Motion update

For those who are just coming up to speed, Harvard Magazine published a good summary of the situation at the time I filed the new version of the motion about club memberships. The Crimson reports, on authority of a member of the Faculty Council, that the motion will be discussed at the October meeting of the Faculty, but not voted until the November meeting. This may or may not be true; I can't confirm it, since these matters are decided by the Docket Committee, which has not communicated any such decision to me. (The December 2016 FAS meeting was adjourned without a vote in a rather odd way, so the signatories to the motion are watching these procedural decisions rather closely this time.) The Crimson has another story of interest, about a Title IX complaint against the University in which the Final Clubs are featured prominently. This news tends to support the theory that what got the ball rolling toward the mess we are in was fear that Harvard might be legally liable for a tort that happened at a final club. That would explain, for example, the early public involvement of the Senior Fellow, who traditionally has not weighed in on questions about student parties, and the "regular" discussions taking place about final clubs between the College administration and the Corporation.  It would also explain the otherwise peculiar decision, even in the recent harsh version of the proposals, that the ethnic fraternities and sororities would be left alone, in spite of being "exclusionary" on the basis of both gender and ethnicity. (As they draw from several local universities, Harvard may have calculated that the risk of liability was small for events that might happen at them.) Whether or not this speculation is correct, I would fully support Harvard taking strong action to limit its risks (though I might wish it had been equally risk-conscious back in 2008, when it lost billions from the endowment overnight). On the other hand, that would make a great deal of what has been said over the past year rather beside the point if not disingenuous, and the actual solution proposed both absurdly overbroad and not even sure to include the original target in its kill zone. (Is the champagne being chilled in anticipation of Harvard's glorious victory over the KKG sorority?) One more news item. The President has some words about the motion in her opening of term greetings. I will leave it to readers to make up their own minds about her characterization of the matter under discussion. But I would note that it is fairly unusual, and perhaps unprecedented, for the president to speak so strongly in public against a motion to be debated and voted by the Faculty at a meeting over which she will preside. The first Crimson story linked above describes a one-pager I shared with the Faculty Council; I include it below for your information. --------------------------

• Students should be punished for their acts, not their memberships.
• The right of f