Battling Elitism

THE most surprising aspect of the final club debate on campus is that some people who want to see the clubs shut down do not support Lisa Schkolnick's complaint against the Fly Club. These students do not believe that Schkolnick's suit will destroy the clubs or make them any less elitist, but rather that integrating the clubs would actually enhance their standing on campus, render them more socially acceptable, and bring them back into the center of campus life.

These students point out that the clubs are not only sexist, but also socially and financially elitist in that they select members through the closed "punch" system, give preference to children of alumni, and charge dues which not everyone can afford to pay. Since Schkolnick's complaint leaves these forms of elitism intact, many students don't think it deserves their support.

While this sentiment is well-intentioned, it misses the point. True, sexism is only one manifestation of the clubs' remaining elitism. But no one should regard admitting women as merely instrumental towards attacking the clubs' "real elitism." This analysis is sexist; it doesn't take women's rights as seriously as those of Blacks and other groups which have suffered from discrimination in this country. Imagine the outcry if final club members were to urge us to understand why white people want to be in a club with only whites and that Blacks should build their own clubs--as people have argued with women. Schkolnick's strike against the clubs' gender elitism must be recognized as a forceful blow in a battle to destroy the clubs' overall elitism.

Harvard's club system began as a multi-tiered system with entry level clubs that admitted prep school students, waiting clubs, and finally, the "final clubs"--only a few of which still exist. The attrition of the club system loosely parallels the progress of Harvard towards greater diversity in admissions and less reliance on a few prep school for students.

DURING the 1930s, in a move to "democratize" Harvard's social life, the Harvard Union was built to provide inexpensive entertainment for those who couldn't afford the club system. The clubs' elitism was taken down a notch when Harvard, then the clubs, began to admit Jews to their ranks in numbers after the quota scandals of the 1920s. In the 1950s, Harvard took the next step and allowed Black students to live in the Yard; the clubs eventually admitted Blacks.

Harvard merged with Radcliffe in 1974, and the final clubs have yet to follow the cue. This lag is no surprise; the clubs have never been on the cutting edge of equal rights. Sexism is the last bastion of the clubs' illegal elitism, and the gender barrier, like that against public school students, Jews, and Blacks, will tumble in its turn.

The time has come, we hope, for students to recognize that sexism is as insidious a form of elitism as racism or anti-semitism. When women are excluded from the clubs, they are excluded from the unparalleled resources of the clubs and from the "old boy" alumni contacts which the clubs foster. Exclusion, and the acceptance of exclusion trains students to believe that it's right--and natural--for men and women to dominate separate spheres. Separate but equal? Hardly.

HARVARD may end up, for the moment, with nine more Hasty Puddings where only people with money and connections can belong. Unfortunately, this type of elitism is not illegal. It's impossible to attack the final clubs on strictly legal grounds for charging money and choosing who they want--thousands of golf clubs, country clubs, and social clubs legally do the same thing. Financial elitism is protected by our laws, gender elitism is not.

Scholnick's complaint provides a crucial opportunity to send gender elitism on campus the way of religious and racial elitism before it. Yes, students should mount an attack on the financial and social elitism embedded in our society, our University, and our final clubs. Let us now confront sexism.