Freedom of Assembly

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

Female groups are allowed to remain "gender focused," while male groups are penalized.


Joseph Williams—Flickr

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of male organizations as rightfully addressing "the role exclusionary social organizations play in perpetuating outdated notions of elitism, classism, and exclusivity on campus."

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.

This update to the ban has caused a handful of groups to go gender neutral; most notably, Harvard's Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter—now The Fleur-de-Lis—is the first sorority to become gender neutral since the ban in 2016. Recruitment for gender-neutral group's like The Fleur-de-Lis will be open to all genders, yet activities held within the group are "gender-focused," according the the group's press release. Though such "gender-focused" organizations are encouraged to move towards full inclusion, Harvard's policy seems like a semantic loophole to allow certain groups (i.e., women's groups) to remain essentially single-sex while punishing the disfavored groups (i.e., men's groups). Not only does this harm students' free association rights, but it also creates a potentially discriminatory double standard. What makes an organization "gender-focused," if not the gender of its members?

While some may feel like all-male groups create dangerous environments, simply banning these organizations does not fix the underlying cultural problems that lead to such environments. Nor does this ban stop these unsavory people from associating unofficially in less regulated spaces, creating an even more dangerous climate. While it's fair to say inclusive programs and spaces for gender-non-binary individuals are both positive and necessary things, this policy substantially burdens free association among students.

Other Harvard groups feel the same way. While Harvard's prestigious Fly Club may be lawyering-up over the ban, Sororities Alpha Phi, Delta Gamma, and Kappa Alpha released a joint statement announcing they would continue with single-sex recruitment moving into 2018. The statement, titled,"We Believe Women Should Make Their Own Choices," reads: "While Harvard's sanctions claim to support women's right to make their own decisions, these sanctions actually force women to choose between the opportunity to have supportive, empowering women-only spaces and external leadership opportunities."

NEXT: It's Not Enough to Get Paid for Not Working: These L.A. Police and Firefighters Figured Out How to Double It

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. The psychos continue to eat each other. Gonna be a good show.

    As a man, I can say that it is awesome to never give a shit about all of these raging imbeciles other than to laugh hysterically at their utter cluelessness.

    If you are a whining complaining perpetual victim chicken shit, you will never have equality because you are a loser. People don’t want to hire these losers. Thus, a perpetual state of inequality in your deranged minds and thus more victimhood.
    Enjoy being terrible at life.

    1. It’s impossible for me to regard these people as equals. If you want to be treated like an equal, you’ve got to act like an equal.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do…

        1. Yeah, but do woman doing the same job get paid the regardless of the same effort?

    2. Perfect.

  2. Why don’t they just get it over with and just ban white straight men from applying? That’s their end game so just go for it. I’m actually for it. Anything to hasten the death of sheepskin credentialism. Companies will still prefer to hire performers over whiny socialist

    1. if I were harvard, I would not want to chase away those potential entrepreneurs and geniuses.

      And, holy crap, a lot of them were men like gates and zuckerberg. What the hell are we going to do about that?

      1. The sooner the smart people figure out that they don’t need 4-6 years of mostly BS, the better.

      2. If you are male, you will now need to apply as transgendered for Harvard to consider you

        1. Go for gender fluid. Then it’s all just your whimsy of the moment.

  3. 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.

    “Wait. It’s going to affect us, too???”

  4. “Harvard Commits to Ban on Single-Sex Organizations, But Will Allow ‘Gender-Focused’ Female Groups”

    So they are NOT banning single-sex organizations unless that sex is male.

  5. How is this not a Title IX violation? F = Blanket Waiver (even if ‘temporary’), M = Blanket Sanctions. It’s like they aren’t even trying …

    1. That’s what I’m wondering. The discrimination doesn’t even have a fig leaf. They ate just straight up saying the rules are different for men and women. That fraternity that is suing should have a really good case against the school.

      1. You’d think a school with a highly-regarded Law School might have had somebody throw a red flag up on this idea.

        Let’s see, colleges are ALREADY predominately female. So, yes, we need to FURTHER discourage men from attending.

        And when the co-eds become bitter harpies because no man was good enough to marry them when they were attractive and no man will marry them when they become unattractive, all of this will seem like a good idea to them regardless.

        1. Anyone that agrees to this is not attractive at any age. Never stick it in crazy.

        2. Harvard law school might complain about the situation, but their pull is limited. The law school pushed back on the university’s handling of rape and sexual assault charges because it raised due process issues and they got beat down for their effort. In the end, the university forced the law school to comply with the horrid university-wide policies (SJWs > Dershowitz), and the woman who headed it up got hired by Obama in January, 2017, to protect the system. She was another turd that BO dropped on the country on the way out.

    2. Obviously it’s the usual Leftist double standard, where it’s only sexist when penises do it.

      Can’t wait for the Title IX cases over it.

  6. I resigned my position as an alumni interviewer over this, and will not attended any Harvard events until the policy is rescinded. A university should always err on the side of more freedom.

    This saddened me a great deal, as I always felt a close connection to the school.

    1. #humblebrag?

    2. That’ll show them.

    3. Unfortunately, the Leftist totalitarians never give up an opportunity to control personnel.

      Another SJW will now be screwing the Right in the interview process.

  7. Great, a sexist rule to stop sexism.

    1. Wait, this isn’t an Onion article?

  8. Nor does this ban stop these unsavory people from associating unofficially in less regulated spaces, creating an even more dangerous climate.

    So men are “unsavory people”, and having friends or joining clubs is “associating unofficially in less regulated spaces”. Jeebus, only an academic could come up with whacko shit like this.

    1. The only reason men hang out together is to plan their next gang rape.

      1. And the theme. I know everyone voted against bukkake the last three times, but I think it is worth a shot again. Or a bunch of shots, of you know what I mean.

      2. Now that’s funny as hell!

  9. “Sororities Alpha Phi, Delta Gamma, and Kappa Alpha released a joint statement”

    That’s actually Kappa Alpha Theta. Kappa Alpha is a predominantly southern fraternity with a fondness for dressing up as confederate soldiers. To some, they’re better known as KKKA.

    1. “To some, they’re better known as KKKA.”

      There’s a Canadian racist fraternity at Harvard? WTF?!?!

  10. As Harvard reaffirms its ban on single-sex organizations, female clubs will become “gender-focused,” while all-male organizations will be slapped with sanctions.

    Feminism is a giant shit test to men in society. Most of these women desire to be dominated by men so they can’t help but push and push to see when the men around them will do so. What’s sad is so few men are willing to stand up and give them what they desire.

    1. ^This exactly^-my dad used to say that feminists really wanted to be smacked around and given a good shagging by a macho guy, not some wussy drip who treats them as an equal. Research supports this by the way, couples who equally divide house chores and childrearing don’t get much action.

      1. Correlation vs. causation.

        Research supports this by the way, couples who equally divide house chores and childrearing don’t get much action.

        Could be that men who already aren’t getting much action try to do household chores and childrearing in an attempt to get their wives to give up the pussy.

        Or that frigid wives are also more likely to demand equal sharing of household chores and childrearing.

        And we know who ultimately is in charge in every oppo-sex marriage in 2018, under threat of divorce-rape.

      2. Could be right, NoVaNick. Gloria Steinem dated Jim Brown, who certainly wasn’t a wussy drip!

    2. Why should they bother with women like this when there are plenty of reasonable ones around?

      1. There’s roughly the same number of men as women in this nation my dude, and ~25% of women openly identify as feminists, with more in the younger age groups, and with said age group skewing as strongly feminist compared to other ages.

        There’s going to be high competition for the good ones. Probably 25-50% of guys in the younger age group are going to have to settle. Or forever pine for what is out of their reach. Which means they need to start putting some bitches back in place.

        1. Competition is indeed steep, I’ll concede that.

          A lot of feminists I know think this mess is absolute nonsense, but I ought to note that it’s likely biased by my associations. I actually dated a “fourth-wave” feminist who was my political opposite in pretty much every way, and I learned my lesson. I couldn’t bring that girl toward the center one bit. About as flexible as a brick wall.

          1. Flexible as a brick wall. Politically or in other ways?

    3. “Feminism is a giant shit test to men in society.”

      And society is failing that test. Hence the increasing hysterics to provoke a reaction.

    4. FACTS. I don’t put up with this shit with my girlfriends. I’m nice and everything, but I have literally explained to my girlfriends that women are not the same, and are inferior to men at many things, women better at others. So I won’t hear any of your bullshit feminist talk! Went through studies on it and everything with them! I basically converted one to being a straight up believer, but she was already pretty conservative. The other lost arguments, and kind of tacitly accepted it all, but was still too proggy at the end of the day. Single again recently for the first time in 6 years!

  11. a necessary antidote to the campus’s sexual assault problem

    Assuming this is an actual problem – and I’m highly skeptical – I’m still not following the train of thought that leads from “stop dudes from congregating” to “dudes will be less rapey”. I find it more likely that this is really just another way to put men in their place.

    1. There isn’t a train of thought. Only a little red wagon of feelz.

      1. Only a little red wagon of feelz.

        But a whole lot louder and a whole lot worse!

    2. They were alluding to the startling lack of sexual assaults. They’re hoping that by doing this they will be able to fix the issue, and give them something real to bitch about.

    3. Necessary antidote was my nickname on the school newspaper staff

  12. I guess the Seattle Men’s Chorus won’t be performing there.

    1. The NCAA boycotted them too right?

  13. Files for the Shuty, as well as other firearm designs, can be easily downloaded from the FOSSCAD repository.

    TOR Recommended, and best be on your neighbor’s wifi, or down at the starbucks when you do so. And for the love of Pete, don’t use Bitcoin.

      1. Semi-related but still OT: I loved after Sandy Hook that various smart design engineers and CAD whizzes released (semi-) functional firearms that could be 3D printed. Guns are over two hundred years old; the knowledge has been “out there” for a long time.

  14. Nor does this ban stop these unsavory people from associating unofficially in less regulated spaces, creating an even more dangerous climate.

    umm wut?

    1. Girls will be girls. And unsavory.

      (I find the article decent. Most of what I have written today is much worse.)

    2. While Ms. Stetzel somehow manages to reach the right conclusion, the article drips with contempt for the male gender. It is beyond debate that an all male organization is evil on it’s face. But an organization not regulated by TOP WOMEN is even more dangerous. I doubt our young intern is even aware of her blatant misandry because hey, it’s the conventional wisdom.

  15. Harvard Award of Idiocy announced.

  16. “While some may feel like all-male groups create dangerous environments, simply banning these organizations does not fix the underlying cultural problems that lead to such environments”

    I agree, but I doubt we mean the same thing at all.

    1. They should just stop pretending this has anything to do with “dangerous environments” and admit that it’s really about ending the “old-boy network”.

      1. I often – well, sometimes – wonder, is there any taking count of Women in Tech/Journalism/Salad organizations, conferences, and networks? I have yet to see a Guy equivalent.

        1. “That’s different because it’s women”.

          cf. Althouse’s Law.

  17. Lawsuit in 3…2…1…

  18. Society behaves like a pendulum. I worry for the future, when it swings the other way.

    1. I think Trump was a manifestation of the reverse swing.

    2. Why would you worry??? We NEED to swing back towards sanity again. And yes Trump was a small manifestation of this.

      I think it’s fair to say that I hope we don’t swing TOO far the other way, but things definitely need to go away from where they’re at now. The western world is living in straight up delusion the last couple decades.

  19. Nazi much Harvard? This policy is no different then the kidnap, torture, rape, murder, dismemberment, and genocide of non-binary gendered students.

    1. You left out cattle cars and gassing.

      1. Well, cows and global warming and all – – – –

  20. The battle for equality always begins with an alliance between those who want equality and those who want to elevate the previously disadvantaged group. Inevitably the alliance becomes led exclusively by those whose goal is to elevate the previously disadvantaged group. That results in rules like this where female advantaged inequality is clearly the goal.

    1. There’s a problem with this: It presumes women were ever disadvantaged.

      1. Well, to be fair, they are disadvantaged in some ways… They’re not men! Frankly women got the shitty end of the stick in about 90% of ways. Men tend to be better at most of the things that are going to be useful in the 21st century. Men are stronger. Men are more aggressive. On and on.

        Women basically are doomed to be subordinate based on all objectives facts, and the only thing that can change that is men allowing them to run wild. That only lasts until men have had enough, but being stupid broads, they’re too dumb to see they have already gone beyond what most men find acceptable… I don’t even think most of them see the swing back coming.

  21. What happens if I identify as a female and all my frat bros…ahem…book club female identifying friends have a meeting?

    1. You should really gum up the works and throw a couple non-binaries into the mix.

      1. The movie script for this practically writes it self.

    2. I was thinking that too, but then your book club is going to have to accept real females too.

      Now if your book club is for trans lesbians only, you might be able to pull it off.

  22. It’s always fun to watch a revolution eat its own.

  23. It is rather fun to see progessives destroy themselves from the contradiction between what they say they believe and what they actually want to do.

    At least as long as you are safely outside it.

  24. Ha.

    Put men and women together into the same dorms, watch your claims for ‘rape’ or whatever they call it these days skyrocket.

    That’s before you get into the obvious gender bias in allowing women’s groups to remain segregated while only men’s groups must ‘integrate’. I’m sure jamming women into their fraternities won’t have any downsides after all.

    It amuses me that the only possible outcome of these ‘reforms’ is more of the underlying activity that the university has a problem with.

  25. Really this is the only thing I can possibly say right now.

  26. Personally, I look forward to the day when Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League cannot get enough qualified applicants to fill their freshman class.

  27. “exclusionary values…forms of privilege”

    At Harvard, of all places!

  28. “may feel like all-male groups create dangerous environments” –at Harvard? Dangerous? “necessary antidote to the campus’s sexual assault problem”– a problem defined in the absence of data.
    Lest we forget, these are legally adults. It is like a company saying its employees may not join political parties or chess clubs or gardening clubs. Except these aren’t even employees, but students. And “students” can be any age.

  29. Sounds like a lawsuit in the making…

  30. So Harvard is forfeiting all federal funding for failing to properly implement Title IX?
    Oh, well, they have the endowments for it – – – –
    (or can we say ‘endowed’ anymore?)

  31. When will the insanity stop???

    I am glad to read that at least one of those groups has the balls to bring a lawsuit. I hope they get their asses handed to them. Betsy Devos, I’m pretty sure, would handle this situation the right way too, they should get in contact. Maybe she can lay the hammer down from her position!

  32. This is only one of many examples of anti-male discrimination resulting from the belief that all women are put-upon by men.

    See for a balance.

    And read:

    “A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality: The Doctrinaire Institute for Women’s Policy Research” http://www.malemattersusa.wordpress.c…..-research/

    “How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire — Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man’s View” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-quagmire/

    This is an in-depth commentary that may be the most thorough analysis you can find of what I think has for many decades been the sexes’ most alienating and destructive behavioral difference.

    I believe this difference, supported by both sexes, results not only in most of the ordinary sexual harassment we hear of, but also in much of the sexual coercion of women.

    It also addresses the question no one has ever asked: What happens when toxic masculinity meets toxic femininity?

    And meets toxic feminism?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.