America’s Oldest University Looks To Ban Social Clubs
Published : July 20, 2017
A faculty committee—of primarily elite, un-inclusive tenured types, no doubt—has indeed recommended that incoming students be forbidden from joining off-campus clubs starting in fall 2018 as a way of ensuring social justice for all. (Reality Speak Translation: Harvard’s recommended ban on off campus, single gender clubs will ever so briefly slake the faculty’s unquenchable thirst for progressive reform.) After all, what better way to promote diversity and inclusion than to ban actual diversity and free association, while excluding students who wish to join off campus clubs?
The proposed policy would apply to all “private, exclusionary social organizations,” but primarily targets seven all-male clubs that have resisted the university sanctioned erasure of retrograde concepts like “male” and “female.” Another reason for seeking to emasculate these clubs is that, like Harvard itself, they have their own swollen endowments and robust holdings off campus. Clearly such private wealth and independent means contribute to the phallocracy—they don’t use the word “endowment” for nothing—and no doubt Harvard has a transparent case of endowment envy, threatened as they are by independent, self-sufficient clubs that will not bow to the university’s gender agenda.
But in all worlds—except, evidently, the unicorn and lollipop world of Progressives—fair is fair. And in fairness, we should extend this mania for inclusivity to Harvard itself, first and foremost. Let’s start with that 40 billion, tax-sheltered endowment: such wealth reserves, funded largely by unapologetic capitalists, are beyond the wildest dreams of most colleges and universities. In the name of inclusivity, Harvard must immediately divest this ill-gotten fortune and disperse it evenly among traditionally black and female colleges (closing our eyes to the blatantly exclusive nature of such progressive institutions, of course).
And then there’s tenure, that elitist tool of white-hetero-phallic privilege that excludes lecturers and untenured professors from the job security and perks that alone lead to safe spaces and universal warm fuzzies. In the name of inclusivity, Harvard must immediately reject tenure, or better yet, grant tenure to all members of the Harvard community, from landscapers to cafeteria workers.
And finally, there’s the crony-enabling system of legacies by which the children of Harvard graduates receive preferential consideration for admission based on nothing more than incestuous nepotism. In the name of inclusivity, Harvard must immediately renounce this discriminatory relic of academic primogeniture and admit to Harvard Yard primarily students without any academic pedigree at all, as a way of atoning for centuries of exclusion caused by rampant degree bias in accepting only high school graduates.
Until Harvard practices what it preaches by jettisoning its institutional exclusivity—its grotesque wealth, its unjust tenure protections, and its shamefully biased admittance policies—the university has no inclusive moral high-ground from which to dictate those off campus organizations fit for student participation.