Over the past few weeks, members of the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS) have called for a variety of measures to improve women’s social life and is organizing to make them a reality. Among the issues that have been discussed are establishing a “women’s center,” creating more women’s social groups and “swatting the Fly”—or trying to pressure final clubs such as the Fly to take on women as members.

While we sympathize with RUS’s concern that social life at Harvard is often anemic and even sexist, letting women into final clubs will do little to improve the lot of the average Harvard woman (or man). Indeed, having women in the clubs could make the Harvard social scene even more fragmented and insular. Instead of inviting all campus women for parties, the final clubs might simply have events for their own members, further restricting the number of students who ever make it past a final club’s doorstep. The problem with final clubs is not solely their policies on admitting women but their exclusion of anyone who does not meet their narrow list of qualifications.

RUS decided to focus its scrutiny on the Fly because the club does not explicitly ban female members and recently gained tax-exempt status for some donations. But even if the Fly decided to take women as members, it would still exclude the vast majority of the student population. Final clubs need to make far more radical changes to bring themselves in line with an open, egalitarian society than letting in a few of their members’ girlfriends join. From the viewpoint of social exclusivity, admitting women will make little difference. We urge all students, not just women, to boycott final clubs and push for more inclusive alternatives. The clubs’ exclusive membership policies are detrimental to an open campus social life.

The Hasting Pudding Social Club last Friday became a College-recognized organization. Alarmingly, the College’s only demand thus far is that the “punch” process be open to all undergraduates. The actual selection process will likely not change much after the initial open invitation, raising the specter of a College-sponsored exclusionary social club.

Because they are private organizations, the University cannot stop final clubs from continuing to represent patriarchy and exclusivity. Having the University put pressure on them to reform their punch process, as RUS has urged, would likely result in a situation similar to the one that exists now with the Hasty Pudding. Although the initial punch event will be open to all undergrads, the Pudding will most likely retain its traditional standards for entrance—standards that are antithetical to the College’s own beliefs in fairness and community. Such a move by the College is likely to be a negative force on campus for all students—both those who support final clubs and those who would never step foot in one. RUS is correct in identifying the need for better venues for campus social life. The final clubs do not and cannot serve as that venue. However, by focusing their attention on those clubs, RUS might win the admission of a few women, but the problem of social exclusivity will not go away.

Rather than having the final clubs change, we wish they would simply cease to exist. Having them reform to be recognized by the College will simply officially sanction a system of social exclusion which harms all undergraduates, not just women. RUS was on the right track in targeting final clubs. They simply did not take their protest far enough.

Dissent

Final Clubs Are Needed Social Hubs

The Radcliffe Union of Students, the College and The Crimson should all have far more important issues to concern themselves with than the policies of independent social clubs. It should not be the business of a student group, a university or a newspaper to comment on the admissions policies of private organizations —and we feel strongly that final clubs should remain as private clubs, not officially recognized by the University. As Harvard does not complain about the myriad exclusive clubs which its alumni belong to whether they are in Back Bay or beyond, it should similarly refrain from commenting on undergraduates’ decisions to join other private clubs, even if they are closer to home. Even if these clubs are not to the taste of the administration, decisions should be left to members and punches, as provided by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of assembly.

Harvard’s nightlife can often be stultifyingly dull and any club which takes it on itself to throw parties in and around Harvard Square should be welcomed, not chastised. Indeed, the final clubs often generously open up their parties to non-members, thereby subsidizing enjoyable evenings out for many students and not just members. But even leaving aside the fact that final clubs provide a rare beacon of light in Harvard’s dour social scene, the University must avoid the immoral and illegal temptation to interfere overbearingly in the private affairs of any organization, regardless of its supposedly oligarchic admissions policies.

—Anthony S. A. Freinberg ’04,

Emma R.F. Nothmann ’04 and Jason L. Steorts ’01-’03