It's High Time To Cut the Ties With Final Clubs

THE RECENT DECISION by Harvard's nine exclusive, all-male final clubs to continue their practice of excluding women from membership was not entirely surprising. But the request by the presidents of the clubs for more time to discuss the issue seems pointless. The clubs' presidents and members of their graduate boards have met extensively with Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III, who has tried to persuade them to change their policy for a number of reasons. They are clearly not ready to do so, and this issue should no longer preoccupy any member of the Harvard administration.

The issues surrounding the clubs--the purpose of social groups, the role of single-sex associations, and the like--may in fact be complex. Fortunately for the student-faculty Committee on College Life (CCL), however, the issue of University ties to the clubs is not. This year's CCL is still deliberating about what action to take in response to the clubs' decision, despite the fact that last year's committee clearly mandated taking definitive action should the clubs not agree to admit women.

The clubs are not recognized as official student organizations because they do not adhere to a nondiscriminatory admission code, and therefore should not enjoy links--read subsidies--to the College. However insignificant ties like access to centrex phones and steam heat might appear, they are inappropriate given the independent status of the clubs. There is no reason the CCL should not move swiftly to recommend to the College that it sever those links.

As for any concerns the administration may have that severing ties will result in a loss of control over the activities of the groups, these fears seem unfounded. The clubs maintain an interclub agreement, under which they pledge to treat each other civilly, and which stipulates disciplinary measures for breaking club or College etiquette. Presumably, if the College extricates itself from their affairs, the clubs may choose not to renew the agreement. But the entire undergraduate membership of the clubs consists of Harvard students, and as such they remain answerable to the College.

The University last year became concerned about its connections with the clubs when it was revealed that Harvard might be liable under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act for promoting sex discrimination, since the clubs do not admit women. It was under the shadow of this concern that College officials began investigating the specific links to the clubs, and whether such ties did in fact constitute a violation of Title IX. The issue was further spotlighted in the spring when an edition of the Pi Eta Speakers' Club newsletter containing highly sexist language and imagery became public. Although the Pi Eta is not technically a "final club," the incident fueled arguments that all-male clubs are almost by definition sexist. The CCL passed a resolution condemning the clubs for excluding women and weighed recommending that the College cut its ties to the clubs. Dean Epps, meanwhile, met with club presidents to urge them to consider admitting women.

But speculation that official pressure might prompt the clubs to open their doors to women came to an abrupt end last week, with all nine of the single-sex institutions opting to continue their all-male punching policies. And that decision should soundly confirm an already obvious choice for the CCL and the College--cut the ties. Administrators are worried about the clubs because their sex discrimination might endanger federal funding, but we worry about the clubs because they are exclusive and elitist. To this end, the exclusion of women is simply a logical extension of an already discriminatory selection process. This is why many cannot conceive of a final club with women in it. This is why many, including our-selves, are eager for the College to resolve this straight forward issue.

BECAUSE THE College has already acknowledged the discriminatory nature of clubs by refusing to recognize them as official student groups, it is hard to guess why officials have been so slow to take the morally consistent step of eliminating what amount to official subsidies for the clubs. We can only suspect that alumni of these clubs are among the University's more generous contributors and that administrators are loathe to antagonize such a group. We can also suspect that this "argument" is not morally consistent with anything Harvard might officially profess.

The issue of College ties to the clubs has preoccupied both the CCL and College officials, especially Epps, for nearly a year. The CCL failed to take any definitive action at its first meeting last week because its new members wanted time to completely assess the situation. But the verdict is in; the clubs' request for "more time" to discuss the issue is merely a delaying tactic. Next Monday--by which time CCL members plan to have met with all the club presidents--is late enough to resolve the conflict. We urge both groups to take quick and final action: the final clubs don't merit closer scrutiny.