A Cultural Hype

Punching, tapping, bickering, rushing. These words all describe the selective admission process to exclusive social organizations on college campuses, such as Harvard’s final clubs, Yale’s Secret Societies, Princeton’s eating clubs, and Greek life in general.
Unsettling stories about hazing during the pledge process, movies like “The Social Network” that glamourize elite social clubs, the lawsuit against a Yale fraternity for deaths last year’s Harvard-Yale football game, and the internet circulation of the profanity-ridden Delta Gamma e-mail all seem to add to a cultural hype surrounding these exclusive social circles. The reaction to this hype maps onto a wide spectrum, with some people feeling in awe and others in disdain.
Yet what truly underlies the exclusive social scene of college campuses? The scene is so shrouded in mystery that club members are often banned from speaking about their organization’s activities. A deeper investigation of exclusive social clubs points to deep sociological and psychological reasons underpinning the appeal of the clubs, as well as the striking negative impact these clubs have on student life for the general campus population.

The Pull

The Need to Belong

One major motivation for students to attempt to join these exclusive organizations is the instinctual need to belong. In an interview with the HPR, Shamus Khan, Associate Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, explained how humans are social animals who possess a primal desire to belong: “In general, we define ourselves not by aspects of ourselves but typically within the relationships we have with others …We’re social animals, subject to huge amounts of peer influence all the time. Even though we think of ourselves as deeply individual, our associations become very important to us because they define who we are.” By becoming a member of a social group, people enjoy a clearer sense of identity afforded by security in their sense of belonging.

Access to Resources

The desire for social gain also plays a role. Many exclusive social organizations on college campuses, especially those such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, have long histories, giving them access to wide social networks, financial capital, and strong organizational structures. This abundance of resources and deeply ingrained sense of tradition foster an aura of prestige around these clubs. Membership into organizations like Harvard’s final clubs effectively ensures a more secure career, as many club members obtain lucrative careers through club connections.
Social gain, however, does not stop at future financial and career benefits. It also encompasses benefits in the here and now, namely that of access to a lively social life. At Harvard, where a common complaint is the lack of a social space for undergraduate parties, final clubs fill in the gap. Moreover, Harvard College maintains relatively strict alcohol policies, leading final clubs that possess real estate to be the source of parties and alcohol for students. Princeton’s eating clubs have similarly become a dominant social force on campus by providing meals seven days per week in addition to hosting parties. Without alternative social spaces provided by the schools, it is often inevitable that students on the lookout for weekend fun turn to final clubs for entertainment.

Prestige in Exclusivity

Furthermore, the sense of exclusivity present in these social spaces further fuels students’ desire for membership. Harvard sophomore Molly Roberts explained in an interview with the HPR, “I think the fact that [Harvard final clubs] are exclusive makes them more appealing. If you got in, then you passed the test, and it’s a stamp of social validation.”
This desire for prestige and exclusivity may be particularly strong at elite universities like Harvard and Princeton. Harvard junior Rachel Sandalow-Ash attributes this desire for prestige to Harvard’s culture of competition: “I think that we’re basically taught to want anything prestigious while we’re [at Harvard]. The process of getting into Harvard is that you’ve done well in many things, and I think people can be competitive in all aspects of their lives, whether that is in academic and awards, in trying to attain high positions in extracurricular activities or in gaining access to an elite social sphere.”

The Dark Side of the Moon

Counterarguments: Community and Diversity

Underlying the glamour of these exclusive organizations are deep roots of social inequality. The very privilege that students seek to gain from joining these clubs is the privilege that perpetuates social ills like sexism, classism, and racism. Members of exclusive social organizations themselves, however, do not agree that their club promotes prejudice. Instead, they tout the value of community, while also claiming diversity within their own group.
In an interview with the HPR, Michael Kimmel, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at Stony Brook University, explained this phenomena: “The people who are involved in [exclusive social clubs] will invariably tell you is that in this vast, multicultural and confusing world, they want a social life that will provide them with stability and community. They will extol the virtues of community, and they will proclaim to you how diverse they are. This is an example of what social in-group homogeneity and out-group heterogeneity. Within your own group you see how diverse your own group is, but when you see another group you see how homogenous it is.”

A Foundation of Exclusion

But is this two-pronged defense of exclusive social organizations—the “desire for community” and the diversity claim – inherently consistent after all? Kimmel told the HPR, “The way that privilege reproduces itself is through exclusivity—by restricting access. If you ask people who are in [exclusive social organizations], it’s about community and friendship. I have no reason to doubt it. My only concern is friendships and community based on exclusion violates the premises of democracy.”
While the “old boys clubs” of elite universities are the usual targets of such criticism of elitism, fraternities also have their roots in discrimination. Explaining the original purpose of Greek life, Kimmel said, “[Fraternities and sororities] were organized originally as ways to perpetuate a certain exclusivity on large campuses. Large state universities were founded explicitly to include women and free African Americans, so what’s a regular poor white guy to do if these schools were open to women and black people? Fraternities provided a basis for exclusion.”

The Case of Harvard Final Clubs

Lack of Diversity

It is hard to ignore that Harvard final clubs do not score well in terms of diversity. According to The Crimson’s 2013 Final Club Survey, final club members are more likely to be wealthy, white, and straight; be an athlete; and have legacy.
Seventy percent of survey respondents who belong to a final club were white, compared to 63 percent of survey respondents who said they were never punched by a final club; 95 percent were straight, compared to 87 percent; 26 percent had parents whose incomes were over $500,000, compared to 11 percent; 44 percent were varsity athletes, compared to 16 percent; and 24 percent had legacy, compared to 13 percent.
It is important to recognize, however, that these statistics are not fully reliable, considering that survey respondents could have submitted more than once. Nonetheless, at the very least, these statistics can encourage people to question the assertion that the clubs are now fully diverse.

Issues of Sex and Gender

During weekends, long lines of girls—many of them freshmen—are hard to miss outside final clubs. Often times, these women are dressed up and waiting to be evaluated by their male hosts, who would either invite them in or turn them down. According to Roberts, the men are “in charge,” while the girls are “outsiders.”
When asked about the atmosphere of final club parties, Roberts said, “There definitely is this feeling that there are guys who want to hook up with you, and if you go on the dance floor, it’s something that is expected to happen. There is definitely a vibe that a girl isn’t going into a final club just to hang out with her friends and chat.” In fact, two-thirds of reported sexual assaults are marked as having occurred off-campus. Final club parties most likely account for a significant percentage of these incidents, as final clubs are technically considered off-campus locations, though the university has yet to release these numbers.
Moreover, final clubs negatively impact the concept of gender, perpetuating heteronormative standards, reinforcing the gender binary, and skewing the perception of masculinity. Harvard junior Gabriel Bayard, who participated in distributing flyers asking sophomores not to punch final clubs, explained, “The way final clubs is structured makes me particularly uncomfortable as a gay man. It makes me uncomfortable that only women are only allowed at parties. It’s particularly reinforcing the most damaging parts of masculinity: that men have parties, drink lots of alcohol and have lots of alcohol available solely to have first-year women come in, drink and get drunk—that’s exceptionally damaging on a whole host of levels.”
In addition to thriving on a sexist survival mechanism, final clubs also discriminate against minorities. According to Bayard, this problem arises from the fact that final clubs tend to be predisposed to accept students who have family legacy at the organizations. At a school like Harvard, which has been a white- and male-only space for more than half its history, this does not call for much diversity.

Classism

Final clubs are also classist, not simply in the sense that the clubs are primarily targeted at wealthy students—as demonstrated by the aforementioned 26 percent figure pertaining to final club members who are within the highest combined parental income bracket, compared to the 11 percent figure concerning non-final club members—, but also in the sense that students from families of lower incomes may feel pressured to join in order to ensure a financially secure future. Bayard explained, “Students shouldn’t be forced to spend two months of their sophomore year punching a final club just so they can find the right connections—to secure a job at Wall Street. Harvard needs to do a better job of finding ways for students who are struggling financially to connect after they graduate.”

Psychological Harm

In addition to fostering elitism, the punch process of final clubs inadvertently leads to emotional and psychological distress for many students, affecting their self-esteem. Roberts, who punched last semester but was not admitted, said, “People feel like they’re not worthy or that they don’t fit in if they have friends who are in final clubs, but they [themselves] didn’t get in. Your success in final clubs translates to your social success and happiness. I think people who don’t get in at first feel that way. When I was punching a few final clubs, I was telling myself ‘No, you don’t feel that way,’ but when I didn’t get in, I felt sad.”

Separate But Equal?

The Issue of Female Final Clubs

In order to counterbalance the existence of all-male final clubs, five female final clubs have formed in recent Harvard history. However, the existence of female final clubs does not in fact alter the gender dynamic or help level the playing field, as often supposed, due to their significantly shorter histories and consequential lack of resources, including money, real estate and social networks. Consequently, female final clubs “play catch-up,” as Sandalow-Ash calls it.
Sabrina Lee, a Harvard College graduate of 2012 and the organizer of the Final Club Campaign to create alternative social spaces and ultimately abolish final clubs, said in an interview with the HPR, “I think that I see why people thought that creating female final clubs could be a good thing for women on campus, but I don’t think it gets at the heart of the problem…None of them have the resources that the male final clubs have. The capital that women have to dispose of versus men have is a product of history.”
Not only do women still get the short end of the stick due to female final clubs’ lack of resources, but the existence of these new clubs also does little to alter the gender dynamics within the pre-existing male final clubs. According to Roberts, “Occasionally the Fly will have a mixer with the Bee, but there’s no obvious instance of the men changing the way they look at girls.”
In fact, one could even potentially argue that the existence of female final clubs is counter-productive because it allows Harvard’s social scene to give off an appearance of gender equality that it has not fully achieved. As long as female final clubs exist, male final clubs can get away with existing, under the banner of “separate but equal”. They can simply point to the female final clubs and argue that male final clubs must also be able to exist if female final clubs do.

Justification for All-Male Spaces

In effect, however, while female final clubs can be justified because their existence is a challenge to inequality, male final clubs cannot. Kimmel explained, “You could politically justify an all women’s space—an all women’s college, for example, Wellesley—or an all black college because historically these have been responses to inequality based on race and gender. Justifying an all male college is politically problematic.”
Only under certain conditions and specific qualifications can the existence of all-male organizations be justified. According to Kimmel, this condition is the discussion of masculinity: “I think that the fraternity system in general and single-sex organizations like the final clubs are missing an opportunity to talk about gender. It’s not enough to be an organization of men or an organization for men. You also need to be an organization about men—about masculinity where you talk about gender …That conversation, I would suspect, is not happening. Privilege is, after all, usually invisible to those who have it.”

A Call for Complete Inclusivity

Meanwhile, for many, gender exclusivity in itself is an issue that must be resolved. Princeton’s eating clubs became co-ed only after Sally Frank, currently a law professor at Drake Law School, filed a lawsuit against eating clubs for discrimination against women as a Princeton undergraduate during the 1970s. Frank won the case thirteen years later, and now all of Princeton’s eating clubs are co-ed. In an interview with HPR, Frank said, “I think [making the clubs co-ed] did help with the sexism on campus. It created more equality that wasn’t there before. Making women are part of the leadership/social programming has helped the atmosphere.”
Although co-ed organizations are definitely regarded as better than single-sex ones, most interviewees ultimately desired abolishment of exclusive social organizations altogether. Lee, Sandalow-Ash and Frank all share this opinion. Frank told the HPR, “All of the clubs are now co-ed, but there’s still a problem that the clubs themselves cause. If I were setting a social system, I wouldn’t set up eating clubs. Especially exclusive ones.”

Looking Backward

Trapped in Tradition

While the move toward abolition of exclusive social clubs, or at least the integration of single sex organizations, is preferable, the road ahead for social change is a rocky one. Steeped in hundreds of years of tradition, a fear of change permeates these exclusive social organizations, making it difficult to successfully challenge the status quo.
Elite universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are the country’s oldest schools. They are also private institutions that depend on alumni donations. This combination creates a huge roadblock for social change. Kimmel explained to the HPR, “Alumni money plus tradition makes it very difficult for any administration to reform these institutions. The administration would be going against two things that are the foundation of these schools. Tradition and alumni money force you to look backward, not forward.”
Despite her success with integrating eating clubs, Frank admits the extreme difficulty involved in abolishing eating clubs entirely: “There have been numerous attempts to get rid of the eating clubs at Princeton. I think the administration can make their views known, but once you’ve got such an ingrained system, it’s difficult to wipe out.”
Even just at Harvard, there have been numerous past efforts to reform or abolish final clubs, such as the SASSI-WOOFCLUB, the Final Club Campaign, and Students for Safe Space. However, all of these efforts have fought to little avail.

Raising Awareness

According to Lee, the real value of the Final Club Campaign lied in raising awareness: “We were part of a general movement at the time—perhaps still—toward discussing and improving the state of social space at Harvard. We helped raise awareness and created a community for people who felt negatively to come together and bring forward solutions.” Despite this, Lee admitted the campaign’s ultimate failure, which she attributed to insufficient organizing that eventually resulted in a lack of pressure on the university administration.
In fact, when Lee presented real stories of female Harvard students who were sexually assaulted at final clubs to members of the administration, Suzy Nelson, then Dean of Student Life, refused to enact change even after admitting the gravity of the issue. Lee said, “I was struck with how [the administration] was aware of how things were, but they couldn’t or didn’t want to do anything about it.”

A Difficult Battle

Even after having faced such resistance in her efforts against final clubs, Lee still remains hopeful for a brighter future without these exclusive social clubs. Nonetheless, she proves to be realistic in her expectations, recognizing the long and difficult battle that will have to be fought before gaining victory. Lee told the HPR, “I think that it’s possible that [final clubs] could effectively stop existing or completely stop existing. It’s possible that they may feel anachronistic to Harvard students or that some type of legal action would be taken against them. It would depend on how club policies evolve and whether someone is willing to take action against them. It would take a lot of resources to take action against these clubs.”
This long-term effort, however, will prove especially challenging due to the high turnover rate of reformers, according to Kimmel. Lee personally experienced this challenge in her campaign. She explained how the Final Club Campaign eventually declined because many of the members were graduating and began to worry more about post-college issues. She noted how none of the former members, many of whom are serving as activists in larger societal issues, are now working on the final club issue.

Moving Forward

A Two-Part Solution

Past failures in challenging social exclusivity on college campuses combine to form a more general collage of a fight for social progress towards equality and freedom. As Lee noted, the Final Club Campaign, despite its lack of success in effecting tangible reform, was able to contribute to the general movement by carrying on the conversation about the impact of final clubs on student life. Furthermore, it is just as important to note the successes that have occurred, including Frank’s legal victory against the all male eating clubs at Princeton and Yale’s integration of women into their secret societies.
It is about time that students and administrators fully recognize the obsolete nature of exclusive social organizations. A two-part solution to resolving the issue of exclusive social clubs is needed—a top-down and a bottom-up approach. The administration must work to enact structural and institutional changes in their relations with these social organizations, while students must take on individual responsibility for their actions in shaping the clubs.

Part I: Top-Down Policy

With regards to the Harvard administration’s role, Lee argues that there was much that the administration could have done to mitigate the negative impact of these private institutions on students even considering the absence of official relations between the administration and the final clubs.
For example, the administration did not publicly release statistics on sexual assaults, a legally and logistically simple action it could have taken to address the situation. Lee told the HPR, “The administration needs to be more responsible about giving students information on what goes on on campus. They know who’s getting hurt where. They should share that information so that as long as these clubs exist and are creating unsafe social environments at night, students will be able to navigate those spaces judiciously.”
In general, university administrations can also foster more campus-wide discussions on the issue of exclusive social organizations—during Freshman Orientation Week for example—so that students can be informed, consider the positive and negative aspects of these organizations, and eventually make thoughtful decisions when thinking about joining. According to Frank, discussion at Princeton regarding the eating clubs is also deficient: “I think there has to be a much wider discussion on the role of these clubs. The discussion hasn’t really been opened at this point. Usually Princeton has an editorial around the time, but most people usually go with how it is and don’t think much about it.”
Finally, administrations can provide alternative social spaces for students so that they do not feel pressured to join these social circles in order to have a vibrant social life. In this way, exclusive social organizations will not dominate the social scene.

Part II: A Grassroots Movement

In the meantime, students should assume individual responsibility by creating a positive campus culture, participating in discussions on exclusive social organizations, vigilantly reporting on any sexual assaults that occur in those spaces and ultimately, deciding to not join them. Yet, how large of a role should individuals be expected to play in the reformation of exclusive social groups? At the end of the day, the important question is about striking the balance between holding individuals responsible and impugning them.
While it is important to hold individuals responsible to an extent, this may also prove to be counter-productive. According to Sandalow-Ash, “it’s not as useful to blame individuals as it is to partake in institutional reforms because people can have a variety of reasons for joining. I think it’s good to encourage students to not punch, but I think that it’s also important for the university to sort of pretending that the final clubs don’t exist. Institutions are comprised of individuals, but the purpose is to not blame individuals but to look at the cultures that are created by these institutions, put pressure on alumni board to integrate, or put pressure in Harvard to socialize not exclusively.”
For example, it would be unfair to blame individuals who decide to join an exclusive social organization because they have financial concerns and seek financial security through the networks provided by the club. Bayard himself acknowledged to the HPR that some of his friends had punched final clubs for financial concerns.
Nevertheless, there are actions that can be taken by anyone – regardless of structural pressures and concerns – to increase the safety of the social scene on campus. Bayard told the HPR, “The first thing individuals can do is take responsibility of the environment in the final club parties on Friday and Saturday nights. There needs to be a higher individual responsibility for what happens in those final clubs because it is the atmosphere that can lend itself to sexual assault.”
In addition, individuals can do their part in shaping a healthier culture around the concepts of prestige and competition on campus. Sandalow-Ash told the HPR, “We have a culture where people want to punch because friends are punching. It becomes a competitive culture—they want to show that they’re as good or better than their friends. I think if we take away the prestige and status that are inherent within these groups, then they’ll seem a lot less attractive. We should create a culture that’s not so cutthroat and competitive and create inclusive spaces.”
In the end, however, it is best for individuals to decide not to punch. Lee is steadfast in her belief that individuals should act in accordance to their values. “You need to act in a way that reflects your values,” she said. “If you’re someone in the club that values equality and inclusivity, you need to act in congruence with those values and quit.”

A Necessary Battle

The issue of exclusive social organizations is evidently a complex one, deeply entrenched in the roots of history and tradition, as well as human psychology and sociology. While the failures of past reform efforts may prove discouraging, it is important to recognize how much we lose as a community by giving up. Although it may be unclear exactly how the goal of reforming exclusive social organizations will be achieved, the battle will undoubtedly be worth the victory, with fairness and equality serving as the rewards.