Sex Discrimination

Supreme Court's LGBT Discrimination Ruling Forces Harvard To End Ban on Single-Gender Clubs

Good news for free association at college!


Among the unexpected beneficiaries of last week's Supreme Court decision banning workplace discrimination against LGBT people are fraternities, sororities, and other single-gender college organizations.

This may take a little explanation. In 2016, Harvard leaders decided that they didn't like the school's exclusive, single-gender final clubs, dismissing them as creating "forms of privilege and exclusion at odds with [Harvard's] deepest values." It had stopped formally recognizing them in 1984, but they decided to put the screws to any student who continued to join them by denying them certain scholarships and prohibiting them from holding positions of leadership in campus organizations.

It was a terrible position to take, dismissing students' rights to free association. And while Harvard is a private college with its own power to decide what it will allow on campus, it was, as Reason's Robby Soave pointed out then, a deeply illiberal decision that fostered discrimination.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, that it's a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to discriminate against an employee because he or she is gay or transgender. In an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he explained that such discrimination falls under the rubric of discrimination on the basis of "sex."

This ruling significantly broadens how courts will analyze what sex discrimination means. And so on Monday, faced with a federal legal challenge from a group of fraternities and sororities accusing the college of sex discrimination, President Lawrence S. Bacow said the college would stop enforcing the ban.

As The Boston Globe noted in 2019, Harvard defended the ban from the lawsuit by attempting to argue that it applied equally to men and women—therefore it was not sex discrimination. This was very similar to arguments used to justify LGBT discrimination: That because gay men and gay women (and trans men and trans women) faced "equal" mistreatment, it was not sex-based discrimination. This didn't fly with the Supreme Court majority, who determined that the issue wasn't that the discrimination was "equal" between the sexes, but rather that the discrimination was based on sexual characteristics (whom somebody was attracted to or which gender they identified as).

Similarly, back in 2019, a federal judge rejecting Harvard's attempt to get the lawsuit dismissed said that it didn't matter if the policy banned both male and female clubs. "What matters is that the policy, as applied to any particular individual, draws distinctions based on the sex of that individual," Judge Nathaniel Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote.

The legal writing was plainly on the wall. But as Harvard abandons the policy, it's abundantly clear they haven't really learned anything. They had good intentions because they were trying to prevent sex discrimination, Bacow argues in a letter sent to Harvard alumni. But they did so by instituting a different form of sex discrimination and now they've accepted that they will lose this lawsuit if they don't end their policy.

"The policy was adopted to advance the essential and unfinished work of making Harvard a more inclusive and welcoming environment for all our students—of creating a community in which students are not denied the opportunity to participate in aspects of undergraduate life simply because of their gender," Bacow wrote. "Harvard is fairer and better when a student's gender does not stand as a barrier to social opportunities while in college or inhibit students' access to alumni networks that can help enable opportunities later in life."

It's also fairer and better when students are permitted to privately organize in groups that serve their own needs and not be told by people who think they know better that they cannot. It's pretty rich that Harvard was making the exact same legal argument as those defending firing gay and transgender employees, but they didn't really recognize it because they saw their intentions as so very noble.

NEXT: Brickbats: July 2020

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. “forms of privilege and exclusion is at odds with [Harvard’s] deepest values.”

    I fell on my side laughing when I read that.

    1. No joke. Those are Harvard’s ONLY values.

      1. It is literally the product they are selling.

        1. It’s losing them the status of being the 25th wealthiest nation on earth.

          1. ● Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy j0b 0nline!OPf I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MOR DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS.
            go to this SITE for more INFO just copy and paste…… Home Profit System

    2. In 2016, Harvard leaders decided that they didn’t like the school’s exclusive, single-gender final clubs, dismissing them as creating “forms of privilege and exclusion at odds with [Harvard’s] deepest values.”

      Two years later, the same creeps disavowed the charter that defined Harvard’s values in 1650, and cut the Puritans out of its commencement hymn.

    3. I though their deepest value was making sure there weren’t “too many” asian kids allowed on campus?

  2. free association is anathema to everything progressives want to do

    1. Now do immigration.

      1. Twio different groups of people can be wrong independently.

        1. very few people understand this.

      2. Ok I’ll bite

        Immigration is the tool progressives want to use to end free association forever by importing votes and then implemeting their progressive ideology. They don’t give a fuck about the free association part of the argument.

        How was that?

        1. Pretty dead on. You forgot to mention that they also don’t give a fuck about the immigrants. If they started voting Republican in mass they would start volunteering to build the wall themselves.

          1. There’s a chance they just might vote Republican. Most immigrants to the US are rather socially conservative and not all are looking for a free lunch. We’re already seeing the Left’s dictates backfire on them, like shutting down schools and allowing millions of American parents to realize that homeschooling actually isn’t so bad. Uh oh. Oh course they can always kill those of us who fail to comply with their agenda, including hapless wetbacks. Fuck the Marxists.

            1. Agreed and I hope you’re right. It’s getting scary to be a non-Democrat in today’s toxic climate.

            2. Totally agree. Most Latino immigrants I’ve seen are conservative, hard-working, and Catholic-Christian. Just the values that the left deplores.

              1. And they mostly do not like the american negro

            3. I have been saying this for a long time.
              Anyone willing to walk cross the American southwest desert to get a job, is Republican!
              Especially if they come from a Catholic country, and believe in church and family.
              GOP has made a huge mistake by not reaching out to all the Hispanic legal immigrants.

          2. If illegal immigrants voted GOP, Soros would fund a wall on the border with anti-personnel mines and a moat filled with hungry sharks and alligators.

        2. Well it will be hard for them to do that when those immigrants vote to end legal abortion. Catholics maybe socialists but they aren’t baby killers.

        3. The hard left progressives– the small percentage that have a well-hewn philosophy don’t much care about immigration, they care about open borders. Allowing massive immigration is a way to open the borders. The goal is the destruction of the nation state.

          As a result, a new society will emerge while its perfect homogeneity will be based on universal principle rather than on a national one. This “new brave world” will be shaped by a new social formation – a homogeneous universal state that will replace the unified nation state. According to Fukuyama, “it must be universal, that is, grant recognition to all citizens because they are human beings, and not because they are members of some particular national, ethnic, or racial group. And it must be homogeneous insofar as it creates a classless society based on the abolition of the distinction between masters and slaves.”

          As one ‘conservative’ polemicist once said: The French conservative wants different things than the British conservative, as does the Italian conservative, and so on. The left wants the same thing everywhere, and in the same order.

          1. Progressives have an idealized view of immigrants based on eating at ethnic restaurants and watching National Geographic specials, and assuming that they all love them in return. It would be too much cognitive dissonance for them to realize that many immigrants are also very racist and sexist by their standards.

        4. So libertarians are obligated to oppose free association with immigrants now, in order to forestall a hypothetical vague ban on free association later. Is that about the gist of things?

          “We must kill liberty in order to save it!”

          1. “Who, besides everybody but me, could have foreseen such a turn of events?”

          2. And God forbid they lift a finger to try to persuade other people to adopt different, superior political views. Something about immigrants makes them genetically predisposed to socialism, I guess.

            1. Hey its your plan no one said it makes sense.

              1. I wish it didn’t make sense for libertarians to favor political ideological testS on whether other people are entitled to freedom, but unfortunately I know you too well.

          3. Who said anything about libertarians being obligated you fat retard.

          4. Hey look Jeff is rushing to the defense of progs again by making shit up.

            So weird how he only does that for progs….

            1. Hey look Jeff is rushing to the defense of liberty by correctly criticizing the absurd right-wing approach to immigration.

              There, FIFY

          5. Pedo Jeffy, you are welcome to foreign countries and associate with all the foreigners you want. Like the child rapists you wish to import. However, if said foreigners are unable or not allowed to come here to visit you, thats your problem.

            This in no way curtails you’re right to free association. Any more than motors using free transportation to visit those with you whom wish to associate infringes on your freedom.

            1. That’s funny, because I can make the exact same argument with regards to coronavirus quarantines and “lockdowns”.

              “You are free to associate with whomever you wish. However if others are unable or not allowed to visit you – because of arbitrary government rules judging your business to be ‘non-essential’, or because of government rules limiting the size of gatherings below some arbitrary number – then that’s your problem. Not the fault of the arbitrary government rules limiting your liberty. Oh no no, it’s your fault that you can’t find a way around the oppressive regime. It in no way curtails your right to free association. You just have to find clever ways to get around all the government rules that curtail your right to free association.”

      3. You know there was literally a USSC decision regarding rights not applying to foreigners.

        This argument becomes so tedious because you continue to order for no borders while not acknowledging the problem of welfare and open borders. You begrudgingly admit the conflict when pressed, but then go back solely to asking for open borders.

        1. Who said anything about foreigners right? There are plenty of US citizens that would like to be able to freely associate with immigrants as well; employers, business owners, landlords, etc.

          1. *rights

          2. It is outrageous that antifa has to leave the country to train with Hezbollah!

        2. Are you saying that supreme court decisions determine what rights people have?

          1. They do determine what rights are protected by the US constitution

            1. Oh, so abortion IS protected by the US Constitution then?

              1. I learned in another thread yesterday that I have to defer to Kavanaugh because due to his position on the SC, he knows best. I can’t wait until RBG writes her next majority opinion.

                1. Ah lying about exchanges we all read, never change Leo, losing that debate appears to have put a hurt on you.

                  1. ya he wouldn’t still be crying about it if he felt he came out on top

                    1. No it’s better than that he said this after he lost

                      We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one and anyone who reads our debate can make their own decision. That’s how debate works. Have a good evening.

                      And he did that. Roght?

                      OH NO wait he came in here and cried and lied about whay happened lololol

                      I don’t need to hear another word from him to jmow he knows he lost.

                    2. I really just don’t engage Tulpa on purpose. I only did so because it was a new sock feigning the desire to engage in actual discussion for a few posts. I’m not here to “win debates.” I actually like to hear other perspectives.

                      I engaged Ken downthread and we had a reasonable discussion without flinging insults or trying to “win” anything. If only that were the norm and not the exception this comment section would be much better off.

                    3. What Leo’s tryong to aay is that he came in here to relitogate it while changing the facts and the other party was absent.

                      In other words he knows he lost.

                      without flinging insults or trying to “win” anything

                      calls it a debate, says this

                      “We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one and anyone who reads our debate can make their own decision. That’s how debate works. Have a good evening.”

                      Comes in here to relitigate, but he wasn’t trying to win

                      Sure. Go with that.

                    4. It was obviously a tongue in cheek comment in here, because I know you’re everywhere on this website.

                      I’m sorry I re-engaged. You’re right; you totally owned me and I’ve been thinking about it non-stop all day. Back on ignore you go.

                    5. The evidence just keeps piling up that you know you lost.

                    6. wasn’t me. funny tho

                2. I have to defer to Kavanaugh because due to his position on the SC, he knows best.

                  Awww you’re upset that you got destroyed and now you think lying about it will make you look better,

                  I’ll donte 1000 dollars to a charity of your choice if you can quote where I said you “have to defer” or that “Kavanaugh knows best.”

                  No mincing words no jeff-like reading tea leaves either.

        3. This argument becomes so tedious because you continue to order for no borders while not acknowledging the problem of welfare and open borders.

          Perhaps it’s because the issue of free association is separate from the issue of the welfare state?

          You mix the two in a deliberate dishonest attempt to muddy the waters and generate opposition to the former by appealing to specious arguments regarding the latter.

          1. Perhaps it’s because the issue of free association is separate from the issue of the welfare state?


    2. my co-employee’s ex-husband makes seventy one dollars every hour at the pc. she’s been unemployed for 4 months.. remaining month her take a look at became $13213 operating on the laptop for four hours each day.. Click For Full Details.

  3. >>It had stopped formally recognizing them in 1984

    because Lambda Lambda Lambda took over the Greek Council in 1984

    1. How many Lambdas do you see?

      1. I. SEE. FOUR. LAMBDAS!


  4. They are ending the policy, not because it violates free association but because it means that gays cannot form gay only and lesbians cannot form lesbian only gruops?

    Yet the single sex groups do not violate sex discrimination in themselves? The result is good but the apparent thinking to get there is irrational.

    1. Harvard has been endowed by slave owners and must be cancelled immediately!

      1. If you want to cancel organizations with a blatantly racist past, start with the democratic party.

    2. the apparent thinking to get there is irrational.

      It’s a little something called The Rule of Law. Deal with it.

      1. Please explain how this makes sense by the apparent line of thinking that Bostock requires it because it bars sexual orientation discrimination but 1st Amendment free association did not.

        1. If you read carefully, the only line of reasoning was “Damn. This lawsuit is going to cost a lot of money to lose.”

        2. Please explain how this makes sense

          RULE. OF. LAW.

          1. You do not have an answer, do you?

            1. I think he might be pointing out that the idea of the “rule of law” is in itself irrational.

              1. Then that only leaves us with the rule of men and will to power.

                1. That’s the whole idea behind the rule of law being a myth. We already have the rule of men, every law is interpreted by a person ultimately.

                  Just think about how and why nearly every controversial legal decision comes down to the politics of the judge(s) hearing the appeals. You think the law matters in that case? All that matters is the make-up of the appellate and supreme courts.

                  You were lied to. There is no rule of law. It was a myth all along.

                  1. We have rule of law over those things that are beneath the interest of the higher courts—those cases they refuse to hear.

    3. Yet the single sex groups do not violate sex discrimination in themselves? The result is good but the apparent thinking to get there is irrational.

      There’s a book-length discussion about how irrational thought is taking us to new irrational places as we try to apply ration to premises which are based on irrationality.

      1. Because people of both sexes may have single-sex groups. Harvard seems to see these groups as public accommodations that must “serve” everyone.

    4. No. Here’s the logic. The employer in Bostock was prohibited from firing a man for dating men when they wouldn’t fire a woman for dating men. They have treated that person differently because of his sex, plain and simple. You ask the question “would you fire someone for dating men?” and if the answer is different based on the employee’s sex, that’s sex discrimination.

      Apply that to one-sex groups. You ask Harvard the question “would you allow someone to be part of a group that was 15 men and that person?” Harvard’s answer would be different if the person was a woman (yes, it would be allowed) than if the person was a man (no, it would not be allowed). That’s sex discrimination.

      Harvard was going to say that the ban was applied equally to all-male groups and all-female groups, which would have been similar to the employer arguing that the ban applied to gay men and lesbians.

      1. Why the last step is the deciding factor is the part that is irrational.

        1. What do you mean by last step? The only way to tell if sex discrimination is going on is by asking “would you treat this person differently if they were of the opposite sex?” If you would fire a man who dates men, but you wouldn’t fire a woman who dates men, then that’s sex discrimination. And for Harvard, if they would let a woman be in a group that had no other women in it, but they wouldn’t let a man be in a group that had no other women in it, that’s also sex discrimination. Plain and simple.

      2. There is no logic. The reasoning is circular/tautological.

        You can’t ask the question “would you fire someone for dating men?” because that presumes discrimination a priori. The tautology is obvious at the source where Bostock was presumably fired for wanting to join a gay Softball league/team. A league/team that the employer could not condone as it discriminated based on gender/orientation.

        It’s semantic garbage trumping sound legal reasoning that does a disservice to actually unfairly discriminated against individuals, oppressed minorities, and the law but Justices Karen and Karen feel that it’s more important to white knight for snowflakes that have jobs and want their gender-orientation specific icing too.

        1. No it doesn’t assume discrimination a priori, and it’s perfectly logical. If you fire every employee who dates men, whether it’s gay men or straight women, that’s not sex discrimination. If your answer to the question “would you fire an employee who dates men?” is “only if the employee is a man” then you have OBVIOUSLY discriminated on the basis of that person’s sex. If the person was a woman, there would be no problem.

          1. If you fire every employee who dates men, whether it’s gay men or straight women, that’s not sex discrimination.

            Unless you’re also firing every employe who dates women as well, yes it is.

          2. Again, the question “Would you fire someone for dating men?” itself violates the precepts of the moral/legal question it’s supposed to be answering. You have to assume there’s a difference between the sexes to ask the question, either intrinsic to the sex or intrinsic to the employer. Otherwise, the question would be “Would you fire any/every other employee for engaging in the same behavior?” but then you don’t get to protect your snowflakes by their specific gender.

            1. There is a difference between the sexes! No one thinks there isn’t lmao. You just can’t discriminate on the basis of sex in employment decisions

              1. So if there is a difference between the sexes, what changes besides a person’s opinion if a man decides he’s really a woman?

              2. You just can’t discriminate on the basis of sex in employment decisions

                It was already illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex in employment decisions it’s the principle to which the decision is supposedly attaching. This makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex as defined by the employee’s presumed sexual partner’s auspicious gender… even if you arbitrarily swap one or more person’s gender.

                It’s OK to fire a lesbian for refusing to have sex with a man as long as you would fire a hetero male for refusing to have sex with a man and/or you would fire a hetero female for refusing to have sex with a man. It makes zero sense in terms of equality or other, but it’s the position the law is supposedly defending expanding the previously more sensible position to accommodate.

                1. Firing someone for refusing to have sex is already explicitly illegal.

        2. So does this end women-only sports? Can the USWNT contintue to refuse to hire men to play soccer? Can the WNBA continue to refuse to hire men to play basketball?

          Seems like sex discrimination in the workplace?

          “Would you refuse to hire this man because of his sex?”

      3. By that logic, Gay Marriage was decided incorrectly. Because gays could already marry women, and lesbians were already free to marry men

      4. Would you fire a black person who used the N-word?
        Would you fire a white person who used the N-word?

        Unless you answer both questions the same way, then you’re discriminating based on race.

  5. Just to be clear, frats and soros can still exist in Harvard (as well as “Finals Clubs”, however that’s supposed to be different from fraternities); they just don’t get to be officially recognized by Harvard. If Harvard took the next step and litterlly banned groups of people interacting only with their own sex / orientation / race / etc on their own time, so long as they’re not blocking exits/entrances or forcefully removing people from buildings; THAT would be the Orwellian step too far.

    1. By the article, they were taking away scholarships and other things if they found someone joining the unofficial groups.

  6. Wait, by that logic. Title IX cannot be used to prevent discrimination against women anymore. It only covers discrimination based on Sex not gender. So if you ban all women from working at your business, that’s A-Okay as long as you also ban trans-women from working at your business.

    1. It’s one of the most logically short-sighted decisions the court has ever made, IMO. There were other decisions where the court was short-sighted and had to correct their own stupidity, and there’s plenty where they didn’t. But this decision contradicts the obvious implications of previous decisions and many of these judges made the previous ones and many of the ones who didn’t pointed out how precipitously stupid they were for ignoring their previous decisions.

      Banning all women from working at your business isn’t A-OK because you can’t ban a woman for any reason that you wouldn’t ban a man. So all hiring must be co-ed and, arguably, bathrooms and other facilities must be too. But that also means firing a gay dude for telling Debbie in accounting that her tits are perfect to her face would be discriminatory. Then, once one male has said it, every other male and female employee can to. Roberts’ solution to sexual harassment? Everybody gets pubes on their coke cans!

      IMO, it’s the most blatantly stupid* decision the court has ever made.

      *Not immoral, not wrongly decided, just unabashedly demonstrative of virtually any depth of thought.

      1. I’m sure it will be fine. See, we’ve had an anti-discrimination regime in place for many decades. Now it just includes gay and trans people because of how they wrote the law.

        I get exhausted just witnessing you guys have mental breakdowns over every little thing. It must be debilitating to actually be you.

        1. I get exhausted just witnessing you guys have mental breakdowns over every little thing.

          Seems like a stupid thing to get upset about when you could just leave

          It must be debilitating to actually be you.


          1. When John says social distancing guidelines cause him suffering worse than chattel slaves, well sometimes you just have to stick around to see how the train wreck turns out.

            1. Maybe but you don’t have to whine like a bitch.

        2. See, we’ve had an anti-discrimination regime in place for many decades. Now it just includes gay and trans people because of how they wrote the law.

          No, the case exists because that’s not how they wrote the law.

          Moreover, ever-increasing anti-discrimination regime combined with inequality unprecedented since Jim Crow. Just because you personally are OK with stupid identity political decisions doesn’t mean everyone is.

          Moreover moreover, you can only pull the stupid ‘quarter behind the ear’ trick for so long before even the dumbest 5 yr. old figures out that the quarter is in your hand and once they do, goofball idiots like Pete Buttigieg are going to seem like the enemy to many people who would currently see them as allies.

      2. Gorsuch seems to understand that, but he somehow thinks that as it is a narrow ruling that will not be abused as a precedent, which comes off as staggeringly naive.

      3. Kelo was pretty blatantly stupid as well.

        1. IDK, Kelo felt more towards the Lawful Evil end of the spectrum to me. I don’t agree with the morals or the outcome, but the logic of taking a “worthless” property and giving it to someone who can develop it (even if they don’t) makes sense. Even if you have to keep taking the property and giving it to people who keep failing to develop it.

          But “special people need protection from non-special people but you have to treat them the same” doesn’t even make sense internally. It’s almost trivial to the point of being one of the old “This sentence is a lie.” tropes that you tell to androids to make their heads explode.

    2. If “gender” actually existed, that might be a problem.

  7. But they did so by instituting a different form of sex discrimination and now they’ve accepted that they will lose this lawsuit if they don’t end their policy.

    Sort of like Harvard’s entirely racist admissions policy designed to stop racism.

    1. the only way to end racism is with more racism. Everyone knows that.

  8. “forms of privilege and exclusion at odds with [Harvard’s] deepest values.”

    “But we’re still not letting asians in.”

  9. “And while Harvard is a private college with its own power to decide what it will allow on campus,”

    This keeps cropping up in the comments here.
    I humbly submit it is bullshit.
    Try saying “no blacks allowed on campus”, and see how far your power extends.

  10. Harvard, like most U.S. universities, has been anti-Greek for decades.

    They don’t like the twin liabilities of negligence lawsuits and stained image when something stupid and tragic happens in a fraternity.

    They will continue to look for ways to shut down the Greeks and/or distance themselves as much as possible.

    1. Maybe the Greeks could try not endorsing and facilitating doing stupid and tragic shit.

  11. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Sexual harassment will be the next thing to go.

    Last week’s deicion is like the not-so-secret divide by zero fallacy in the old math ‘proof’:
    a = b
    a^2 = ab
    a^2 + a^2 = ab + a^2
    2a^2 = ab + a^2
    2a^2 – 2ab = a^2 + ab – 2ab
    2(a^2-ab) = 1(a^2 – ab)

    You can have sex, you can have gender and you can forbid some times of discrimination based on sex and some types of discrimination based on gender but you can’t then say that sex and gender define each other and you can’t treat one facet of one different than the other.

    The problem is, despite Shackford’s willful stupidity, this won’t end leading to fewer laws or, just like with the gay marriage stupidity empowering the down trodden without handing greater power idiots who insist that 1=2.

    1. Can’t? They’re just words. Why do you people insist on making people suffer injustice because you can’t let go of semantic pedantry? There’s something of a whisper of disingenuousness about it all.

      1. Can’t? They’re just words.

        Be sure and remember that next time someone threatens your life.

        1. Isn’t the elegance of the ruling that it applies to you whether you say sex or gender or whatever? If someone fires you for not living up to their personal sex/gender norms, it’s sex discrimination regardless of whatever else.

          1. I don’t think you know what the meaning of the word elegance is. If someone fired you because you were an obnoxious, ravenous poon hound, would you consider them to be elegant in their assessment? After all sex = gender = sexual orientation so it’s all discrimination, right?

      2. But enough about your motives.

      3. They’re just words…. semantic pedantry
        This isn’t what you’ve said in every thread featuring a Trump tweet.

        There’s something of a whisper of disingenuousness
        …every time you post.

    2. I very much enjoyed that mathematical “proof”. Thanks for that.

      1. I had forgotten about that one. Divide by zero meme.

    3. Ah, the Isaac Asimov demonstration of why we don’t divide by zero. This IS nostalgia week!

    4. So zero equals zero. 🙂

  12. Free association?
    The only “free association” the masses need are in the gulags.
    Free association should be reserved for the Young Pioneers, the local Marx Worshiping Clubs, the Politburo, the Cominterm, and the Supreme Soviet Court.
    We’ll tell you who to associate with and who you can’t.
    That’s all part of the freedom we socialists we guarantee the masses for their own good and for the good of the collective.

    1. Progressives, partly because they have no choice, must not only tolerate Trumptards being ignorant morons whose superstitions and personality cult (for Donald Fucking Trump, that cheesy huckster from the 80s) are literally killing people now. We must hear their insecure paranoid ranting hot takes every goddamn day. It’s they who think all members of a political opposition are irredeemable. It’s they who inject racial panic into their every political brain fart. It’s they who want to purge academia and media (and science and the arts) of dissenters. If you can’t see that Trumpism is Stalinism hit with a stupid stick, you’re not paying any attention.

      1. You are projecting again.

        1. Stalin was, much like certain other heads of state I could name, an insane lunatic. Nobody is safe when a guy like that is put in charge of ideological purity. First they came for the RINOs and you said nothing. But one day you will be the RINO.

          1. You’re mistake is that you think everyone else is just like you and your fellow progressives.

  13. Leave it to a liberal institution to fight sexual discrimination by instituting sexual discrimination. Here’s a radical idea – let people associate with whomever they chose to. It’s called liberty. In most cases, what limits a person’s social participation is their personality.

  14. I am confused. Harvard can’t form a club that bans women. They can’t ban clubs that ban women?

    That is a head scratcher.

    1. helo

  15. This entire concept is stupid and conflicts with our right to FREELY associate. The real answer is to allow any two or more students to form any club they want, on any bases, with any restrictions, exclusions, inclusions, limitatioins, requirements they desire. If no one else wants to JOIN that clib, that’s the decision of those considering membership. If some individual wants to join but falls outside the “lines” drawn, then the cllub either changes or does not, and the non-conforming member can either join now or go find (or found) a club more to HIS liking.
    The one factor might be school funding. If the school does not like the “form” of Club A, they now can deny funding. How’s about simply endoing all funding for all student clubs? That way no one is harmed. If YOU don’t want to have to wear two left shoes when attending club meetings, go form a similar club without such requriement… or maybe require two RIGHT shoes to be worn at events.

    End all school funding of all clubs, no more issue as no one now has to pay for activities/requirements they do not like, as it will not be taken out of student fees. And no, temporary use of a room in which to meet is NOT “funding” as the room is already there and paid for (or not yet). Leave a couple of quarters in a box by the door for the electricity used for the lights.
    Seems these days there is a major dearth of adults on campus. Grow up and learn to play well together. The “time outs” in grade school have taught people how NOT to deal with conflict. Grow up.

    1. This entire concept is stupid and conflicts with our right to FREELY associate.

      This is the CRA and public accommodations at it’s core. I’d love to say that this law is so superficially stupid that it can’t possibly stand but that assumes an as-yet-undiscovered peak stupidity.

  16. Good, but wasn’t there another Supreme Court decision just now? About a Dixiecrat State bullying women the way they did in 1972 before the LP plank became Roe v Wade? And didn’t a conservative judge (Roberts?) back the Libertarian ruling handed down a month after Toni Nathan was the first woman to ever get an electoral vote 48 years ago? Was it by any chance Louisiana that was denying individual rights to women and threatening medical practitioners. You’d think this would be a vindication of our first platform, no?

  17. I’d like to see Harvard focus on real diversity…getting catholic enrollment (irish, italian, and ethnics) up to the % in the rest of America for students and facility. I know this will mean some other groups need to be reduced but its time for Harvard to step up and ratify this discrimination.

    1. Why not Evangelicals?

    2. Ave, Titus !

      In case you didn’t notice Harvard has been as multiethnic as the Roman Empire for generations- John F Kennedy belonged to a final club.

      The Supreme Court’s rebuff of Indian born Dean Ramesh Khurana’s attempt to axe those private institutions should be celebrated above all by Latin Americans:

      Deploramus igitur
      Vigeles dum sumus
      Deploramus igitur
      Vigeles dum sumus

      Post jocundum Postmodernum
      Post molestam Transgendorum
      Nos factamus stultus
      Nos factamus stultus

      Stultifex maxissime
      Est Khurana doofus
      Stultifex maxissime
      Est Khurana doofus

      Post tedium Fausticorum
      Barbaritasque Bacovorum
      Optimi ignomenet,
      Vulgaritas revixit

      Stultifex maxissime
      Est Khurana doofus
      Sparsit venemum hedera
      Lowelles transgressi

      Pontem fecit
      Numquam maxime
      Pro me quoque
      Cultus mobile

      Stultifex magnopere
      Est Khurana doofus
      Ubi sint qui ante vos
      In laborem fuere?

  18. I’ve read this article and still don’t understand the logic being applied. How does membership in a final club turn on the individuals sex for the purpose of punishment? This doesn’t follow at all from the textualist approach in Bostock. Under Bostock, a man couldn’t be fired for doing what it’s ok for a women to do. How does that apply here? It doesn’t draw an individual distinction turning on sex. A man in a final club is punished for membership in a final club, not for doing something that would be otherwise acceptable if not for his sex.

  19. ★My last month paycheck was for 1500 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour on………See this site………

  20. This site… Socially left, fiscally right has really taken a turn for the worst. Most of these walking thesauruses are preaching Trumpism. Stop trying to act smart and actually be smart. You are on the precibus of an autocratic, authoritarian society.

    The Left isn’t taking your rights, they’re using their wallets. Free enterprise. Deal with it. The only person gaming the system to strip fairness from society is Trump. If you can’t see it, we can’t help you.

    1. Reason hasn’t been fiscally right since Nick penned his “OMG! What if Christians took over capitalism?” screed.

  21. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required.scs.Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…workstoday 

  22. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . YEr Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

    Heres what I do…… SeeMore here

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.