{shortcode-97259999d117a5536e7942ea78d67a12364d9160}

I love bureaucracy as much as the next Harvardian. After all, how else would we manage our lives without countless forms, contracts, and deadliness?

But recently, that system — specifically the club recognition process — has apparently been exploited for more sinister ends. Rather than requiring official recognition for groups to access campus resources and spaces, the University should allow all students to organize freely, while holding individuals, not entire groups, accountable when rules are broken.

In theory, recognized student organizations enjoy clear benefits, including access to campus spaces, the ability to recruit at fairs, advising support, use of the Harvard name (within guidelines), and financial support. However, in practice, these groups operate largely independently of the University, and official recognition often acts as a gatekeeping tool that limits who can speak and organize.

Some unrecognized groups have managed to navigate these barriers. The African and African American Resistance Organization, Harvard Vote Socialist 2024 campaign, and Harvard for Harris were able to host events in Harvard spaces last fall.

Other times, they have not been so lucky.

In March, AFRO received a warning from the Adams House Resident Dean for attempting to host a meeting there without official recognition. In April, Harvard placed the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee on probation, partly for purportedly co-sponsoring a protest with unrecognized student groups and violating sound amplification rules.

These sanctions raise a serious question: Is Harvard’s process of club recognition really about maintaining community standards, or is it a mechanism that limits dissent?

If it is the latter, the College ought to make substantial changes to how it allows students to create groups. Students should be able to associate and organize without overbearing administrative oversight. They should be able to be changemakers without first asking for permission.

Of course, Harvard can and should enforce basic standards of safety, noise, and conduct, but enforcement should target individual violations, not preemptively restrict whole groups from existing. Harvard does not need to provide funding to any organization that asks, and it is understandable that Harvard wants to limit the use of its name to prevent deceptive advertising by student groups.

However, when it comes to access to common spaces and the ability to host events, recognition does not serve a legitimate purpose.

The University is more than an academic institution — it is our home and in many ways, more like a small town. It is where we live, sleep, and eat, and it is the nexus of our social lives for four years. Students should be allowed to form groups and to use University spaces without administrative obstacles, which sometimes lead to situations where student activists who rely on the ability to form organizations, such as the PSC, are effectively denied a voice on campus altogether.

Harvard’s current system uniquely disadvantages activist groups: new issues arise that benefit from the creation of new groups to address them. When a new cause comes to the forefront of politics, or when serious disagreements emerge within political groups, the College should make it as easy as possible for students to respond to the urgency of the moment. Moreover, even when existing organizations exist to advocate for a cause, different approaches can warrant the creation of new groups at short notice to account for diverging perspectives.

To stop recognizing student organizations is not a license for complete lawlessness. Students must still abide by the rules set by the College. If we find that unrecognized student organizations are guilty of dangerous activity or offensive behavior, then we should hold the students involved accountable, but this does not mean the College should penalize organizations wholesale.

When Harvard makes it impossible to organize without first obtaining the consent of administrators, it quells nascent protest movements and makes it harder for students to be changemakers.

Bureaucracy might be great fun when used appropriately. Requiring administrative approval to use spaces that are, in a real sense, ours, runs counter to what our community should be about.

Allison P. Farrell ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Leverett House.