Some traditions at Harvard are well worth preserving while others deserve to be expunged. We have little trouble placing final clubs in the latter camp, and we are enthusiastic about the letter recently released by Dean of the Students Archie C. Epps III's condemning the clubs.

Epps' letter begins by explaining that as single-sex organizations, the final clubs violate Harvard's nondiscrimination policies. This keeps the clubs from becoming recognized as student groups--a status which places them "outside of the control of Harvard College." Yet despite Harvard's lack of jurisdiction over the clubs, the letter proceeds, the College has been prompted by "a disturbing increase in the reports of inappropriate behavior occurring at various final clubs...to issue occasional reports identifying some of the more serious allegations brought to our attention...as a caution to students who may be considering joining or visiting a club." Epps goes on to detail a number of events "reported to us as having taken place" at final clubs during 1996, including sexual harassment, drug dealing and fighting.

It is refreshing and encouraging to see the College taking a hard line against the final clubs, an archaic cluster of organizations whose divisive impact poisons Harvard's social atmosphere. One of the most disturbing charges leveled in Epps' letter--that the College has been approached by women alleging sexual harassment--is as serious as it is unsurprising. The discriminatory ethos of the clubs, along with their exclusivity, conspire to create an environment which unbalances the relationship between male "hosts" and female "visitors."

The structure of the clubs is such that members are able to exert considerable control over female guests: Women are dependent upon male members for admittance (often through side doors), and once women are inside, their movement is regulated--they are confined to the rooms members deem them fit to enter. It is no wonder that such a controlling environment gives club members confidence to make the kinds of overtures that would be seen elsewhere as inappropriate; Epps is right to advise women that the best way to avoid uncomfortable sexually-charged situations at club events is simply not to attend them. Still, he neglects to mention that the primary fault lies with the men who create such situations.

Sadly, the reaction of Interclub Council Executive Director Douglas W. Sears '69 to Epps' letter only underscores the failure of the clubs to face the serious problems that make them a destructive force within the Harvard community, offering further reason for the College to watch them carefully. Sears called the clubs the "last socially acceptable group to discriminate against," dismissing Epps' report as, "whiny, patently self-serving, smug and patronizing," and noting that the formation of the clubs reflects "Harvard's [failure]...to provide places for undergraduates to go where people can have as much fun." Content to brush off revelations of sexual harassment and drug dealing by blaming Harvard's social life, Sears has more gall than even we would have expected.

But even as we commend Epps for taking on the final clubs, we have some concerns about the nature of his letter. First, our enthusiasm for the College's activism on the issue is tinged by the fear that its commitment may be one of more rhetoric than substance. Indeed, if the incidents Epps cites in his letter are more than the stuff of unfounded allegations, we must wonder whether the College has followed up on them, taking the kind of disciplinary action which might spur the clubs to initiate reforms; we urge Harvard not to cave to the whims of club members and their lawyers.

We also have reservations about Epps' decision to list incidents without naming the specific club involved, giving the impression that they are all equally culpable for behavior patterns which may not be universal throughout the final club community. While all the clubs share some basic negative characteristics, it is simply not fair to raise the charge of dealing drugs and allow it to hang over eight distinct organizations. The lack of specifics in the report suggests that the Dean's office either has not done its homework or that it is protecting ethical and legal transgressors even as it purports to criticize them.

Still, all in all we are quite pleased with Epps' report and hope it represents a conscious choice by the College to cast a more vigilant eye on the questionable behavior of those affiliated with the elite social organizations.