So-Called Inclusion

In the name of promoting diversity, Harvard has eliminated the diversity of groups and opportunities available to Harvard students and is doing so in a manner that discriminates against Harvard students on the basis of their sex.

1. The policy steals opportunities from and harms women and students of color. Women’s and culturally-based, single-sex social groups provide a powerfully positive experience for marginalized students. Removing affinity spaces for these students goes directly against the stated goal of inclusivity.

2.Sexism pervades the policy’s creation. As it was developed, administrators only spoke to members of men’s final clubs until just before the policy was introduced—feedback from women’s sororities and social clubs was “an afterthought.”

3.In its ever-shifting reasoning for the policy and uncertain steps for implementation, the administration offered women’s groups several years to co-educate, which highlights their bias against men—”gender discrimination to further gender nondiscrimination.”

4.As Dean Rakesh Khurana stated when he introduced the policy, “Stereotypes and bias take hold, normalizing in a community behavior, which should be unacceptable.” Yet, based on its own biases around gender, Harvard seeks to dictate gender norms to which men and women must conform, as well as the sex of people with whom students may associate.

In the classroom where men speak more than women, and on the weekend where women are targeted and shamed for their sexuality. On campus and in a society that is so male-dominated, female spaces are crucial sources of empowerment.

Undergraduate Woman

Harvard University