A letter to the future

I was a proud member of the Yale Whiffenpoofs of 2013, and I have always believed that the group should expand its membership to reflect all genders at Yale. I and my fellow advocates did not manage to make this change when I was in the group. However, the conversation has grown, and current members have sought the opinions of the community. Below is the letter I wrote; it has been edited for context. You can register your thoughts at this Google Form. There are strong and vocal opinions on both sides, and there is no easy solution. But this is where I stand.

Here are a few Yale Daily News articles on the topic, for context:

The Whiffenpoofs will always carry a prestige that no other group can attain or offer its members: the prestige and privilege of being first. However, that primacy comes with a moral burden. The Whiffs were an all-male singing group because there were only male undergraduates at Yale in 1909. While I can’t say for certain that the founding members deliberately excluded women, the result was the same: Yale excluded women; therefore, the Whiffs excluded women. Yale has moved beyond such arcane discrimination by gender. The Whiffs should, too.

Some argue that integrating the Whiffs would adversely affect their famous music. Yet, to say that the Whiffs should retain their all-male membership for reasons of “blend,” “tone,” “timber,” or “authenticity” overlooks the fact that the arrangements were written specifically to suit male voices. Of course, the music may sound strange or even worse by simply adding voices that were not considered in the original arrangements. But that is easily overcome: clever arranging can turn greater vocal ranges into an asset.

The Yale Glee Club solved this problem with Fenno Heath’s SATB arrangements. Yet, we can recognize that all-male or all-female arrangements still have their merits, and the Glee Club will sometimes assign a particular piece to just one gendered section of the group. The Whiffs could easily do the same.

(In full disclosure, I was also a member of the Yale Glee Club, and my younger sister went on to lead the organization as a Tour Manager, then as President.)

It is also less than innocuous to argue that the Whiffs’ all-male membership is a valuable part of the tradition. This suggests that admitting non-male members would somehow lessen the social experience. Such a suggestion is morally abhorrent. Moreover, for those alumni who remain invested in such tradition, a fellow Whiff alum put it quite profoundly: “the ‘Whiff experience’ each of us lived will be unaffected.”

I understand Whim’s concerns [that expanding Whiff membership might adversely affect Whim membership], and I think they are valid. However, the existence of mixed-gender underclassperson groups has not starved Yale’s all-female groups. I am certain that Whim will continue to grow and flourish throughout the centuries to come.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we should consider the arguments of those banging at the gates. They want a shot a membership because separate is not equal. Non-male persons never had the chance to be first. Our privilege should be shared, especially if it was gotten by what we now see as immoral means.

We men have been lucky to have this opportunity for so long. Yet, perhaps it was not quite luck; rather, it was an opportunity that men created for themselves in a system already built to benefit them. We now know that such discrimination was wrong. There will be growing pains. But it’s time to let others share in the fun.

blogtasticMichael Protaciowhiffenpoofs, equality, blog, op-ed