Word: staff
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...staff concentrates on criticizing fraternities and sororities instead of addressing the real issue: the dismal state of social life at Harvard. While the staff more than adequately discusses the problems associated with the new groups, it almost completely ignores the fact that these new organizations are mere symptoms of a larger problem that both students and the administration must face. To be critical is fine. But to be critical without making positive suggestions for constructive change is counterproductive. Here are three positive suggestions which the staff could have made to these groups...
...staff points out the University's anti-discrimination policy. These ground rules prohibit organizations from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, sexual orientation or national origin. As the staff notes, these rules are unquestionably just. And they are a valid basis for barring any organization that discriminates from receiving Harvard affiliaton...
...staff could have stopped there. But, it zealously went further, endorsing without reservation the University policy against recognizing groups with national affiliation. This restriction is clearly different from those combatting invidious discrimination...
...staff's argument for the national-affiliation rule is tenuous at best. It contends that the University will lack clout in dealing with nationally-affiliated student groups. But what kind of influence does Harvard need over these organizations...
...national-affiliation policy is a threat to political and human rights groups all over the spectrum. If it were enforced as strictly as the staff proposes, the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard, Amnesty International, New Jewish Agenda, the Harvard Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Democratic Club and the Republican Club would all be forced off-campus. How that would help Harvard students is truly baffling...