Getting Off the Fence

IN a thought-provoking letter to the Crimson, Undergraduate Council Vice-Chairman Jeffrey A. Cooper '90 refuted my strongly worded February 29th column which, among other things, criticized Mr. Cooper for seeking to "represent the students in the final clubs as much as those who aren't." I had argued that it was unreasonable for the Vice Chairman to favor final club members, who represent "a small minority of the college population."

Cooper argues convincingly that I wouldn't have criticized him had the minority in question been black students or women. And of course, he is right. However, he doesn't stop there. In brilliant rhetorical style he advances from a defensive position into a high-flung moral argument, invoking Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority" to defend his representation of that poor, tyrannized campus minority, final club members. Mr. Cooper will not, he says, "yield to popular passions on issues of prejudice or discrimination" against final club members.

Now I'm a big fan of Tocqueville myself, but I'm not sure that a defense of the moneyed elite was what Alexis had in mind when he wrote his tome. The final clubs are wealthy, prejudicial associations with a long sexist and racist heritage. They are bastions of old-boy networking and prep-school traditionalism, with wealthy alumni now working at Merrill Lynch and the State Department who fund the clubs and their beautiful limited-access buildings. As Law Professor Alan Dershowitz says, "the final clubs are where Harvard students learn to discriminate."

THE elitism of the clubs is unmistakeable. Also unmistakeable is the fact that final club members aren't your typical oppressed minority. You can test this by looking at what their reaction would be to the removal of their special status. Final club members would be disappointed if you took away their male-bonding luncheons, fine houses, and beer parties with Wellesley women. Women, however, would be very pleased to have access to the final clubs' resources and connections, to be paid equally for equal work, and to be free from sexual harrassment at the hands of men well-trained in sexism. Women at Harvard are a minority; final club members are an elite.

Why did Mr. Cooper decide to represent the all-male elite as opposed to the women who are discriminated against by the final clubs? Apparently, Mr. Cooper holds some bizarre ideas about equity in representation and thought he could represent both sides in this struggle. In the council, Cooper voted against the resolution denouncing the clubs. He voted in favor of giving Lisa Schkolnick money for her suit, but introduced an amendment to give equal funding to the Fly Club if they needed it.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." In striving to be fair to both sides, Cooper, in effect, supported the final clubs. The failed attempt of Mr. Cooper's `evenhandedness' suggests why the council must take a stand on important campus issues. The council cannot support both sides of a discrimination suit any more than the United States can support both sides in a war. Supporting both sides equally enforces the status quo.

Possession, after all, is 90 percent of the law. The final clubs own their buildings. They refuse to admit women, and will continue to do so until this campus takes action to stop them. If Cooper and the council are truly interested in equality, they will side with the women who are discriminated against by the clubs. If they refuse to take a stand, or try to represent both sides equally, the council ends up siding with the status quo. And since final club sexism is the status quo, refusal to fight it, in effect, supports it.

LAST Sunday night, the council tried to avoid taking sides and fell straight into this trap. The student government failed to take a stand against sexism. It is unfortunate that the council is taking such a blindly pernicious stance, but neverthless Stop Withholding Access Today (SWAT) must continue its battle and bring its case before other student organizations. Maybe once the Radcliffe Union of Students, the Black Students Association, and the Alumni Against Apartheid pass anti-final club resolutions, the council will be isolated in its stance--and see the light. The time has come for Harvard students, and their representatives, to declare that sexism is wrong.