THE Harvard student body is poised to take a giant step backward. The emergence this fall of new social clubs and fraternities will lead toward a more exclusionary, more factional social life.

Discontent over Harvard's anemic social life, both campus-wide and within the houses, has inspired many students to seek alternatives. Some men join one of the nine all-male final clubs. But for most students--all women and those men who do not fit in these sexist and elitist settings--the final club option is foreclosed.

Many have sought solace in the formation of three--you guessed it--single-sex social organizations, two of which hope to become chapters of national fraternities. But, beyond solace, these groups move towards a conscious trend of selectivism which cannot be attributed entirely to poor social life, but rather demonstrates and active interest in exclusive behavior.

In early October, 35 male Harvard students were initiated into Sigma Alpha Mu, a traditionally Jewish fraternity that disbanded at Harvard more than 50 years ago. About two weeks after the re-emergence of "Sammy," 17 more male undergraduates formed a provisional chapter of the Eta Sigma Chi fraternity. And two weeks ago, about 60 female students announced that they wanted to form a non-exclusive women's club.

The founders of all of these organizations have insisted that their groups would pursue public service activities, as well as social events.

And, unlike the Harvard members of Black fraternities and sororities at MIT, these groups of undergraduates are forming their own Harvard chapters and hope to gain recognition from the University.

But the issue is not merely whether the new organizations, unlike the final clubs, will have any socially redeeming value. If public service were really the primary aim of these students, they could find plenty of other organizations at Harvard through which to channel their altruistic impulses. The Phillips Brooks House Association is only one of many. No, the essence of fraternities and organizations of their ilk is improving the social lives of their members.

FEW students would deny that Harvard lacks a vibrant social scene that cuts across house lines. Not only are the final clubs morally repulsive, they are extremely exclusive. The student center is nonexistent.

Surely Harvard's social scene could use some rejuvenation. But creating even more exclusive social organizations is not the right way to correct these deficiencies. New clubs will simply further factionalize the student body by providing more ways to gather in small groups, separated from the rest of Harvard students.

Not surprisingly, the organizers of these factions have claimed that their clubs will not be exclusionary. But if a club's raison d'etre is social activity, how else will they choose their members except on the basis of personal attributes as important as cocktail-party banter?

And if the clubs do not want to restrict membership at all--and the founding members of the women's club say do not--why form a "club"? If everyone is truly welcome, why not organize parties for everyone? Integration requires actively working to include, not simply passively promising not to exclude.

WE also question why none of the three organizations formed this fall decided to be bold enough to accept members of both sexes. One of the main complaints against the final clubs is that they discriminate against almost half the student body--women. So why can't these alternative groups respond to this problem by accepting anyone, male or female, who wishes to join?

Organizers of the women's club say they want a place where women can meet in a relaxed social atmosphere and a supportive environment. Fine, but that's what the Women's Center should do.

So perhaps the women's club wants to have parties where men are invited? The men could come and socialize with the women when and only when the women choose to invite them. Hmmm, it sounds vaguely familiar. Do we want to answer elitism and sexism with more of the same? We thought progressive thinkers had long ago discarded the "separate but equal" doctrine for a more socially constructive integrationist view.

It is difficult to imagine why people who complain of the closed social life of this campus would want to limit the types of people they could meet in a new club to members of the same sex. Why not try to meet members of both sexes in a more relaxed setting, rather than in the more tense and stilted atmosphere of a club party?