There is positive good to be had in preserving the freedom of Blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, men and women--even WASPS--to organize on the basis of their shared characteristic, so long as their association does no great damage to those excluded. As, for instance, in the asymmetry between Harvard and Radcliffe; the men lose a few perquisites available to the women, but nothing of vital interest; the women, Radcliffe authorities (rather more than Radcliffe students) insist, profit greatly. Our national social history gives us plentiful reason to look askance at such groupings, but our political heritage should insulate us from the mistake of failing to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate forms of free association.
There is, of course, ample room for honest disagreement as to when the harm done by individuals acting freely outweighs that done by restricting their freedom. But, it's always a trade-off, and if the restrictions serve no purpose except that of imposing majority values on a minority (as seems the case with the Clubs), we sell freedom cheap by accepting them.
Underlying the parochial argument, I believe, lies a basic disagreement about the meaning of liberalism that extends far beyond the bounds of Harvard College. I've thought "liberal" to imply a society that maximizes (culturally, legally and economically) each member's freedom to live as he or she wishes. But many who call themselves liberals today interpret their mission as that of imposing a particular set of values on all. In that regard, they differ only in the particulars from the Moral Majority and are distinctly ill-liberal according to my understanding of the word.
No society can exist, of course, without placing some restrictions on its members, and it's also true, no doubt, that the list must lengthen as economies become more complex and citizens more interdependent. But, recognition of that necessity, coupled with the original liberal premise that the state exists to maximize the real freedom of its members, should make us the more loathe to accept any limitation that is not essential to preserving some good greater than liberty.
In the instant case, it is difficult to see that any such concern has entered Harvard's calculus. Its authorities must believe that freedom of association is a good. They clearly believe that equal opportunity is a good. To impose membership rules on the Final Clubs is to sacrifice the former. Not to impose them is to sacrifice the latter. But (pace Clubbies) the worth of the opportunity lost to those discriminated against doesn't come close to outweighing the value--to all who would be free--of letting the Clubs do as they will.
E.L. Pattullo is a senior lecturer on Psychology and director of Harvard's Center for the Behavioral Sciences.