Right of Dissociation

IN 1984, the University severed its ties with the nine all-male final clubs, which today still stand as reminders of a Harvard that should have passed away long ago. With separate entrances for women, and an elitist atmosphere designed to propagate a traditional social hierarchy, the clubs have no place at this university. At any university for that matter.

But still they persist, counting fully 10 percent of all Harvard undergraduates among their members. And that doesn't begin to include the large number of women who regularly attend their social functions, nor the large number of men who accept their punching invitations and make their best effort to become a member. The University has made its formal rebuke of the clubs, denying them status as official student organizations in 1984; what has been lacking is an equally strong severing of ties with the clubs by us, the student body.

Lisa Schkolnick, a senior, made the first major move to challenge the legitimacy of the clubs when she filed a complaint against the Fly Club with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) this winter, charging the clubs with gender discrimination. Her effort deserves our support.

THE main contention of her suit is that the clubs continue to be an integral part of undergraduate life at Harvard, and of this, sadly, there is no denying. Furthermore, her complaint contends that the clubs are not merely social preserves, they are part of a networking system which enables a chosen few to forge connections in the business community which will serve them well upon graduation.

Women, being denied access to membership, are discriminated against not only socially, but economically. The clubs keep alumni registers as an elite version of the Office of Career Services and they hold receptions at the homes of top corporate officials, enabling members to gain career connections. Because it is clear that women are being discriminated against, MCAD should find that it does have jurisdiction in the matter and should force the clubs to either open their doors to women or close down.

BUT as much as Schkolnick's complaint is admirable--as is the founding of an organization commited to her effort known as Stop Withholding Access Today (SWAT)--access for women to the clubs is only the first step towards undermining the clubs' entire existence. Her suit attacks the clubs at their most vulnerable point, but their problem is not limited to sexism. The clubs have a long history of racism against Blacks and Jews. The Porcellian club admitted its first Black member only four years ago.

Speaking before the council recently, Professor of Law Alan Dershowitz offered a broad critique of the clubs. "Where did they [final club members] learn that it's more comfortable to be with only males, to be with only Christians, to be with only whites?" he asked. "At Harvard. The time has come for Harvard students to say that this wrong." This is not a question of the male members' right to associate, but a question of whether females, Blacks, and others, can be denied this right.

But even if women and Blacks and Jews are invited to punch, the clubs will still remain socially elitist in their admissions policies and discriminate against students who can't pay dues. Faculty members and students who frequent the clubs continue to buy into this system. The law can only force the clubs to go co-ed, it cannot eradicate their moneyed elitism.

Opening their doors to women is the least that should be required of the clubs. Refusing to enter those doors should be the least that is expected of all undergraduates, be they men or women.