John Harvard statue on the Harvard campus. (Golasza/Dreamstime)

Harvard University’s campaign against certain single-sex organizations that are unrecognized by the school has just hit a new high-water mark. Off-campus social groups — including fraternities, sororities, and the “final clubs” for which Harvard has long been known — have been targeted by the administration following the recent publication of a campus-wide report on sexual assault and harassment. On Friday, this came to a head, as Harvard president Drew Faust announced sanctions for future members of single-sex final clubs and Greek organizations, starting with the class of 2021. These sanctions would blacklist those who belong to single-sex groups: They will be prohibited from leading athletic teams and even from becoming Rhodes scholars.


Obviously, any incidence of sexual assault is simply wrong. However, as a female student at Harvard, I find the sexual-assault survey’s statistics to be suspect. Conducted at the end of the spring 2015 semester, the “campus climate survey” aimed to understand sexual assault on campus. The report disclosed that final clubs are the second-most common location for sexual assaults (after dormitories), and that female seniors involved in final clubs are more likely to experience sexual assault. The Boston Globe, however, reported recently on an analysis that raises serious questions about the linkage of sexual assaults with single-sex organizations. Still, these survey results have ignited a new level of hostility toward single-sex organizations and particularly toward male-only groups — and the consequences for freedom of association on campus are devastating.

Harvard’s first problem is lack of consistency. The school decided 30 years ago to de-recognize the aforementioned organizations, so it has no jurisdiction over them. Instead, the administration will rely on its ability to target individual students who are discovered to have associated with groups that refuse to go coed. Yet many recognized student groups that openly advertise their focus on one gender are left alone by administrators.

Groups such as the Black Men’s Forum and Smart Woman Securities (a financial-education program for women) go unquestioned in their single-sex status and receive funding from the Office of Student Life.

It’s not as though Harvard is displaying principled, universal opposition to single-sex organizations. Consider: At least twenty out of 385 recognized organizations, and all of our NCAA Division I sports teams, have a single-sex focus. In fact, the Office of Student Life’s website even features a category of clubs called “Women’s Initiatives,” including a number of organizations that advertise to women only. (There is, notably, no similar category of “Men’s Initiatives,” although there are six recognized male-focused organizations.) Groups such as the Black Men’s Forum (the “premiere organization for black men on campus”) and Smart Woman Securities (a financial-education program for women) go unquestioned in their single-sex status and receive funding from the Office of Student Life.


On the other hand, Harvard dean Rakesh Khurana has repeatedly pestered the self-funded, unaffiliated single-sex final clubs, “particularly male final clubs,” according to the Harvard Crimson, threatening sanctions from the administration if they refuse to go coed.


Harvard also argues that the problem is with social clubs, not clubs with another purpose. This is both hypocritical and misguided. Administrators know full well that many of the single-sex organizations allowed by the university have a large social component, just as the final clubs and the Greek organizations do. All these groups exist for an obvious reason: College students enjoy single-sex social settings. If students see a need for these off-campus organizations, where they can discuss issues unique to their gender or simply socialize as a group, the administration has no right to intervene. Harvard doesn’t own a student’s whole life, after all.

This semester, I have been working to start a new group at Harvard, the Network of enlightened Women (NeW). It is an organization for conservative women on college campuses to discuss issues in modern feminism. I was inspired to help form the club after working with its founder, Karin Agness, and experiencing the imbalanced dialogue at Harvard on so-called women’s issues. The single-sex nature of this group has allowed me to connect with other women and have discussions that might not occur in a coed environment. While NeW is not a sorority or a final club, it’s now clear to me that the whim of the Harvard administration is the only reason that I have not now been declared a second-class student.

If students no longer desired single-sex social settings, simple supply and demand would diminish these groups’ membership.

Students have the freedom to choose to associate — or not — with single-sex groups. If students no longer desired single-sex social settings, simple supply and demand would diminish these groups’ membership. Clubs could choose to become coed organizations, as some already have. Others would rather remain all-male or all-female.

Finally, Harvard’s argument that these organizations serve no real purpose is question-begging. Obviously, the groups exist because students find a purpose in joining them. Members’ continued support for these organizations show the value and purpose that they place on membership. It’s my hope that if enough alumni and donors write to President Faust in support of students’ rights, Harvard will reverse this damaging policy. Freedom of association is a fundamental right, and Harvard has crossed a dangerous line in restricting it.