Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Once again final clubs are in the news. And once again the majority has succumbed to the seemingly irresistable temptation to sit in judgment.
Don't misunderstand me. Sometimes it's necessary, not to mention quite fun, to judge others. In this case, however, the majority has chosen to counsel not only the students of Harvard (who actually read The Crimson), but also their peers at Yale (who read that other paper). I can see it now: Yalies scrambling to read the latest advice from the philosopher kings--and queens--in Cambridge.
What's worse, the tone and substance of the majority opinion seems depressingly similar to that of their previous positions. They offer no original insights or fresh perspectives. Instead, they merely replay the same hackneyed tunes from that old broken record--you know, the one about "antiquated attitudes" and the "oldboy network."
Instead of condemning final clubs, the majority should explore the real reasons for their continued existence. Why do so many Harvard men still join final clubs? Why do so many Harvard women still attend their parties? The answer, I believe, lies less in the need to "network" or exclude than in the wholly understandable desire to frolic and flirt.
Now, what's so contemptible about that?