No fraternization!

First, they came for the frat boys …

WE’RE tempted to just send this bit of news to Walter Williams, that nationally syndicated ecclesiastic of all things in higher education, and get out of his way. When the need arises, who can blitz the halls of academia better than Dr. Williams? Figuratively speaking, of course.

We’re not sure what was more disconcerting, the decision made by the brass at Harvard University—yes, that Harvard—to punish its students who join fraternities and sororities, or the language that’s used these days on college campuses. Lord, where did these people learn to write? They sound like lawmakers, which isn’t a compliment. Somebody must’ve told them all to write to be legal, not to be understood.

From several sources we learn that Harvard University will indeed keep its controversial policy to penalize undergraduates who join fraternities, sororities and other outfits they tend to call “final clubs.” Or as the leadership at Harvard unfortunately calls them: Unrecognized Single-Gender Social Organizations. And backs it up with alphabet soup: USGSOs!

Although these frats, USGSOs, etc., aren’t officially a part of Harvard, that’s not stopping Harvard. In order to crack down on the freedom of association, Harvard’s brass says students who are caught being members of these organizations will be actively punished: They’ll be banned from certain leadership posts on athletic teams and other officially recognized student groups— and even refused recommendations for things like Rhodes and Marshall Scholarships.

And that’s not all, Gentle Reader: If these measures don’t do the trick and send the frats a-packing, there might even be an outright ban on membership, including the threat of expulsion for students. That is, if the university could catch the students wearing a pledge pin beyond closed doors.

What’s the biggest surprise? That one of the more storied colleges in this nation would get to this point, or that nobody is surprised? Academia has been going down this path for a generation. Harvard just got there ahead of most.

THE WHOLE point of the ban, when it was first discussed a few years back, was to eliminate sexual assault, which is an obvious good. But then some pointy-headed troublemaker pointed out that assaults were no more common at frat houses than the dorm rooms at Harvard. So then the need for the ban had to change, and, according to the City Journal, the rational shifted to both “gender inclusivity” and to “uphold the institution’s core values of inclusion and non-discrimination . . . along a broad range of axes, ranging from issues of gender identity to socioeconomic background to race and ethnicity.” Whatever that means.

We get the idea that whenever a college apparatchik writes a report, he must include the phrase “ranging from issues of gender identity to socioeconomic background to race and ethnicity” at least twice. Otherwise the dean sends it back for revisions.

Our friends at the Washington Post point out that, since these frats and USGSOs(!) don’t publish their membership lists, a committee at Harvard has recommended that students seeking scholarships—or who want to join other outfits on campus—must sign papers saying they have not now, nor have they ever been, members of a frat. Can you say Joe McCarthy?

Here we point out the low-lights of the official statement from the university, with editorial comment:

“The final clubs in particular are a product of another era, a time when Harvard’s student body was all male, culturally homogeneous, and overwhelmingly white and affluent. Our student body today is significantly different. We self-consciously seek to admit a class that is diverse on many dimensions, including on gender, race, and socioeconomic status.”

Oy.

“As this faculty recognized when it unanimously endorsed the statement on the benefits of diversity, that diversity is central to our mission, as well as to our understanding of an effective educational environment in which students learn from exploring their differences.”

Double oy. Shouldn’t the teaching of history, art, math, science, music, English, poli-sci and business be the central mission? Or has Harvard outgrown all that?

“WHILE we should respect tradition, it is incumbent on us to organize the institution for the benefit of our current students and those who will follow. This requires us to create a community where students have the fair opportunity to engage in curricular and extracurricular activities regardless of their gender, socioeconomic status, or other attributes unrelated to merit. There are those who agree with this principle but argue that the impact of USGSOs should not be a matter of university concern given the organizations’ independent legal status. We disagree. We cannot ignore the responsibility we bear in relationship to our students’ experience in these settings and their effect on the broader community.”

Let’s see if we can cipher the grammatical horoscope on that: The college respects tradition. So do away with traditions. Students should have the fair opportunity to engage in activities regardless of their gender, socioeconomic status, etc., but the college will limit those opportunities as the brass sees fit. And although the frats aren’t recognized by the university, the university is responsible for those experiences. Lastly:

“The corporation’s first principle is the need to act; its second is this: at least as an initial step, we should proceed in such a way as to give students both choice and agency in bringing about changes to the campus culture. This serves several goals. It advances our educational mission by asking students to take account of their own values as well as their responsibilities as members of an academic community. And it starts from a premise of trust in our students to be active participants in bringing about the change of culture that most directly affects them.”

So make the right choice—that is, comply—or else.

ONLY AT a prestigious university such as Harvard can a coerced ban on fraternities be framed as some sort of choice. But our friends on the left have been misusing that word for years.

It’s doubtful the leadership, such that it is, at Harvard University will think much of the opinions written here. Our betters in those offices weren’t really the targets of this missive. We had another audience in mind:

Those mothers and fathers and grandparents who write checks to the celebrated school. Doubtless many of them have a different opinion about the rights of Harvard’s students. And of association.