Someone lied and I passed it along to you. First and foremost, I apologize. I accepted a representation as true, and it was not. Second, I must atone for my sin by clearing it up. I wrote about the new exclusionary rule at Harvard, I wrote about a report that held itself out as reflecting the majority opinion of its group to eradicate all exclusive groups at the college and punish any student who would defy the ban.

A small minority argued that there should be no formal policy on the USGSOs, championing instead freedom of association. That is to say, they proposed that neither the current policy nor the proposed policy should be entertained. In some cases, they also urged that the USGSOs be permitted to remain single-gender if they wish. The Committee considered the importance of allowing our students to select their own social spaces and friends, but we also recognize principles such as inclusiveness and equality, which many members of the Harvard community consider of paramount importance to our mission.

While it doesn’t say so specifically, distinguishing the “small minority” from the otherwise clear view of the “committee” suggests that the vast majority supported the report. The Harvard Crimson investigated the claim in the report.

In its 22-page report, released July 12, the committee indicated that students and faculty had finally had their say—only a “small minority” of committee members heavily disputed the proposed social group ban, according to the document.

But the results of that May 12 vote—cast around 10:15 a.m. via paper ballot—tell a different story.

According to documents reviewed by The Crimson, the decision to outlaw membership in social groups at Harvard—some over two centuries old—received only seven votes from the 27-person committee.

Now, I’m no mathematician, but I’m fairly certain that seven votes out of 27 does not constitute a majority, no less a vast majority (in contrast to a “small” minority). As it turns out, an unfortunate but not uncommon phenomenon occurred.

By contrast, two other options—one suggesting a new committee to oversee the social groups, another proposing a ban of all organizations that discriminate on the basis of sex, race, or socioeconomic status—gained 12 and 11 votes, respectively. Not every member of the committee was present at the vote.

The committee never conducted another vote after May 12. At the body’s last meeting 14 days later, the decision to ban membership in the groups had become a fait accompli: Committee members spent most of the meeting debating the finer points of the proposed social group prohibition, according to two members of the committee. No student members were in attendance.

Some small group within this committee seized control, moved forward to claim ownership of the committee’s work, arrived at the conclusion they wanted and presented it as the deliberate determination of the committee. It became a fait accompli, which flipped the relative burdens of others on the committee from offering their views on the same terms as any other member to challenging the decision of a small group as being wrong and not reflecting the view of the committee.

This is why it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission, as it’s far harder to undo what’s been done, to not only dispute that the clearly strong views of some are the views of the majority (who knows if that’s true until afterward?), but to overcome the demand to prove they’re sufficiently wrong to be reversed. It’s a heavy burden, indeed.

You might wonder what the gang of seven were thinking when the hijacked the committee, ignored the members who weren’t present and substituted their own views for those of the full committee, despite representing only a small minority. It may be that the hijackers felt so deeply that they could neither tolerate any disagreement nor conceive of how anyone could not share their passion. Unless, of course, they were scummy elitists, the very sexists and racists they sought to eradicate from Harvard.

You may also wonder why the members of the committee whose voices were ignored by the gang of seven didn’t speak out about it. Why did they not call bullshit when the report claimed to represent a majority? Were they just so timid, so passive, that they were a waste of space?

Consider the social consequences of blowing the whistle about a committee report that is grounded in non-discrimination, inclusivity, diversity. Who in their right mind would want to be the person who is against these things on a college campus? Sure, a thoughtful, nuanced understanding of their position would overcome the simplistic cries that you are either for social justice or a shitlord, but grasping nuance is a lot of work. Even at Harvard, that’s asking a lot.

And so a report came out that could destroy centuries of tradition and the desires of students of all races and genders, because even Harvard students might be capable of appreciating the ability to choose their friends and enjoy the comfort of like-minded people. Not like-minded as in evil thoughts, but like-minded as in “I enjoy bacon” or “I’m Episcopalian.” Even at Harvard, you’re allowed to limit your Episcopalian group to, well, Episcopalians.

Yet, I wrote about this report, and disseminated this report to you, and it was premised on a lie. Perhaps the deeply passionate will find this lie acceptable in furtherance of their goal of ending the curse of exclusivity, as their ends are so important that the means, the lie, is merely the price one pays for achieving Nirvana.

I, however, do not accept this premise. Not even a little bit. And so I apologize for my role in spreading a lie. This report reflect the views of seven passionate social justice advocates out of a 27-member committee, none of whom were students. Nothing more.