University Must Disregard Clubs

It's time to set a few things straight about the University's relationship with final clubs. To begin with, club members are students of the College first. Second, the clubs' leaders should have no more influence in the College than the administrations of any other outside organizations.

The first of these principles is highlighted every time a final club member demonstrates "conduct unbecoming of a Harvard student." That phrase has no geographical bounds; the College can invoke its disciplinary powers no matter where offending acts have been committed--including inside a final club.

The second principle also came into play in the aftermath of the now-well-publicized brawl at the D.U. club. Louis J. Kane '53, president of the club's graduate board, said in March that Associate Dean of the College Thomas A. Dingman '67 had told him the names of two students who were involved in Administrative Board proceedings after the fight. Such action would constitute a clear violation of federal privacy law.

While Dingman later said that he didn't remember whether or not he told Kane the students' names, his explanation of the conversation with Kane rings hollow. Dingman said that Kane had a "right to know" about the proceedings, since "[i]t happened in a facility he oversees and he is responsible for."

But Kane should not have a direct relationship with a College administrator; if he wanted to know about the proceedings, he should have gone to the students themselves. The line of association runs as follows: Kane-students-Dingman. Kane has no legitimate direct connection to Dingman--his club members, in their role as students, are his connection.

The University's cozying up to final clubs makes us nervous at best. If the clubs can work directly with College officials to settle the affairs of their members, other students become second-class citizens. Moreover, this situation allows the clubs to become a surrogate structure for the College's valuable House system.

The end result of Dingman's questionable actions in a continued lack of openness. The University should make its ties and disclosures public, even in the event that the hearings themselves must remain private.