Misplaced Altruism

FAR BE IT FROM US to meddle in the internal affairs and politics of the Hasty Pudding Club. But when the University--through its subsidiary, Harvard Real Estate, Inc.--decides to rescue the club from bankruptcy by buying the Holyoke Street property, it is not the time for the Pudding to thicken--that is, to thicken the walls between itself and the undergraduate community.

That, however, is exactly what has happened. Last week, the Pudding powers that be decided to jack up dues, tighten admissions and reinstate the tradition of giving honorary memberships to the presidents of Harvard final clubs. In the recent past, the 216-year-old organization has made efforts to open itself up by admitting women and accepting almost everyone who applied for membership. That trend seems to have reversed itself. The Pudding has made a move toward exclusivity at a time when it has become more dependent on the university of which we are all a part--a time, that is, when the club should be more open.

Nobody can blame the club for striking a favorable financial deal to save its clubhouse. The Pudding sold its property to the University for $1 million in order to pay off nearly $500,000 in debts. The Pudding will pay no rent for the first three years of its 99-year lease, and thereafter its rent will be below the market rate for the high-priced district. The University made an arrangement in its long-term interests, and financially the Pudding made a good deal.

In policy terms, however, the University made a bad deal. Because the Pudding's lease bars the University from interfering in the club's internal affairs, Harvard has put itself in the position of underwriting exclusivity.

The club's recent move toward exclusivity leads us to the conclusion that Harvard's action was, at best, an instance of misplaced altruism. With or without all due respect to the Pudding, there are better uses for the University's $1 million--uses that address the needs of Harvard's broader community.