Harvard Commits to Ban on Single-Sex Organizations, But Will Allow 'Gender-Focused' Female Groups - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]As Harvard reaffirms its ban on single-sex organizations, female clubs will become "gender-focused," while all-male organizations will be slapped with sanctions. In May 2016, Harvard University banned single-sex clubs, stating such groups "propagated exclusionary values" and maintained "forms of privilege." The ban, which bars members of single-sex organizations from leadership positions, athletic teams, and scholarships, targets all single-sex organizations from finals clubs to fraternities. While many at Harvard championed the new policy as a necessary antidote to the campus's sexual assault problem, others were concerned about how the ban would impact single-sex female groups. Legions of female students protested across campus and #HearHerHarvard became an online rallying cry. The Crimson felt the ban was unfairly targeting "spaces for women," yet hailed the ban's treatment of male organizations as rightfully addressing "the role exclusionary social organizations play in perpetuating outdated notions of elitism, classism, and exclusivity on campus." [b]In December, after months of debate, Harvard reaffirmed the ban on single-sex organizations. While all-male groups will be immediately punished by their choice to remain sex exclusive, all-female groups will be given up to a five-year grace period during which they could remain "gender-focused" while complying with the policy.[/b] ..... [/quote] Harvard sourced links in the OP article [url]http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/05/harvard-reaffirms-ban-on-single-sex-orga[/url] The direct Harvard Links [url]http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/3/29/female-groups-preserve-gender-focus/[/url] [url]http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/6/college-sanctions-clubs-greeklife/[/url] This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of a college of this magnitude to implement. At Harvard, Freedom of Association just isn't something a college student should be exposed to. If anyone was curious why this is popping up now, it is due to noticable ramifications like this; [quote][b]As Sanctions Take Effect, Sorority Interest Halves[/b] The number of Harvard students seeking to join sororities this semester dropped by roughly 60 percent from previous years—a decrease that came during the first-ever recruitment season in which some sorority hopefuls were subject to the College’s social group penalties. The penalties—which took effect with the Class of 2021—bar members of single-gender final clubs and Greek organizations from holding student group leadership positions, varsity athletic team captaincies, and from receiving College endorsement for prestigious fellowships. Breaking with at least five years of precedent, the Cambridge-Area Panhellenic Council—the governing body for Harvard’s sororities—refused to publicly release the number of students who participated in recruitment this semester. But, according to documents obtained by The Crimson, approximately 100 students registered to attend the first recruitment event. In order to be eligible to rush, students must attend the introductory event and must register in advance, per Council guidelines. The number marks a significant drop from past years. In the 2017 recruitment season, 286 Harvard students expressed interest in female Greek life and, the year before, 280 students registered for sorority recruitment. This fall also marked the first-ever recruitment season for the Fleur-de-Lis, formerly Harvard’s chapter of Kappa Kappa Gamma and the first sorority on campus to go gender-neutral. The Fleur garnered interest from a total of 187 students and ultimately accepted 44 applicants, according to an emailed statement from Fleur President Tiana M. Menon ’19.[/quote] [url]http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/2/5/sorority-interest-dips/[/url]

why don't we just ban harvard itself at this point But in all seriousness, this is so transparent that it'd be shameful if it wasn't for the fact that this isn't really surprising anymore. Then again I guess that doesn't stop it from being shameful, does it?

-snip-

With all the bad shit that has come out of frats and sororities in the past years, I can understand wanting to shut them down, but enforcing it in such an uneven manner is pretty bullshit.

[QUOTE=tyanet;53114595]With all the bad shit that has come out of frats and sororities in the past years, I can understand wanting to shut them down, but enforcing it in such an uneven manner is pretty bullshit.[/QUOTE] It's blatant discrimination. [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] Either they remove this ban, or they apply the same grace period to all-male organisations as well. Simple as that.

[QUOTE=eirexe;53114586]makes sense[/QUOTE] No. It really does not. It's unfair gender discrimination. If this was the opposite situation there would be an outcry, calling everyone involved sexist supporters of the "patriarchy". We live in a century where a lot of people are under the impression that men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable. It's genuinely sickening every time I hear about male victims of abuse get ridiculed and made fun of. Like, what the fuck?

[QUOTE=eirexe;53114586]makes sense[/QUOTE] Sexism towards men is still sexism

[QUOTE=eirexe;53114586]makes sense[/QUOTE] Elaborate. Why? [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] Legitimately asking.

I mean, it's just five years so whatever. I imagine they did that because there are probably more female clubs then male ones so they need more time to sort it out.

[QUOTE=Ax3l;53114604]No. It really does not. It's unfair gender discrimination. If this was the opposite situation there would be an outcry, calling everyone involved sexist supporters of the "patriarchy". We live in a century where a lot of people are under the impression that men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable. It's genuinely sickening every time I hear about male victims of abuse get ridiculed and made fun of. Like, what the fuck?[/QUOTE] Nah dude, you got to remember 'isms are power + privilege. [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] I'm being sarcastic by the way. [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] I wonder if they would ban a club for gay men.

Who cares what the Ivy League does anyway? They've been a racket since their institution and always will be. [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] I lean more to the left than someone who's had their left leg suddenly blown off but I utterly do not understand why anyone cares what these sheep-shagging rich-owned for-the-rich-and-affluent racketeer colleges do. They exist in their shitty little bubble to bleed debt out of people for worthless degrees that [B]will not help them[/B] in the real world. They effectively do not exist in the same world I do-- the world of manual labour, pissing rain, and nihilistic staring. So why waste your energy on them.

[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53114661]Who cares what the Ivy League does anyway? They've been a racket since their institution and always will be.[/QUOTE] Its where all the rich kids of political fat cats with fat stacks go. They go to ivy league not because they want to in most cases but because their parents make them and after they graduate they take over where their parents left off. They go to school and are handed a position of power immediately after they get out. Like it or not ivy league schools do play a particularly strong role in culture but you only see the effects 20 years down the road when the graduated students take over their family's work of sitting in a fancy chair and enforcing flawed ideals while not understanding the logical repercussions of their actions like whats happening now. If you go to an ivy league school it's as much indoctrination to higher society as it is a school, so when ivy changes, rich out of touch peoples lives and opinions change. Edit: Whats the movie called where they protagonist goes to a prestigious catholic school and is a jew but hides it and his buddies all turn on him after finding out? That movie goes into detail a lot more about prestigious schools and what their function is than I ever could care to.

[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53114661]Who cares what the Ivy League does anyway? They've been a racket since their institution and always will be. [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] I lean more to the left than someone who's had their left leg suddenly blown off but I utterly do not understand why anyone cares what these sheep-shagging rich-owned for-the-rich-and-affluent racketeer colleges do. They exist in their shitty little bubble to bleed debt out of people for worthless degrees that [B]will not help them[/B] in the real world. They effectively do not exist in the same world I do-- the world of manual labour, pissing rain, and nihilistic staring. So why waste your energy on them.[/QUOTE] A Harvard degree is basically a ticket into whichever job you want. Not sure how that’s not useful?

[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53114661]Who cares what the Ivy League does anyway? They've been a racket since their institution and always will be. [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] I lean more to the left than someone who's had their left leg suddenly blown off but I utterly do not understand why anyone cares what these sheep-shagging rich-owned for-the-rich-and-affluent racketeer colleges do. [B]They exist in their shitty little bubble to bleed debt out of people for worthless degrees[/B] that [B]will not help them[/B] in the real world. They effectively do not exist in the same world I do-- the world of manual labour, pissing rain, and nihilistic staring. So why waste your energy on them.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about Harvard? It's basically free if your family income is middle/lower class lol.

Their argument for it is that women have historically faced more discrimination [quote]Having accepted nearly all of the committee’s recommendations, including the proposed bridge program, Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana wrote in a College-wide email that he agreed that historical inequalities faced by women at the College may require additional resources to aid all-female groups in transitioning into “inclusive organizations.” “I will consult with the Dean of Students and the Committee on Student Life on how to best support a vigorous and non-discriminatory social experience responsive to the realities [B]that our students… are not all starting from the same place[/B]”[/quote] They'll be encouraged to become gender neutral clubs, same as everyone else, but they'll have an extra 3-5 years to do it You're perfectly entitled to disagree with this but personally, I don't think it's as crazy as it sounds

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53114723]Their argument for it is that women have historically faced more discrimination[/QUOTE] So now they start discriminating against a different group? Is this supposed to be some kind of revenge or something?

Well. Then it's simple. You create a female focus group that's a Single-Sex Organization. The way to win the game is to write the rules.

[QUOTE=Robber;53114739]So now they start discriminating against a different group? Is this supposed to be some kind of revenge or something?[/QUOTE] 'Discrimination' is to favor (sometimes, defined as 'unjustly' favoring) certain groups over others on the grounds of sex, race, etc. and that's certainly what's going on here I'm not saying this is right, or that the male clubs shouldn't be granted the same 3-5 year period to move towards inclusiveness that the female clubs get. This is an attempt at "balancing the books" and you may very well think it's misguided, but please understand that the perspective it's coming from is not one of spite towards men for the sake of revenge, but one that acknowledges their clubs as having enjoyed higher social status and less discrimination throughout their history. Again, it might be a heavy-handed, counter-productive move, but if you want to address it, make your argument stronger by understanding what the move is and where it's coming from.

and so, the cooties epidemic of 2014 just keeps on trucking. Why is everyone stuck back in kinder-garden again somehow? We figured genders and cooties out when we were fucking 3 years old and learned to socialize with each other despite it. It's literally what childhood and adolescence is for! [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53114723] You're perfectly entitled to disagree with this but personally, I don't think it's as crazy as it sounds[/QUOTE] Gender-neutral groups isn't too crazy, Turning around and bending the rule in favor of half the existing genders is hypocritical and sets up the new rules as a bad joke.

It's not clear to me what gender focused means [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] Is there also a source that doesn't have such a heavy right wing bias

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53114765]'Discrimination' is to favor (sometimes, defined as 'unjustly' favoring) certain groups over others on the grounds of sex, race, etc. and that's certainly what's going on here I'm not saying this is right, or that the male clubs shouldn't be granted the same 3-5 year period to move towards inclusiveness that the female clubs get. This is an attempt at "balancing the books" and you may very well think it's misguided, but please understand that the perspective it's coming from is not one of spite towards men for the sake of revenge, but one that acknowledges their clubs as having enjoyed higher social status and less discrimination throughout their history. Again, it might be a heavy-handed, counter-productive move, but if you want to address it, make your argument stronger by understanding what the move is and where it's coming from.[/QUOTE] It's still discrimination. I honestly can't understand the mindset these people must have to actually think that injustices in the past can be solved by more injustice today.

[QUOTE=nVidia;53114824][B]It's still discrimination. [/B]I honestly can't understand the mindset these people must have to actually think that injustices in the past can be solved by more injustice today.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but it sounds like you think I'm disagreeing with you, when I literally started that post by saying that this [B]is[/B] discrimination. Understanding the motives and grievances of the people behind this doesn't mean you are agreeing with them. You can put yourself in their place without validating their beliefs. All I'm saying is that people take a moment to look at the perspective behind this, and form arguments based on that. You can't hope to solve a problem you don't understand.

[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53114661]Who cares what the Ivy League does anyway? They've been a racket since their institution and always will be. [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] I lean more to the left than someone who's had their left leg suddenly blown off but I utterly do not understand why anyone cares what these sheep-shagging rich-owned for-the-rich-and-affluent racketeer colleges do. They exist in their shitty little bubble to bleed debt out of people for worthless degrees that [B]will not help them[/B] in the real world. They effectively do not exist in the same world I do-- the world of manual labour, pissing rain, and nihilistic staring. So why waste your energy on them.[/QUOTE] First of all, a Harvard degree in shitposting can get you a job almost anywhere. The name 'Harvard' carries some pretty significant weight in the job marketplace lol. Second of all, if you're lower/middle class then if you pass their requirements there is a very good chance that they will pay for almost everything for you. They have a 'diversity' quota there that [i]includes[/i] income levels. Though the courses are hard there and obviously the kids who come from rich families will be much better off and have more support.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53114911]I'm sorry, but it sounds like you think I'm disagreeing with you, when I literally started that post by saying that this [B]is[/B] discrimination. Understanding the motives and grievances of the people behind this doesn't mean you are agreeing with them. You can put yourself in their place without validating their beliefs. All I'm saying is that people take a moment to look at the perspective behind this, and form arguments based on that. You can't hope to solve a problem you don't understand.[/QUOTE] except the thing is, discriminating because you "acknowledge that their clubs have enjoyed higher social status and less discrimination throughout their history." is literally discriminating out of spite the spite originates from these factors but that doesn't change that the reason is literally still spite

[QUOTE=elowin;53114971]except the thing is, discriminating because you "acknowledge that their clubs have enjoyed higher social status and less discrimination throughout their history." is literally discriminating out of spite the spite originates from these factors but that doesn't change that the reason is literally still spite[/QUOTE] One of many reasons why I called it misguided. If I had to guess, I imagine they see it as justice, not spite. At this point I'm just speculating, and you'd have to ask someone who actually agrees with the move to really know.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53114998]One of many reasons why I called it misguided. If I had to guess, I imagine they see it as justice, not spite. At this point I'm just speculating, and you'd have to ask someone who actually agrees with the move to really know.[/QUOTE] Since when was "eye for an eye" on a societal scale considered justice?

[QUOTE=elowin;53114971]except the thing is, discriminating because you "acknowledge that their clubs have enjoyed higher social status and less discrimination throughout their history." is literally discriminating out of spite the spite originates from these factors but that doesn't change that the reason is literally still spite[/QUOTE] I'm gonna wager there have been higher incidents of sexual assault at these fraternities [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53114998]One of many reasons why I called it misguided. If I had to guess, I imagine they see it as justice, not spite. At this point I'm just speculating, and you'd have to ask someone who actually agrees with the move to really know.[/QUOTE] It's just not clear to me what gender focused means. The Harvard article mentions that female sororities are as upset about this as the fraternities are.

I think gender focused is just a nicer way of saying exclusively male/exclusively female.

[QUOTE=Van-man;53115008]Since when was "eye for an eye" on a societal scale considered justice?[/QUOTE] I think it's silly, too, the only reason it gets a pass is because it's "positive" discrimination to help women, which is totally counter-productive. Gender-neutral clubs are something I can definitely get behind, and the time frame given for the male-only clubs to adapt seems just fine, I don't see why they couldn't have made it the same for the female-only ones as well?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53115019]The Harvard article mentions that female sororities are as upset about this as the fraternities are.[/QUOTE] I'd bet that a lot of students, regardless that they get to keep their sororities a little bit longer, are upset about this one in particular: [quote]the historic policy—which may make undergraduates in single-gender social groups ineligible for some scholarships, fellowships, and leadership positions[/quote] [B]Edit:[/B] Ah automerge