{shortcode-8826a5e87e25c47da372866208c36af3cbeec75e}Four undergraduates debated Harvard’s new policy penalizing members of single-gender social organizations at a debate hosted by the Harvard Political Union Monday night, focusing arguments both for and against the policy on whether it will be effective in preventing sexual assault on campus.

The historic sanctions prohibit members of Harvard’s unrecognized single-gender social groups—such as final clubs and Greek organizations—from holding leadership positions in other clubs and teams and receiving College endorsement for fellowships. The policy, which University President Drew G. Faust and Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana announced in May, came after months of discussion about the College’s off-campus social scene, which many students have characterized as exclusive and discriminatory.

Amelia Y. Goldberg ’19 and Tom Osborn ’20 argued in favor of the policy at the debate—which about 50 students attended in Harvard Hall—while Madeleine Lapuerta ’20 and Alexandra C. Tartaglia ’17 argued against it.

In their opening remarks, Lapuerta and Tartaglia said they considered the policy “disloyal” to the College’s stated mission: to educate citizens and citizen leaders. Khurana frequently cites this mission in speeches and emails to students, and has repeatedly said he finds single-gender social organizations at odds with that message.

“The sanctions… are unprecedented and disloyal to the very mission of this College,” Tartaglia said. “Ironically, many of the single-sex organizations are committed to the very same principles and ideals that Harvard stands for.”

Throughout the debate, the two characterized the sanctions as “paternalistic” and a “blanket solution” to sexual assault—a problem Faust called “deeply disturbing” last fall.

Arguing in favor of the policy in their opening statement, Osborn and Goldberg praised College administrators for taking steps to combat class and gender discrimination on campus, as well as a climate they said perpetuates sexual violence.

While both students and administrators have pointed to single-gender social groups—specifically all-male final clubs—as breeding grounds for misconduct, Lapuerta and Tartaglia said the sanctions would not be sufficient to stop sexual assault at final clubs or Greek organizations. A University report issued in March found that 47 percent of undergraduate women who “participated in final clubs”—including women who attend male final club events and seniors who are members of female final clubs—reported “experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact since entering college."

“We need to stop blaming the final clubs for rape culture. We need to blame rapists for rape culture,” Lapuente said. “The solutions to rape culture should not be regulation, it should be education on sexual assault, on what consent is, and what safe sex looks like.”

In response to Lapuente, Goldberg, arguing in favor of the sanctions, said she finds final clubs responsible for creating an environment where sexual assault can occur.

Goldberg and Osborn said they think the policy is necessary to combat what they characterized as unhealthy power structures between men and women and the gender binary perpetuated within club and Greek life culture.

Rape culture “includes individuals, but it also includes institutions and systems that make it possible for individuals to behave in this way,” Goldberg said. Goldberg added that she thinks events like fraternity-sorority mixers and date events enable an environment where sexual violence can happen.

The College recently announced the faculty chairs of a committee charged with recommending how to best roll out the policy when it goes into effect. The committee chairs recently hosted a public forum in which students aired questions and criticisms about the policy.

—Staff writer Jalin P. Cunningham can be reached at jalin.cunningham@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter @JalinCunningham.