think Harvard is overstepping its bounds even more than Wesleyan. These clubs are private organizations. They own their own buildings. They have no university-supported role. They should get to set their own rules - within the constraints of only of law, not of Harvard rules.
Do the clubs "foster an out-of-control drinking and party culture that leads to sexual assault and permits excluding people based on appearance or social status"? If there's culpable behavior, punish the culprits - that's how American law works and should work, not this sort of group punishment.
Oh, and excluding people based on appearance? Yeah, that's going to keep happening. Social status? Yeah, that too.
Now, I'm off to my suburban poker buddies. All male. We're not that good-looking, nor that high in social status. Somehow we get by.