In a historic move earlier this year, University President Drew Faust approved a policy that would sanction undergraduate members of unrecognized single-gender social organizations. In response to this era of heightened scrutiny and regulation, final clubs—arguably the primary target of this policy—have responded by changing their recruitment practices. Last spring, the Porcellian Club announced its decision to hold a single-gender open punch process. This fall, the all-female Sablière Society held a single-gender open punch, and also announced plans to become gender-neutral by next year. The A.D. Club and the Owl Club also began their first-ever open punch this fall, inviting all sophomore males to participate in the process.

Clearly, many final clubs are taking tangible steps toward greater inclusivity, and it is commendable that punch for more clubs is now accessible to all sophomore males or all sophomore females. This move, however, is far from revolutionary. While many people will be able to attend initial events, the process will still involve the same group of people selecting new members, leaving open the possibility that the composition of final clubs will remain largely unchanged. There is very little reason to believe that the results of open punch will differ greatly from those of a traditional closed punch process.

Furthermore, open punch does not address other issues of exclusivity at the heart of the final clubs discussion. For one, single-gender open punch does not address the gender exclusivity inherent in these clubs. The Sablière Society has set an example by adopting a gender-neutral punch process, and the all-male clubs currently resisting gender-neutrality ought to follow suit. Beyond including people of all genders, clubs could also continue to broaden their accessibility for low-income students. Punch is a process that often privileges the wealthy and well-connected, and membership in a final club often comes with dues and other costs. In addition, the culture and norms surrounding final clubs are often unwelcoming for students with disabilities and BGLTQ members of the Harvard community, a reality which should encourage more fundamental changes in how these organizations attract members and operate.

Finally, though final clubs and the intricacy of punch are understandably a major topic of discussion, building a more inclusive Harvard requires renewed attention to other issues surrounding social space on campus. Initiatives like last spring's efforts to increase funding for inclusive parties and events through the College and the UC were first steps towards making on-campus social life an attractive alternative to its off-campus counterparts, but increased momentum is needed.

An open Harvard will only occur through imaginative changes to all elements of campus social life. For final clubs, a truly accessible punch process will not just invite all sophomore males or sophomore females, but also actively strive to lower barriers to entry for people who might not otherwise be able to join—people of all genders, people of color, people from low-income backgrounds, people with disabilities, and people who identify as BGLTQ. We hope final clubs that have been hesitant to change begin to heed the University’s renewed pressure on them, and take this opportunity to think proactively about how to continue to move toward greater inclusivity.