Kennedy Doesn’t Give a Hoot

Earlier this week, the exhausting final club controversy was thrust onto the national stage after Senator Edward M. Kennedy ’54-’56 severed his ties with the Owl Club. The collective squirming of the eight exclusive clubs’ prospective politicos could be sensed. The senator’s affiliation with the club was questioned late last week by conservatives after Kennedy lambasted Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito for his membership in the conservative group Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). Though Kennedy’s disassociation with the Owl was likely motivated by political expedience, it was an appreciated gesture.

We have expressed our distaste for the offensive and antiquated nature of final clubs ad nauseam. We demur at the exclusion of women—individuals who make up half of this student body—and the clubs’ highly exclusive nature on a campus that is so lacking in the social department; we have balked at the grad boards, who virtually control final clubs’ existence, and their adamant opposition to more integration. Yet, the conflation of CAP and the Owl in mainstream media has been unfortunate. The nature of the two organizations are so dissimilar that the claims of comparability by pundits Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly were simply nonsensical.

Unlike the socially-centered missions of Harvard final clubs, CAP’s mission centered on reducing the number of minorities and women to Princeton; that is, the objective was to oust an entire sect of students from admittance. The Owl, especially during Kennedy’s years at Harvard, was a social forum for male students at a school that had not yet fully integrated. The Owl’s presence in the fifties did not connote the same white, male-centered elitism that CAP advocated. To insinuate that Kennedy’s membership in the Owl somehow equates to Alito’s advocacy of CAP is partisan politics at its worst.

While it’s true that Kennedy is at fault for continuing his association with a social organization that promotes an outdated notion of white, male elitism on campus, his legislative record demonstrates his true commitments are far removed from the values we find offensive. And while it might seem that Kennedy’s disassociation with the Owl was politically motivated, it was the most appropriate decision he could have made.

Alito, meanwhile, has touted his membership in the CAP as recently as the 1980s while applying for a position in the Reagan Administration. His continued advocacy of CAP’s objectives long after his college years, as well as the role it played in his political career, suggest that his CAP membership is far more relevant than Kennedy’s payment of membership dues to the Owl. Moreover, the nature of Alito’s position as a lifetime judicial appointment on the nation’s highest court demands that we further scrutinize his record, both in college and on the bench, far more strictly than a Senator who stands for election every six years.

The collegiate histories of politicians—while certainly fodder for media scandals—find relevance only insofar as they affect political careers. Kennedy’s legislative commitment to equality certainly outweighs an adolescent indiscretion; Alito’s support of CAP well into his thirties simply cannot be excused, especially for a man who stands on the brink of a lifetime appointment.