The Case for Collaboration

Until recently, I have been proud of my alma mater’s efforts to seriously address the issue of sexual assault on its campus. The final report written by the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault describes Harvard’s problematic culture regarding dangerous alcohol consumption and sexual assault. Indeed, it is time for a cultural change across all levels of the campus.

This pride faded when I read Dean Khurana’s proposed sanctions against members of unrecognized single-gender social organizations. These sanctions aim to create a more inclusive campus and decrease sexual assault—an aim that I wholeheartedly support. But I am concerned by the way in which Dean Khurana’s proposal shifted focus away from preventing sexual assault to the membership policies of these organizations. I fear that because these sanctions were not created in collaboration with undergraduate students and faculty, the sanctions will harm Harvard’s efforts to reduce sexual assault on campus.

Scientific frameworks suggest that complex social problems must be approached through collaboration. Such engagement better defines the underlying causes of the problem, better creates policies that work with groups’ existing social norms, and better facilitates the implementation solutions. In a report on preventing sexual violence on college campuses, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends programs to reinforce positive social norms. Nowhere in the CDC’s report does it recommend sanctions against single-gender social organizations.

Dean Khurana’s proposed sanctions also contradict a central theme throughout the Task Force’s recommendations to prevent sexual assaults: engagement of all parts of Harvard’s campus. The report concludes by stating: “without the active engagement of the students in the culture they help create and sustain, any effort to bring about enduring transformation on this campus is unlikely to work.” Contrary to President Faust and Dean Khurana’s affirmations of collaboration, students and alumni feel that Harvard’s administration has been unwilling to engage single-gender social organizations in co-creating solutions for sexual assault specific to each organization.

The relationship between the administration and single-gender social organizations is inherently tense because these organizations do not meet Harvard’s criteria for student groups to be recognized organizations. Some of Harvard’s single-gender social organizations have sought to become recognized student groups, but the administration rejected these efforts.

Because single-gender social organizations are not officially recognized by the College, the Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Services and the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response have a limited ability to work with the organizations in sexual assault prevention and alcohol harm reduction programs. For example, DAPA Grants (a harm-reduction program run by the Drug & Alcohol Peer Advisors) cannot provide food at parties hosted by unrecognized single-gender social organizations because the clubs are considered to be off-campus. As such, single-gender student organizations do not have access to programs that empower students to change the culture of their organizations without paternalistic oversight. The ironic consequence of Harvard’s student group policy is that its administration is unable to effectively work with the groups identified by Task Force as needing greater prevention efforts.

Harvard could demonstrate its desire for working with students to decrease sexual assault by changing its policy on recognized student groups, thus providing single-gender social organizations with the option to officially work with Harvard. The University need not fear losing government funding with such a policy given that Title IX does not restrict universities from recognizing single-gender social organizations. This would align Harvard’s policies with those of universities around the country, including its peer institutions. Yale recently released a report suggesting that its administration recognize Greek organizations to create a culture of accountability and transparency, and to foster a collaboration with students to benefit their health and wellbeing.

Harvard, however, has decided to dictate students’ culture and place sanctions on members of single-gender social organizations who are prone to leadership. Harvard should let those student leaders drive a positive cultural change on campus.

Imagine an open forum moderated by Dean Khurana in which members of social clubs create a unified solution to create a healthy and inclusive culture on campus. As Harvard alumna Catherine Katz ’13 described, these community conversations would provide students an opportunity outside the classroom to learn frameworks for approaching complex social problems. This would uphold Harvard’s mission to create an “an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.” This sort of dialogue, however, is only possible if Harvard’s administration creates a more trusting and collaborative relationship with its single-sex social organizations.

In the meantime, I encourage all students and alumni to start this dialogue by writing to President Faust and Dean Khurana. I have sent a copy of this article to them both and look forward to receiving their responses.

Margaret Crane ’14 is a psychology researcher at The University of Queensland in Australia. While at Harvard, Margaret served as the President of the Drug and Alcohol Peer Advisors and the Chief Recruiting Officer of Kappa Alpha Theta.