Do I have a right to say "Only my friends can join my debate club"? Do I have a right to say "Children of past participants are always welcome here"? Do I have a right to say "Max occupancy: 1800"?
Most people would say "Yes" to these things.
What if I hire some marketing experts, and eventually my debate club has a really good "brand" and all sorts of companies want to hire participants at enormous salaries for highly influential positions? Once my debate club is a gateway to money, power and influence, do I still have the right to admit who I want? Or does my branding success somehow create an obligation to make admissions meritocratic, rather than some other kind of -cratic (e.g. autocratic, "My debate club, I decide, and that's the end of it," or aristocratic, "Children of members have an easy path to membership", or plutocratic, "Money talks")?
At what point does Harvard become different from my debate club?
What exactly creates a moral (and perhaps legal) obligation that trumps "My debate club, my rules," and necessarily places corresponding limits on Harvard's freedom of association?
I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s actually not so important. Arguments like these miss the more important point. There absolutely is a line somewhere. Why? Because SCALE MATTERS. Always. This is something that is largely missed in most legislation and regulation. It’s so obvious and self evident why a trillion dollar company should have higher regulations that a billion dollar one which should have higher regulation that a million dollar one. Where is the line? I don’t care that much, just make one and address the larger problem.
Freedom of association is extremely limited once you factor in public accommodations. For example, even if I own a hotel, I can’t choose who can stay in the hotel if they are willing to pay in a lot of cases.
Once it becomes a critical part of our social structure. That will always be a judgment call, but Harvard qualifies as that more than any nongovernmental entity today.
Do I have a right to say "Only my friends can join my debate club"? Do I have a right to say "Children of past participants are always welcome here"? Do I have a right to say "Max occupancy: 1800"?
Most people would say "Yes" to these things.
What if I hire some marketing experts, and eventually my debate club has a really good "brand" and all sorts of companies want to hire participants at enormous salaries for highly influential positions? Once my debate club is a gateway to money, power and influence, do I still have the right to admit who I want? Or does my branding success somehow create an obligation to make admissions meritocratic, rather than some other kind of -cratic (e.g. autocratic, "My debate club, I decide, and that's the end of it," or aristocratic, "Children of members have an easy path to membership", or plutocratic, "Money talks")?
At what point does Harvard become different from my debate club?
What exactly creates a moral (and perhaps legal) obligation that trumps "My debate club, my rules," and necessarily places corresponding limits on Harvard's freedom of association?