Harvard Student Newspaper: University Should Sanction Fraternities but Not Sororities

The editorial board of the Crimson, the student newspaper of Harvard University, is defending the administration’s plan to discourage students from joining fraternities.

In the saga playing out at Harvard over single-sex student organizations, the editorial board at the Crimson is arguing this week that while the administration is right to discourage students from participating in fraternities, a similar rule should not be applied to sororities. They claim sororities provide a supportive environment for female students.

However, our support does not come without reservations about the process. The composition of the committee is primarily faculty members, and they may not be close enough to student life. Although their input is welcome, the weight of the decision should rest with deans and administrators who are trained to have student social life under their purview. Moreover, as we have opined in the past, we wish it was possible for administrators to better distinguish male final clubs and sororities. If the committee seeks to combat exclusivity and foster belonging, arguably sororities can provide a supportive role by giving women a social space on campus.

Harvard administrators have been seeking to punish students who participate in single-sex student organizations by disqualifying them from leadership roles on campus. “The discriminatory practices of these organizations undermine our educational mission and the principles espoused by this Faculty and distance their members from their College experience,” wrote the Harvard committee tasked with exploring the proposal.

In July, Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker blasted the proposal, claiming that it contributes to the impression that Harvard and other elite universities seek to impose their ideologies and values on others by force.

A university is an institution with circumscribed responsibilities which engages in a contract with its students. Its main responsibility is to provide them with an education. It is not an arbiter over their lives, 24/7. What they do on their own time is none of the university’s business.

One of the essential values in higher education is that people can differ in their values, and that these differences can be constructively discussed. Harvard has a right to value mixed-sex venues everywhere, all the time, with no exceptions. If some of its students find value in private, single-sex associations, some of the time, a university is free to argue against, discourage, or even ridicule those choices. But it is not a part of the mandate of a university to impose these values on its students over their objections.

Universities ought to be places where issues are analyzed, distinctions are made, evidence is evaluated, and policies crafted to attain clearly stated goals. This recommendation is a sledgehammer which doesn’t distinguish between single-sex and other private clubs. It doesn’t target illegal or objectionable behavior such as drunkenness or public disturbances. Nor by any stretch of the imagination could it be seen as an effective, rationally justified, evidence-based policy tailored to reduce sexual assault.