Harvard Brings Back the Blacklist

[Virgil Showlion]

From the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):

In a stunning attack on freedom of association, Harvard University announced today that members of independent, single-sex, off-campus organizations will be blacklisted from Rhodes and Marshall scholarships and banned from leadership of on-campus organizations or athletic teams.

Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust stated that next year, members of fraternities, sororities, and “final clubs” will begin to be denied these opportunities in an effort to foster “inclusion” and “address deeply rooted gender attitudes.” According to Dean Rakesh Khurana, who recommended the changes, such organizations have been independent from Harvard since 1984. They operate as off-campus entities and do not receive any recognition or benefit from the university.

“Outrageously, Harvard has decided that 2016 is the right time to revive the blacklist,” said Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which defends freedom of association on campus. “This year’s undesirables are members of off-campus clubs that don’t match Harvard’s political preferences. In the 1950s, perhaps Communists would have been excluded. I had hoped that universities were past the point of asking people, ‘Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a group we don’t like?’ Sadly, they are not.”

This at Harvard, a "liberal" arts school. What a joke liberalism must be to them.

[djAdvocate]

is Harvard a private institution?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 9, 2016 9:13:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is Harvard a private institution?

They're a private institution that serves the public, the same as a certain bakery in Oregon. Why do you ask?

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2016 9:21:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 9, 2016 9:13:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is Harvard a private institution?

They're a private institution that serves the public, the same as a certain bakery in Oregon. Why do you ask?

"serving the public" is not the standard, and you know it.  but fine.  let's go with your spurious analogy. 

what protected class is being harmed in this case?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 9, 2016 9:33:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 9, 2016 9:21:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

They're a private institution that serves the public, the same as a certain bakery in Oregon. Why do you ask?

"serving the public" is not the standard, and you know it.  but fine.  let's go with your spurious analogy. 

what protected class is being harmed in this case?

No protected class. Just people.

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2016 9:37:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 9, 2016 9:33:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"serving the public" is not the standard, and you know it.  but fine.  let's go with your spurious analogy. 

what protected class is being harmed in this case?

No protected class. Just people.

thanks.  no further questions. 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 9, 2016 10:19:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I am uncomfortable with this move by Harvard. Here is a report less biased: In Historic Move, Harvard to Penalize Final Clubs, Greek Organizations

Starting with Harvard’s Class of 2021, undergraduate members of unrecognized single-gender social organizations will be banned from holding athletic team captaincies and leadership positions in all recognized student groups. They will also be ineligible for College endorsement for top fellowships like the Rhodes and Marshall scholarships.
. ..

“Although the fraternities, sororities, and final clubs are not formally recognized by the College, they play an unmistakable and growing role in student life, in many cases enacting forms of privilege and exclusion at odds with our deepest values,” Faust wrote. “The College cannot ignore these organizations if it is to advance our shared commitment to broadening opportunity and making Harvard a campus for all of its students.”

...

[T]he discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances,” Khurana wrote. “The most entrenched of these spaces send an unambiguous message that they are the exclusive preserves of men. In their recruitment practices and through their extensive resources and access to networks of power, these organizations propagate exclusionary values that undermine those of the larger Harvard College community.”

There is a part of it were it is teaching "choices have consequences" which to me is a positive side of it. Not sure it enough to support it.

So if I ban members of Black Lives Matter from holding major scholarships and student leadership positions at my liberal arts college, it's all good because I'm teaching students that choices have consequences?

Let me pin you down on this. What is the factor in your mind that separates discrimination of the (unacceptable) "institutions must serve the whole public" variety from discrimination of the (acceptable) "choices have consequences" variety? And don't tell me "I only care about protected classes". I consider you a reasonable individual and I'd like to keep it that way.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 9, 2016 18:45:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Good luck with that one.  Remember Emerson?  "Foolish consistency ..."

You needn't ever worry about someone accusing you of being consistent, sir. You can rest assured of that.

May 9, 2016 18:45:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Perpetuation of male privilege is something that needs to end.

No it doesn't. Society has persisted and flourished for millennia with far greater degree of "male privilege" than presently observed in western nations.

However, suppose for sake of argument that the further emasculation of society is a good thing. You're saying that denying Harvard students access to scholarships and leadership positions when they choose to associate with fraternities and sororities will accomplish this?

If so, denying scholarships, etc. to men who take leadership classes will also hasten the end of "male privilege". Should this sacrifice also be made, or is this one red instead of black on the roulette wheel?

May 9, 2016 18:45:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

As far as "protected classes" - I don't have a major problem with the concept.  There are classes of people who have been historically discriminated against in a systematic way that having a systematic way to counter discrimination makes sense.

This presumes discrimination against all these classes is necessarily a bad thing for society--which is unproven and almost certainly incorrect. It presumes that discrimination can be effectively fought with more discrimination. It presumes that the good effects of counter-discrimination outweigh its ill effects, which again is unproven and almost certainly false. It presumes that counter-discrimination for the purposes of social engineering is worth sacrificing freedom of association with groups as benign as fraternities and sororities, which should be an anathema to anybody who calls themselves a "liberal".

No, sir, I'm not surprised you don't have a "major problem" with any of this. I'm slightly surprised by how much you're willing to sacrifice on the altar of your god, but I'm slowly learning.

[Virgil Showlion]

You can start lecturing me about oppressing people when I give a hearty thumbs up to denying students scholarships and leadership roles when they join a fraternity.

I'm supposed to be the hard nosed fundamentalist here, and I'm more liberal than you are.

[swamp]

I was in a sorority. I find this decision sad.

Not everyone in a Greek house is a blithering drunk idiot.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2016 9:40:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 10, 2016 9:03:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You can start lecturing me about oppressing people when I give a hearty thumbs up to denying students scholarships and leadership roles when they join a fraternity.

I'm supposed to be the hard nosed fundamentalist here, and I'm more liberal than you are.

I quoted the exact statement in which you endorse the oppression of human beings based on race and/or gender and/or sexual orientation.

Gee, I don't fit nicely into the little box you construct and label "liberal"? I prefer to construct my own little box and label it Bill. I fit perfectly into it. And I am not sure why you lectured me considering your criteria stated. I certainly didn't give "a hearty thumbs up" to Harvard's policy.

I tolerate discrimination against protected classes as well as against unprotected ones. Is that what you're calling "oppression of human beings based on race and/or gender and/or sexual orientation"?

If that's the standard, then you endorse oppression of human beings based on their desire to associate with fraternities and sororities. Hence I suppose we understand each other.

I always thought you valued the Voltairian liberal ideal, but I guess that didn't make it into the Bill box. At least this time your verdict doesn't depend on how far away the parking lot is.

[chiver78]

I'm a little surprised to see fraternities and sororities included in that new rule. the discussion originally started as a counter to the "final clubs" that were refusing to admit women. the articles and op-eds that I read awhile back had the tone that it was time to disassemble the "Old Boy network" that was built from these final clubs.

[happyhoix]

No it doesn't. Society has persisted and flourished for millennia with far greater degree of "male privilege" than presently observed in western nations.

Society persisted and flourished for males for millennia.

Name one well known renaissance painter who was female, and tell me if the dearth of female artists is due to women not having the opportunity to learn to be painters or that women are just not capable of great art.

Imagine the art we might have if 50% of the population wasn't excluded from participating in it over the millennia.

This presumes discrimination against all these classes is necessarily a bad thing for society--which is unproven and almost certainly incorrect.

Can you explain what you meant by this? I hope you don't mean what I think you mean.

Don't get me wrong - I'm with Bills, I think what Harvard is doing won't fix the problem, and is therefore pointless, but I'm curious, Virgil, that you seem to think that having males running society is the preferred way to go.

[swamp]

May 10, 2016 10:34:27 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 10, 2016 10:10:54 GMT -5 swamp said:

I was in a sorority. I find this decision sad.

Not everyone in a Greek house is a blithering drunk idiot.

Nor are they necessarily mysogynists or elitist. The problem is that system does tend to attract those who are and encourages them to continue to be. My concern with the new policy is that it won't fix the problem.

It won't. They will just congregate somewhere else.

And it's Harvard, FFS, of course there are elitists there.

[jkapp]

May 9, 2016 10:33:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 9, 2016 9:37:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

No protected class. Just people.

thanks.  no further questions. 

SO you're saying gays aren't people? Or they are people that are given special considerations above others?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 9, 2016 10:17:17 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Fraternities are stupid. Criminy, I knew that when I was 19 and knew people who pledged to them.

I pledged a fraternity, am I one of the stupid people that you seem to think you know so well?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 9, 2016 21:00:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 9, 2016 18:45:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Good luck with that one.  Remember Emerson?  "Foolish consistency ..."

You needn't ever worry about someone accusing you of being consistent, sir. You can rest assured of that.

May 9, 2016 18:45:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Perpetuation of male privilege is something that needs to end.

No it doesn't. Society has persisted and flourished for millennia with far greater degree of "male privilege" than presently observed in western nations.

However, suppose for sake of argument that the further emasculation of society is a good thing. You're saying that denying Harvard students access to scholarships and leadership positions when they choose to associate with fraternities and sororities will accomplish this?

If so, denying scholarships, etc. to men who take leadership classes will also hasten the end of "male privilege". Should this sacrifice also be made, or is this one red instead of black on the roulette wheel?

May 9, 2016 18:45:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

As far as "protected classes" - I don't have a major problem with the concept.  There are classes of people who have been historically discriminated against in a systematic way that having a systematic way to counter discrimination makes sense.

This presumes discrimination against all these classes is necessarily a bad thing for society--which is unproven and almost certainly incorrect. It presumes that discrimination can be effectively fought with more discrimination. It presumes that the good effects of counter-discrimination outweigh its ill effects, which again is unproven and almost certainly false. It presumes that counter-discrimination for the purposes of social engineering is worth sacrificing freedom of association with groups as benign as fraternities and sororities, which should be an anathema to anybody who calls themselves a "liberal".

No, sir, I'm not surprised you don't have a "major problem" with any of this. I'm slightly surprised by how much you're willing to sacrifice on the altar of your god, but I'm slowly learning.

As I've said before, liberal outrage is very rarely consistent and unfortunately the left has become nothing more than the equivalent of ambulance chasing attorneys who sometimes find people who need defending, but for the most part that isn't the case with their complaints.  As for this ban, it's interesting because many times people want to complain if campus organizations ban people based on religion (even if it identifies as Christian organization, many colleges have in bylaws that leadership can't be discriminated on based on their religion), gender, sexual orientation, etc...but in this case, it seems that some believe it to be acceptable to limit leadership opportunities based on a disagreement about being in fraternities or sororities?  Really? 

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 10, 2016 13:56:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 10, 2016 12:41:18 GMT -5 swamp said:

...
And it's Harvard, FFS, of course there are elitists there.

Which is why I like the idea that the adults in the room are paying attention to the issue.

The fact that you consider this an "adult" decision is part of the problem.  The word discrimination and bigot has become so watered down to the point that people look for reasons to be offended and then have people support idiotic policies like this one.  If a "conservative" college came up with this rule, I seriously doubt you would consider those making the same decision "adults" paying attention to the situation.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 9, 2016 9:13:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is Harvard a private institution?

Seriously DJ, you're ok with this idiocy?  You honestly don't see an issue with this?

[Value Buy]

The Blacklist at Harvard-shades of the old communist crackdown by a Senator from Wisconsin in the 1950"s only in reverse.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2016 19:11:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

May 9, 2016 9:13:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is Harvard a private institution?

Seriously DJ, you're ok with this idiocy?  You honestly don't see an issue with this?

Of course not. Liberal arts colleges have a responsibility to suppress "male privilege", and college students aren't a protected class.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2016 18:57:01 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

May 9, 2016 21:00:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You needn't ever worry about someone accusing you of being consistent, sir. You can rest assured of that.

No it doesn't. Society has persisted and flourished for millennia with far greater degree of "male privilege" than presently observed in western nations.

However, suppose for sake of argument that the further emasculation of society is a good thing. You're saying that denying Harvard students access to scholarships and leadership positions when they choose to associate with fraternities and sororities will accomplish this?

If so, denying scholarships, etc. to men who take leadership classes will also hasten the end of "male privilege". Should this sacrifice also be made, or is this one red instead of black on the roulette wheel?

This presumes discrimination against all these classes is necessarily a bad thing for society--which is unproven and almost certainly incorrect. It presumes that discrimination can be effectively fought with more discrimination. It presumes that the good effects of counter-discrimination outweigh its ill effects, which again is unproven and almost certainly false. It presumes that counter-discrimination for the purposes of social engineering is worth sacrificing freedom of association with groups as benign as fraternities and sororities, which should be an anathema to anybody who calls themselves a "liberal".

No, sir, I'm not surprised you don't have a "major problem" with any of this. I'm slightly surprised by how much you're willing to sacrifice on the altar of your god, but I'm slowly learning.

As I've said before, liberal outrage is very rarely consistent and unfortunately the left has become nothing more than the equivalent of ambulance chasing attorneys who sometimes find people who need defending, but for the most part that isn't the case with their complaints.  As for this ban, it's interesting because many times people want to complain if campus organizations ban people based on religion (even if it identifies as Christian organization, many colleges have in bylaws that leadership can't be discriminated on based on their religion), gender, sexual orientation, etc...but in this case, it seems that some believe it to be acceptable to limit leadership opportunities based on a disagreement about being in fraternities or sororities?  Really? 

Haven't you heard? "[T]he discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances".

Harvard isn't about creating power imbalances. Except for imbalances in wealth. And stature. And influence. And state power. And curriculum. And public policy. But excepting all of those, Harvard is absolutely not about creating power imbalances. Especially those created by those pesky student organizations that limit admittance to one gender. Those bastards are worse than the commies.

New research out of the Harvard Institute for Hurt Feelings indicates that 72% of all microaggressions inside campus safe spaces involve a member of a fraternity or sorority. 72%! Think about that.

[djAdvocate]

May 10, 2016 18:23:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

May 9, 2016 10:33:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

thanks.  no further questions. 

SO you're saying gays aren't people? Or they are people that are given special considerations above others?

no

[djAdvocate]

May 10, 2016 19:11:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

May 9, 2016 9:13:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is Harvard a private institution?

Seriously DJ, you're ok with this idiocy?  You honestly don't see an issue with this?

i don't have sufficient information to know whether i am ok with it or not.  and yes, i see the issue.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 10, 2016 19:49:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 10, 2016 18:57:01 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

As I've said before, liberal outrage is very rarely consistent and unfortunately the left has become nothing more than the equivalent of ambulance chasing attorneys who sometimes find people who need defending, but for the most part that isn't the case with their complaints.  As for this ban, it's interesting because many times people want to complain if campus organizations ban people based on religion (even if it identifies as Christian organization, many colleges have in bylaws that leadership can't be discriminated on based on their religion), gender, sexual orientation, etc...but in this case, it seems that some believe it to be acceptable to limit leadership opportunities based on a disagreement about being in fraternities or sororities?  Really? 

Haven't you heard? "[T]he discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances".

Harvard isn't about creating power imbalances. Except for imbalances in wealth. And stature. And influence. And state power. And curriculum. And public policy. But excepting all of those, Harvard is absolutely not about creating power imbalances. Especially those created by those pesky student organizations that limit admittance to one gender. Those bastards are worse than the commies.

New research out of the Harvard Institute for Hurt Feelings indicates that 72% of all microaggressions inside campus safe spaces involve a member of a fraternity or sorority. 72%! Think about that.

The discussion of "micro aggressions" is a whole other can of worms.  It's now completely about perception over reality and if a person wants to get offended, they will find a way and can now call it a "micro aggression."  Somebody gets upset because they are told that the school play can't be called a "Christmas play" or people can't say "Merry Christmas" because somebody might get offended...those people are told to deal with it...however, if you ask an Asian-American student where they are from and if that student thinks you are only asking because of their skin color (even if it wasn't and the person asked every student that question) and people are ready to be all up in arms about how insentive the question is to ask in that situation.  Really? 

[djAdvocate]

May 10, 2016 19:31:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 10, 2016 19:11:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Seriously DJ, you're ok with this idiocy?  You honestly don't see an issue with this?

Of course not. Liberal arts colleges have a responsibility to suppress "male privilege", and college students aren't a protected class.

Virgil- i would appreciate it if you would stop answering for me, for three reasons:

1) you are wrong pretty much every time
2) it is extremely rude
3) it pisses me off.

if you keep doing this, i am going to report you every time from now on.

you don't know my mind AT ALL, and it was not what i was thinking AT ALL in my response.  just stop.  please.

tyia

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2016 20:23:01 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

May 10, 2016 19:49:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Haven't you heard? "[T]he discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances".

Harvard isn't about creating power imbalances. Except for imbalances in wealth. And stature. And influence. And state power. And curriculum. And public policy. But excepting all of those, Harvard is absolutely not about creating power imbalances. Especially those created by those pesky student organizations that limit admittance to one gender. Those bastards are worse than the commies.

New research out of the Harvard Institute for Hurt Feelings indicates that 72% of all microaggressions inside campus safe spaces involve a member of a fraternity or sorority. 72%! Think about that.

The discussion of "micro aggressions" is a whole other can of worms.  It's now completely about perception over reality and if a person wants to get offended, they will find a way and can now call it a "micro aggression."  Somebody gets upset because they are told that the school play can't be called a "Christmas play" or people can't say "Merry Christmas" because somebody might get offended...those people are told to deal with it...however, if you ask an Asian-American student where they are from and if that student thinks you are only asking because of their skin color (even if it wasn't and the person asked every student that question) and people are ready to be all up in arms about how insentive the question is to ask in that situation.  Really? 

It gets worse.

This Harvard initiative is the brainchild of an entire bureau (no doubt given an Orwellian name like "Office of Diversity of Ideas") packed with individuals whose professional existence is justified by conjuring up new and creative ways to be offended, suppress the wrong kinds of diversity, and insulate students from potentially harmful criticism.

Even Michael Bloomberg--yes, hyper-liberal, soda-banning New York ex-mayor Michael Bloomberg--got so sick of it that he dared caution students during a recent graduation address. The booing and hissing from the students rose in a torrent.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2016 20:28:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 10, 2016 19:31:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Of course not. Liberal arts colleges have a responsibility to suppress "male privilege", and college students aren't a protected class.

Virgil- i would appreciate it if you would stop answering for me, for three reasons:

1) you are wrong pretty much every time
2) it is extremely rude
3) it pisses me off.

if you keep doing this, i am going to report you every time from now on.

you don't know my mind AT ALL, and it was not what i was thinking AT ALL in my response.  just stop.  please.

tyia

What protected class is being harmed in this case?

[djAdvocate]

May 10, 2016 21:11:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 10, 2016 20:28:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil- i would appreciate it if you would stop answering for me, for three reasons:

1) you are wrong pretty much every time
2) it is extremely rude
3) it pisses me off.

if you keep doing this, i am going to report you every time from now on.

you don't know my mind AT ALL, and it was not what i was thinking AT ALL in my response.  just stop.  please.

tyia

What protected class is being harmed in this case?

i agreed with your answer to that question- but i didn't PRESUME your answer.  i would appreciate it if you would do the same for me.  but given that i have asked you probably three dozen times to NOT to post as if you know how i would reply, and you keep doing it, i am guessing that means i am going to be getting very friendly with the "report post" function.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2016 21:19:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 10, 2016 21:11:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What protected class is being harmed in this case?

i agreed with your answer to that question- but i didn't PRESUME your answer.  i would appreciate it if you would do the same for me.  but given that i have asked you probably three dozen times to NOT to post as if you know how i would reply, and you keep doing it, i am guessing that means i am going to be getting very friendly with the "report post" function.

Report me until your mouse gives out.

A rule has to be broken. Rules you make up yourself need not apply. That's a good thing for you, because I could have all kinds of fun making up rules to prevent you from doing the 101 things you do that I'd rather you didn't.

But I don't want to be unreasonable.

How about an exchange? I'll stop responding to posts in a way that implies I know what you think if you stop making comments like "I didn't make it past...", "It's not worth my time to read...", "It's by [so and so]. That's all I need to know.", "Sorry, I'm not reading anything by...", etc., etc.  I'm not saying you actually have to digest material you don't want to digest, but if you decide it's not worth your time to read it, at least spare us from hearing about how it's not worth your time to read it.

Quid pro quo.

As for my reply to VB, it was my bold assumption that you intended the question "What protected class is being harmed in this case?" to have some actual relevance, which of course it doesn't have if your assessment of the blacklisting is the same for both protected and unprotected classes. Mea culpa.