How Inclusive Can an Elite School Really Get?
A few more readers join the discussion I started with my piece on Harvard’s sanctions against single-gender groups and then continued with my follow-up note on the hypocrisy of singling out all-male final clubs. Here’s Sasha via hello@:
The issue I have with Harvard’s actions are manifold, but I think they’ve jumbled up a series of issues into one. First, there is the notion of whether single-sex organizations have a place in the modern school (I believe they do). Second, there is the issue of sexual assault on campus: I believe the banning of single-sex organizations will have a negligible effect one way or the other, if at all, and I believe there are more effective and equitable ways to combat sexual assault.
Third, there is the issue of freedom of association, and the precedents this establishes at Harvard and the educational world at large. I for one do not want to teach our future leaders of America that values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech, which create the vibrant and resilient culture we live in today, are to be cast aside in the interest of some McCarthy-esque “club test.”
Finally, there is a notion that Harvard wants to present itself “inclusive not exclusive.”
(That’s laughable and I don’t see why they’d want to present that; Harvard’s brand is based off eliteness.) There’s the further notion that these final clubs perpetuate this exclusiveness. I will concede this, but what does Harvard think their “success” will be with this? The rich and powerful will congregate with others who are rich and powerful. You can make them open the doors to the room, but you can’t make them stay in the same room.
I think single-sex organizations are great, so long as you have options for the other sex and/or co-ed options. A great example of this is the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, and Venture Scouts—which is operated by the Boy Scouts of America but is co-ed. (I was a Venture.) They serve similar purposes to organizations centered around ethnicity, gender, or shared interests (e.g. Star Trek, hiking, pantomime) and provide a social network that is supportive and nurturing. For college students, such networks are particularly helpful and provide lifelines to students during a tumultuous period in their lives.
Another reader, Ethan, puts a finer point on something Sasha said:
If inequality and exclusivity are truly the enemy, will Harvard soon be doing away with its admissions process and allowing entrance by lottery? Of course not.
The saying goes that “if everyone is special, nobody is,” and it rings true. One doesn’t have to envision a Harrison Bergeron-esque dystopia to see the incredible hazard in failing to acknowledge that differences are part of the beauty of our world. It’s a special kind of ludicrous to celebrate diversity on one hand, yet deny exclusivity and niche cultures that incubate and highlight diversity! Not that these groups are immune from inherent or cultural flaws, but a solution like this manages to drown the baby in the bathwater, not just throw it out.
While I agree that the premise of an exclusive institution like Harvard striving to be more inclusive embodies an inherent contradiction, this alone does not negate the value of such an effort.
Many organizations, including companies like Google, could be considered “exclusive” places to work, when looking solely at the proportion of applicants they ultimately hire. This, however, does not make it less important that the workplaces themselves treat all their employees equitably and insure their experiences are supported and fair. Just because an institution operates on the foundation of exclusivity—a problem Harvard continues to grapple with through initiatives including its financial aid program and access to online courses—does not mean the people within it shouldn’t build and promote a culture of inclusivity.
