I am grateful for the broad support I have received for my motion; it is truly cheering to realize that so many faculty members, students, and alumni joined in my view that Harvard should not punish students for joining a club. Dean Khurana promises broad consultation on what might be done instead to address the problems that led him to announce the policy. Now is the time, it seems to me, to focus on constructive alternatives rather than continuing to argue about the announced sanctions regime. If we have to come back to that, we will, but for now, the challenge is, what should be done instead?
--------------------
January 30, 2017
Dean Rakesh Khurana
University Hall
Dear Dean Khurana,
I am delighted that you, Dean Smith, and President Faust are
taking a step back to engage the community in search of modifications or alternatives
to the USGSO policy announced last spring. In the hope and expectation that the
concerns we all share about student life can be addressed without a patronizing
intervention into both students’ private lives and faculty prerogatives, I am,
after consulting with my colleagues, withdrawing my motion. Of course, the
principle articulated in the motion is no less important today than it was a
few days ago. But with the immediate threat of injury and trespass on faculty
rights somewhat tempered, it would not be a good use of Faculty time to debate
a matter which may become operationally moot. If the policy is reaffirmed
without adequate revision, however, I expect that the motion, or one similar to
it, will be reintroduced.
The work of the new committee—and the likelihood of a
consensus outcome—will be improved if open discussion is encouraged about
exactly what “problems” need to be solved. The problem of noisy,
out-of-control, dangerous alcoholic parties in buildings Harvard doesn’t own is
very different from the problem of women’s unequal access to the financial and
social power structure of the nation. The problem of sexual assault is very
different from the problem of unsatisfactory House social life. The new
committee has the opportunity to define what problems it wishes to solve, to
base its recommended remedies in facts and reason, and to exercise a degree of
humility about Harvard’s ability to solve those problems without creating or
exacerbating other problems.
None of these problems is uniquely associated with USGSOs,
nor are most of the USGSOs strongly associated with any one of these problems.
As always, a standard for any policy in this area will be its success in
targeting the problems where they actually exist while leaving individuals free
to make private choices where those choices are not demonstrably problematic. At
a time when Harvard is admirably standing against overbroad, protectionist
national policies that injure members of our community, it would be sadly
ironic if the university were to implement for that community overbroad
policies of its own, policies that needlessly harm some of its members while
attempting to control its most noxious elements. To date, the present policy
has divided students, faculty, and alumni. While certainly not its intention,
it has been clearly divisive.
In her recent comments to the Crimson, President Faust helpfully noted that we should try not to
invite lawsuits. Of course, that is quite right, but it is worth remembering
that lawsuits are typically successful because one party has unreasonably harmed
another. Perhaps we could aim for that higher standard—not merely to avoid
litigation, but to avoid unnecessary harm even if no lawsuit is forthcoming.
Doing so would require open ears and introspection on why USGSOs are so
popular—and especially why the off-campus women’s organizations are popular. President
Faust herself, in her September 15 Gazette
interview, suggested that she understood that women who join USGSOs are doing
so for positive reasons. The committee—and ultimately you and the
President—will need to balance the potential for good, and the potential for effectiveness,
of any new policy against the harm it may unnecessarily cause. Not that students
joining a private club should need to justify that decision to Harvard!
The committee has serious work ahead, but I am sure that if
it sets reasonable objectives it can come up with good ideas. Almost any idea,
however, can be shot down on the grounds that it fails to meet some unattainable
or utopian goal. It would be particularly unfortunate if the “non-discrimination”
standard cited by President Faust in a January 26 Crimson story turned otherwise good ideas into non-starters. It
would be cynical, in particular, for Harvard to seek to crush the private,
off-campus women’s organizations as “discriminatory” while congratulating itself
that (in theory) its own organizations are all nondiscriminatory: that the
Kroks are not really a men’s group, the Pitches are not really a women’s group,
the Black Men’s Forum isn’t really a forum for black men, and the Women’s Center
isn’t really a center for women. Belonging to a de jure single-gender organization off-campus is not inherently any
more offensive than belonging to a de
facto single-gender organization on-campus.
I look forward to the Committee’s recommendations, to what
students have to say on the matter, and to a discussion of the recommendations
in a meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the fall.
Sincerely,
Harry R. Lewis
Gordon
McKay Professor of Computer Science
Director
of Undergraduate Studies in Computer Science
Cc:
Susan Lively, Secretary of the
Faculty
President Drew Gilpin Faust
Shaye Cohen
James Engell
David Haig
Barbara Grosz
Richard Losick
Jason Mitchell
Eric Nelson
Steven Pinker
Hanspeter Pfister
Margo Seltzer
Richard Thomas
Helen Vendler
James Waldo
