Another Angle on Alcohol

Last week, at an event co-sponsored by The Women’s Center, the sorority Delta Gamma, and the all-female social organization The Seneca, Inc., students discussed whether Harvard should officially recognize single-sex organizations in order to help correct the “slanted power dynamic” between male and female social organizations on campus. Although such a change may be a reasonable short-term solution to the perennial problem of gendered social space on campus, it would do little to address that problem’s real cause,  which is, of course, the drinking age. Indeed, because one must be 21 to drink legally, the only places on campus underage students can currently drink without fear of administrative action tend to be final clubs or other social organizations that discriminate on the basis of gender or other factors. We acknowledge that the College cannot be asked to ignore the legal drinking age. Still, at this point, addressing the issue of gendered social space means enforcing a far less rigid alcohol policy than it currently does.

In this debate over social space, it seems relatively easy to get distracted by the question of single-sex organizations and their intrinsic value. Of course, given that last week’s event was hosted by three women’s groups, there are many that maintain that all-female social organizations offer many benefits to their members and would conceivably would have an even greater effect if officially recognized. And there are others—like The Crimson Staff—that maintain that any single-sex organization inevitably reinforces the gender segregation that already permeates the Harvard social scene. That, however, is another discussion altogether.

In other words, the real issue here is alcohol, the de facto currency that governs collegiate social life, and who exactly has access to that currency.

Assuming that the term “male-dominated social scene” generally refers to the significant social cache held by the all-male final clubs, the problem of gendered social space is more nuanced than simply a matter of official recognition from the University. Although to most current undergraduates it may seem that final clubs have always been a seminal part of Harvard social life, their status has in fact fluctuated over time and has only (relatively) recently enjoyed a resurgence in prominence. Why? Although the resurgence might be attributable to a culture shift, we feel confident in speculating that final clubs have become even larger fixtures in Harvard social life merely because after 1984, when the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21, they became the only outlets in the campus vicinity where un-policed drinking could still occur. In terms of social space, then, these exclusive, single-sex social organizations are not popular among students just because they own large Mt. Auburn Street mansions but also because those mansions are not subject to 2 a.m. shutdowns, administrative interventions, or “must be 21 to drink” signs.

In that sense, it is difficult to see how expanding official recognition to single-sex organizations would be greatly beneficial to Harvard’s social scene in any concrete way.

The irony, of course, is that the administration of a College so nominally committed to non-discrimination only encourages the popularity of these gender-exclusive spaces by cracking down on the all-inclusive campus social events that occur routinely in the Houses. Take for instance the recent shut-down of Pforzheimer House “golf” and the prohibition of House Councils from serving hard liquor at House formals. In many Houses, the weekly Stein Clubs are already closely monitored, reducing the incentive for underage House residents to attend. The strictness of these policies drives many students from these types of events into a social environment of gender segregation in which disciplinary action for having a drink is an unlikely possibility.

Of course, the College is bound by the laws of the state of Massachusetts and is legally in an unambiguous position with regard to underage drinking. But does the College’s eternal fear of liability truly justify what seems to be a tacit approval of a gender-divided social environment?

After all, Universities across the country all face similar legal responsibilities and choose to deal with underage drinking in a variety of different ways. In the name of committing itself in theory and in practice to the non-discrimination policy it so proudly promotes, we call on the College administration to consider the role it plays in facilitating a male-empowered social dynamic on campus that is an anachronism of a Harvard better forgotten than emulated.