Too much to discuss today. Of course I am ecstatic about the decision in the Admissions lawsuit; the opinion
is well worth reading. (Even if you are just curious to learn how the process works.) And Senator Grassley
has taken an interest in what I called The political execution of Dean Sullivan
But other matters will have to wait. I wanted to call attention to today's report in the Crimson
explaining how the USGSO policy will be implemented. From the beginning I have been asking
how the College will know who is in a prohibited Unrecognized Single Gender Social Organization, given that only fellow students are likely to know. The published policy reads,
Student Organizations who are found to have elected a member of a USGSO to a leadership position will be put through the Student Organization Discipline process and that student will be removed from the leadership position.
And how will those errant students be found?
[Associate Dean of Student Engagement Stephen] Miller also said there is no formal process in place for reporting violations of the sanctions policy by student group leaders. The person launching the complaint cannot be anonymous but can be any member of the Harvard community.,“It can be email, it can be a phone call, it would have to be someone coming forward to communicate with our office, whether verbally or in writing, but there is no form,” Miller said.
Could be anyone with a grievance, or even a dean who notices a student entering the Porcellian. Then what happens? "After the initial report, Miller said that the College would meet with the student in question and `find out more information.' ”
All this is in tension with with the Implementation Committee
's commitment to keep other people out of the enforcement of the policy.
We consider compliance with the policy to be a matter between the individual student and the College. Other parties—faculty, faculty deans and tutors, athletic coaches, fellow organization members, teammates—should not be responsible for policing the policy or ensuring that it is complied with.
Dean of Students Katherine O'Dair tried gamely to split the difference.
"We don’t consider it students’ responsibility to enforce University policy. …That said, students should know that our doors are open if they want to bring concerns to us about any number of policies.”
So if you are the runner-up in the voting for the presidency of the Republican Club or the captaincy of the women's ice hockey team, and you think that the winner might be in an unrecognized club, you now have a strong incentive to walk through an open door to express what is delicately described as a concern about policy--a concern that just might make you head of the organization.
And there is no official list of prohibited organizations (so I still don't know if the Knights of Columbus is on it
). Miller added, "We don’t give instructions to student organizations, but we do give them guidance on policy." One alum who wrote to me described this style as Maoist, another as Stalinist.
I am quite surprised that Harvard is going full speed ahead with enforcement, given the legal setback
the policy suffered some weeks ago. To be going on the record in the Crimson
today inviting students to start turning on their fellow students, the administration of the College must be confident that it will ultimately prevail on the question of whether the policy constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title IX. Won't Harvard be inviting a civil suit if it damages a student's reputation and professional opportunities by depriving her of a leadership position as it enforces what it has good reason to think is an unlawful policy?