Campus Free Speech

Profs Take Brave Stand Against Harvard's Latest Anti-Privilege Witch Hunt

Let students join fraternities if they want to.


Drew Faust
Screenshot via The Aspen Institute

Twelve members of Harvard University's faculty have filed a motion in opposition to the university's new policies, which punish students for joining single-sex clubs and private fraternities. 

These professors include psychologist Steven Pinker—author of The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined—and former Harvard College Dean Harry Lewis. 

"Harvard College shall not discriminate against students on the basis of organizations they join," the proposal reads. 

According to The College Fix

The resolution is a shot across the bow for the administration, which would need faculty approval to implement the sanctions policy if it requires a change to the student handbook. 

Faculty leaders interviewed by the Crimson said they weren't consulted before the school announced the new policy. 

Earlier this month, Harvard President Drew Faust announced that students who joined single-sex organizations would be subject to punitive measures. They would be ineligible for certain scholarships and could not accept formal leadership roles in official campus groups. The policy is intended to quash the existence of politically disfavored extracurricular groups, like fraternities. It will also hurt female-only clubs

As I wrote previously: 

Harvard is a private organization, and is entitled to place as many ridiculous limitations on students' lives as it wants. But it doesn't get to discriminate against students who join finals clubs while simultaneously touting itself as an institution that respects liberal values. There's nothing liberal about discouraging free association.  

Good for the faculty for resisting this misguided crusade. 

NEXT: Decriminalization Is the Only Feminist, Humane Response to Prostitution, Says Human-Rights Group Amnesty International

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I enjoy listening to Pinker’s voice. I have no idea why. I always learn something new too when I listen to him.

  2. As angry as I am over 5/17/2016, I can’t stay mad at Robbie. He brings some of the best derp from academia, and…*sighs*…that hair.

    1. Never forget 5-17.

  3. Takes off suicide vest…..-paradise/

    1. They hate us for our fruits. Also raisins.

      1. That’s….crazy. Why raisins? And why 72? Why not 70, or 100? Why not a bushel?

        1. A base-three system is used in Islam to keep track of counting Tasbih to 99 or to 100 on a single hand for counting prayers

          From some wikipedia page

        2. One raisin per virgin. Duh.

        3. 72 raisins = two scoops

          1. In Kellogg’s Raisin Bran?!??!

      2. Now THAT would be an awkward situation. At Heaven’s gate:

        A: “Hey, man. I just blew up myself and killed 14 infidels.”

        B: “Great.”

        awkward silence……

        A: “Well, where are they? I’ve got a hard on you wouldn’t believe. It’s yuge. I tell ya, this is gonna be beautiful.”

        B: “How’s that?” Hands him a bowl of raisins.

        A: “What’s this? How ’bout some wine?

        B: “Oh, there’s no wine here. No alcohol at all.”

        A: “I guess I can live with that. Now, about my virgins…………”

        B: “Oh, you brought virgins with you? Allah be praised!”

    2. “Dried fruit” isn’t even a good euphemism for virgins.

      1. Would you prefer roast beef sandwich?

        1. At my age, yes.

        2. How about mutton flaps?

      2. Maybe 80 year old virgins?

          1. Just goats.Old goats.

          2. Gives a new meaning to the phrase “kick the habit.”

          3. Monasticism is haram/forbidden.

            I believe marriage (and having kids) is fard/obligatory.

        1. We’re talking Mohammed here, so did you drop a hyphen between “year” and “old”?

          1. 8 year old?

          2. BURN!

            No, but seriously, dude was a pedo. Back then I guess that was cool, and I guess it might even still be cool in some parts of the world, but ew.

    3. The original word means “Sweets”, and most likely referred to dates of the Ajwah variety.

      1. She’d better put out after 72 dates.

        1. Eh, who gives a fig.

          1. *narrows gaze scrunches up eyelids*

          2. Let’s prune these pun comments, people.

            1. *narrows gaze at the lot of ye*

        2. What you wanting,a cherry?

          1. Not me, those are the pits.

            1. Better stick to palms.

              1. I’m not frond of masturbation, either.

              2. Have you tried making a prick cot out of an old gym sock?

    4. There’s all kinds of revisionist history when it comes to Islam. Like that the original Islamic conquests weren’t fueled by Jihad despite every historical source we have on the conquests emphasizing that aspect. The problem is that said revisionism is a very thin, pretty much an immeasurably so, crust around the religion. It’s an external attempt to modernize and make Islam acceptable with modernity.

      It doesn’t really matter what the original Quran said. Like any religion, what matters is how the idiots who follow it interpret the source material. They are all malleable and change over time, but Islam is just getting worse.

      1. Acts like he knows about Islam
        Thinks verse of Hadith is from Quran

        Bitch, please. If you think 72 is in the Quran why the fuck should I trust you’re knowledgeable on Islamic history?? I’m not even saying you’re wrong about your historical assertions, but you clearly don’t know shit.

      2. Pretending that Hadiths don’t matter illustrates your own ignorance. Pretending that there is a true interpretation of a religion is moronic and besides the point regardless. That you miss that point is an indictment of your own stupidity.

        But the Quran actually does state martyrs will get virgins. Which only proves your own stupidity. And I have read the oldest sources on the original Islamic conquests, and Jihad is emphasized throughout. There’s nothing solid to refute that.

      3. If part of Western European expansion and subsequent colonialism/imperialism contained part of its mission to spread Christianity, what’s so controversial about Islam doing the same for Islam? I know progressives like to point out the former ad nauseum to accentuate Western indiscretions abroad but how and why they draw the line at Islam is a mystery to me. There seems to be some sort of weird ‘we have to beat our history down’ at play.

        1. Because they are myopic and have white guilt.

          The thing is this – Jihad is a flexible concept that has been used by Islamic rulers in various contexts. It’s meaning is not concrete, and it is possible that early Islamic expansion was mostly a bunch of bedouin who were only superficially Muslim. But when the only source material you has documents Jihad as a motive, you cannot completely throw it out. There’s reason to be skeptical, but as far as I’m aware no direct evidence to refute it. No paper I’ve seen has done so. But you’ll find articles that desperately attempt to downplay it.

          To me all religion was political and always changed on the time, and the Islamic world’s politics haven’t evolved beyond the involvement religion…partially because of how their religion is constructed. There is no timeless Islam, however. The Eternal Blue Sky here has turned me into some strawman in his head or one he may frequently encounter to attack me to try and prove his own respectability.

    5. It’s Hadith, so it’s crap to begin with.

      But, the assertion that the crap-Hadith is talking about raisins is stupid.

      Basically the argument of the “mistranslation” boils down to this. For a certain Hadith that talks about the 72 “virgins/raisins”, the oldest copy of that Hadith doesn’t have the vowel markings used in Arabic. Thus, the word is just a bunch of consonants. Based on the vowels you put into the word, you can either get “wives” or “raisins”.

      Problem is that there are multiple crap-Hadiths that talk about the 72 Virgins. We could ASSUME they all mean “raisins” and that they all trace back to the same missing vowels, but ONE crap-Hadith makes it rather obvious the meaning:

      “None is made to enter Paradise by God Most High except God Most High shall marry him to seventy-two wives/raisins, two of them from the wide-eyed maidens of Paradise and seventy of them his inheritance from the People of Hellfire, not one of them but her attraction never lags nor his arousal ever wanes.”

      Okay, so either God is going to marry you to seventy-two wives, or he is going to marry you to seventy-two raisins, raisins that he steals from the virgins in heaven and the people condemned to hell. OH, and the raisins are always horny.

      1. As for the validity of the Hadiths in question overall… it seems odd that God places a limit of 4 wives in his holy book as a rule, but at the same time, if you get martyred he will force you to break that rule…

        1. Not all hadithat are equivalent in reliability. A mutawatir hadith is going carry more weight than an ahaad one.

        2. Who are you to say God can’t have oddities?

          1. I find God to be pretty odd personally, but then again I’m a fan of the Norse pantheon. Did Mohammed ever battle Frost Giants? No? Get fucked then.

    6. I always assumed that the 72 virgins would be 72 other suicide bomber dudes. Seriously, those people need to get laid already. Or at least jack off once in a while.

  4. Earlier this month, Harvard President Drew Faust announced that students who joined single-sex organizations would be subject to punitive measures.

    I assume this includes sports?

    1. Well it’s Harvard so. Although I do think they won 1st round of tourney last year

    2. D’oh!

    3. sororities and frats most affected.

  5. I hate tgis guy. He makes Kasich look libertarian by comparison…..r-in-2018/

  6. Thought being an Eagle Scout would help pad that Harvard application? Think again. What’s that? Went to Boy’s State or Girl’s State? Out. High School sports team? Not Harvard material.

  7. Harvard will form correct groups,they shall be called ‘Soviets’.

    1. Aha! Yes, tovarish! And these groups will all report to one bigger, centralized group; let us call it the Supreme Soviet! And this soviet will inform and guide the others in making decisions for the betterment of mankind!

      1. at Harvard, it’s fair to say the Supreme Soviet part already exists. It’s populating the rest of the heirarchy that has taken some time.

    2. A five year plan for every student!

  8. “…Harvard is a private organization, and is entitled to place as many ridiculous limitations on students’ lives as it wants…”

    As a lefty organization, why would we expect anything but hypocrisy?

  9. If Harvard men want to gather together to discuss how they are going to run the world while playing a male-only game of bumpaddle, they are welcome to do so at my place.

    What happens at Crusty’s stays at Crusty’s.

    1. I knew you were into guys named Tadd.

      1. And Wentworth. And Brannington. And Beckett. And RC Dean…

        1. Chadwick, oh Chadwick…

    2. You mean ‘those who go to Crusty’s stay at Crusty’s’?

      1. That’s not a wax museum.

      2. Don’t you mean “Warty’s basement” or “STEVE SMITH’S MOUNTAIN LAIR”?

  10. If Harvard is against single sex groups, what is their opinion on, say, Wellesley?

  11. There’s nothing liberal about discouraging free association.

    Liberal. Bias.

    Bias. Sewing.

    Sewing. Reaping.

    Reaping. Grim.

    Grim. Liberal.

  12. “Zaphod did not want to tangle with them and, deciding that just as discretion is the better part of valor, so was cowardice is the better part of discretion, he valiantly hid himself in a closet.”

  13. students who joined single-sex organizations would be subject to punitive measures.

    You meaning like MADD* or NOW?

    Why not single-race organizations?

    *I understand the M in MADD currently stands for Mammals.

  14. “There’s nothing liberal about discouraging free association.”
    Ah, I see the problem. You think the students are the only ones with that right.
    You are wrong.

    The students can associate as they want. And the school can, seeing their behavior, disassociate from them.

    Freedom of Association, of Speech, or Religion, and so-on does not come with any guarantee that other private entities might exercise the same rights to criticize you or distance themselves from you. The only guarantee is that the *government* will not.

    1. I think you missed the part where he said, “Harvard is a private organization, and is entitled to place as many ridiculous limitations on students’ lives as it wants.” And, the sentence immediately after that.

    2. I think you missed the part where he said, “Harvard is a private organization, and is entitled to place as many ridiculous limitations on students’ lives as it wants.” And, the sentence immediately after that.

  15. Let me skip the article and venture a wild guess – the profs are upset that the new policy frowns on women’s-only clubs, right? Because it’s about women having their safe spaces?

    In which case I would actually agree with the profs (minus the sarcastic term “safe spaces”), and I would expand their insight to endorse the value of male-only clubs.

    Or single-sex colleges, for that matter, not that this will make a hill of beans’ worth of difference when we’re all getting our education through virtual-reality capsules installed at home.

  16. Look, I don’t know if you heard, but colleges are rapefests. Therefore, we are going to insist that men and women be placed in as close as possible proximity to each other as often as possible. That is the only way to make sure rape doesn’t happen. By placing them together. The genders. Naked. Derp.

  17. Harvard is a private organization, and is entitled to place as many ridiculous limitations on students’ lives as it wants. But it doesn’t get to discriminate against students who join finals clubs while simultaneously touting itself as an institution that respects liberal values. There’s nothing liberal about discouraging free association

    Umm, yeah, it actually does get to to that if it chooses to do so as a private organization.

    What we’re seeing here is the faculty on some of these campuses now realizing that the monster they created is going to turn on them and destroy their careers. They should have known better to start with.

    Back to the drawing board on how we can create the next perfect commie revolution without being the first to the gulags. /derp

  18. Good for the faculty for resisting this misguided crusade.

    I think the word you’re looking for is “bigoted kangaroo court”, Robby. “Misguided crusade” implies there’s an ideal behind it other than attacking people based on race and class stereotypes.

  19. This application is really good and very easy to use because you can never get an app which streams way of the latest and even the oldest videos. showbox

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.