 Forcing the compass needle to go woke Among the many attempts today to force the compass needle of development to point in politically correct woke direction it is perhaps surprising to find similar attempts at the prestigious Harvard University, especially in areas like Math, Medicine and Applied Sciences. Department of Mathematics The homepage the Department states: We are committed to increasing the representation of underrepresented minorities in all parts of our community. After much reflection, townhalls and surveys they propose a series of strategies to fulfil this commitment. Among the proposals we find: Proposal to achieve more diversity “Increase the representation of those with marginalized identities in all areas of our department. In particular hire, admit, and make space for more people of color, black and indigenous people, those who identify as LGBTQIA+, women, non-binary people, people with disabilities, people from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds, first-generation students, and any other identities underrepresented in mathematic.” Proposal to achieve anti-oppression and equity “Identify and remove structural and cultural mechanisms that perpetuate systemic oppression in our department. Build support systems and resources to ensure opportunities, well-being, and success are available to all.” Among the recommendations from a townhall is a proposal to remove the GRE [Graduate Record Examination] as an admission requirement. A GRE test score is used to provide graduate and business schools with a common measure for comparing applicants’ qualifications and preparedness for graduate-level academic work. Apparently being phased out at a growing number universities in the U.S. Presumable because it is seen as an unfair barrier for minority students. Also found is a suggestion to “Identify and push back against ways in which a discriminatory evaluation of mathematical ability is created and reinforced. Work toward building a community predicated on the recognition that mathematics harbors a diverse ecosystem of experiences and interests, all of which ae valuable.” One wonders if this actually means that students from certain minorities should be assessed and graded according different standards than the rest. A demand already found at Georgetown University’s Law School. See “Forced to resign for voicing an inconvenient truth” Harvard Medical School The HMS’ mission statement contains proposals to turn the graduate school into a more inclusive, diverse and anti-racist institution. Teaching and Learning “The school will review admissions, curriculum, assessment and faculty with the goal of identifying areas of concern, closing gaps and developing action plans to monitor and report racist actions that occur across programs and associated learning environments. We will develop new classes for master’s and PhD students to acknowledge the ways in which racism is embedded in science and scientific culture (emphasis added) and work to redress these longstanding issues.” Discovery and Scholarship The school will hire outstanding scientist in life sciences “who are committed to advancing HMS’ mission and community values. There will also be developed new standards and metrics for faculty excellence “in the areas of diversity, inclusion and belonging.” Thus, signalling the importance HMS puts on these subjects. Service and Leadership HMS “will create events and dialogues that bring members of our community together to promote diverse perspectives on and understanding of history and context …We will recognize and support the establishment of communities within community, such as the new HMS Black Postdoctoral Association and Black Staff Caucus.” Indicating perhaps that the whole project about inclusion belonging and anti-racism is directed mainly towards the Black minority in the US. Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) A SEAS committee on has brought forward a 37page strategic plan for diversity, inclusion and belonging (shortened to DIB). The plan contains 8 goals and represents a road map for what SEAS plans to do in order to make the school in the dean’s words “more diverse, more welcoming, and more excellent.” Under the first goal SEAS will “Demonstrate an institutional commitment to diversity, inclusion, and belonging through equitable and inclusive policies, practices, and an infrastructure that supports these initiatives.” Among the initiatives is an expansion of “current student DIB grant fund to include staff, faculty, and postdoc initiatives, as well as, individual projects. Funds will support programs, events, or projects directly related to advancing diversity, inclusion, and belonging at SEAS in the areas of recruitment and access; retention and success; community engagement; outreach to the broader external community; and assessment and tracking.” The second goal talks of recruitment of “diverse faculty, students, postdoctoral researchers, and staff with special attention given to increasing the number of females and underrepresented minorities within the SEAS community.” Meaning of either that SEAS must have been been blind to the excellence found among these groups, or that the goal of creating say a diverse faculty will to a certain degree have to override traditional criteria for excellence in the area of engineering and applied science. SEAS’ argument “our teams will be stronger if we take the time and energy to tap into the broadest spectrum of talent.” Under the fourth goal SEAS is to provide “events and programming that highlight the concerns and experiences of diverse groups in STEM (Science, technology, engineering and Mathematics).” But also details like information about “the locations of gender-inclusive restrooms and lactation rooms on the website.” Under goal 5 SEAS aims to “Develop comprehensive training opportunities for all members of the SEAS community that address various DIB concepts (i.e. bias, privilege, inclusive leadership, gender identity, etc.).” A sneaking suspicion One may ask whether all these programs aimed at achieving diversity, and sense of belonging in Math, Medicine and Applied Science will it in fact pervert the excellence goals at Harvard by catering more to identity politics and all its strange outgrowths. On paper of course there is no limit to the number of conflicting goals one may combine to achieve overall success. In reality and perhaps especially in science and engineering this will not prove possible. Others are more outspoken in their criticism of similar programs “Identity politics has engulfed the humanities and social sciences on American campuses; now it is taking over the hard sciences … That pressure is changing how science is taught and how scientific qualifications are evaluated. The results will be disastrous for scientific innovation and for American competitiveness.” (Heather Mac Donald) The degree of under – or overrepresentation of ethnicities The inclusiveness, belonging and antiracism programs we have just seen glimpses of seems to be aimed mainly at one minority group, Black Americans, although women and gender also crops up in the material, other ethnic groups do not. What is the reason for that? Perhaps at look at demographics might help understand this rather one-sided focus. Statistics for the overall ethnic composition of Harvard undergraduates provide this picture:  Note the high proportion of Asian and the relatively modest proportion of White’s. Now using an admittedly rough comparison these percentages may be compared with the ethnic composition of the U.S. population according to U.S. Census Bureau’s population estimates  A first look at the minority group in focus in the programs indicates that Black or African Americans indeed may be underrepresented, as they make up 8.9% of undergraduates, but 13.4% of the U.S. population.
Somewhat surprising perhaps, the White population is also underrepresented at Harvard making up 37.1 % of undergraduates, but Whites in the population making up at least 60.1%. Standing out is the apparent overrepresentation of Asians, making up 21.4% of undergraduates, but only 5.9% of the U.S. Population. One may wonder why so many Asians are so well represented, compared to Blacks. But answers to that question may be so embarrassing to other ethnic groups that we do not want to look? So at least according to this simple comparison Harvard would seem to be rather diverse already. Admission statistics for the class of 2025 even indicate that the proportion of African Americans accepted now stands at 15.9%, with Asians at 25.9% and Whites at around 44 %. Now this seems rather inclusive in relation to especially the Asian minority, and somewhat less inclusive in relation to Whites, don’t you think? The picture of course may look very different when looking at tenured staff. Discrimination at Harvard? Strange as it may sound looking the numbers Asian students feel that they are being discriminated against by Harvard. “In 2014, a nonprofit group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University, alleging that its race-conscious admissions program discriminated against Asian American applicants.” SFFA arguing that the Harvard admissions process used impermissible racial balancing favouring Blacks, and not race neutral alternatives, resulting in discrimination against the well qualified Asian students. In fact, saying that the better qualified Asians were not admitted as result of Harvard’s preferential treatment of Black students with lower qualifications. Harvard argues that its consideration of race in the overall admissions process is in accordance with affirmative action and furthermore that abandonment of racial considerations would mean that African American and Hispanic enrollment would decline from 14 percent to 6 percent and 14 percent to 9 percent. As if this in itself is an argument for preferential treatment of Black and Hispanic students. SFFA lost their case in districts courts with the rather spurious argument “that a heterogeneous student body promotes a more robust academic environment with a greater depth and breadth of learning, encourages learning outside the classroom, and creates a richer sense of community.” This is hardly a proven scientific fact, and one might reasonably argue that this certainly depends on the qualities of what is included in this heterogeneity. SFFA is now trying for the Supreme Court. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the case is not yet clear, but the court has just “called on the Biden administration to weigh in on a challenge to Harvard’s use of race in student admissions.” This case raises the whole question of whether the affirmative action programs favouring Blacks in fact represents a kind of reverse racism and discrimination against other ethnic groups. Here especially of course against the better qualified Asian students. It could be argued that this would in effect lead to a lowering of standards and of excellence in universities. Contrary to argument that diversity in itself would promote excellence. A Potemkin façade of diversity and inclusion? The proclaimed strategies for achieving a greater degree of diversity, inclusion, and belonging may in fact hide a much grimmer reality of discrimination. Using a superficially politically correct, or should we say woke facade to hide other forms of problematic discriminations. In addition to reverse discrimination of Asian students, there are other forms of preferential admissions that may be seen a seriously discriminative. According to 2017 study by a former Harvard professor Raj Chetty “Harvard has had as many students come from the top 1 percent of the income distribution as the bottom 60 percent.” Indicating perhaps that taking into account general socioeconomic factors in admissions would be fairer to all other ethnic groups, than focusing on a certain racial preference to raise the admissions of Black students Then there is the problem of legacy students, students where family members have been previous alumni at Harvard. According to the Harvard Crimson 36% of the students in the class of 2022 are legacy students. According to Students for Fair Admissions “legacy applicants were accepted at a rate of nearly 34 percent from 2009 to 2015 … more than five times higher than the rate for non-legacies over the same six-year period: just 5.9 percent” (NPR). In very contorted way Harvard actually uses the arguments for diversity and inclusion to defend the preferential admission of legacy students. In a court testimony Dean Khurana argues “it was important for Harvard to favor the children of alumni in order to bring students who have more experience with Harvard together with others who are less familiar with Harvard.” Well, it certainly guarantees a special kind of diversity and inclusion, but perhaps the inclusion of such a high proportion of legacy students is not necessary to assure this special kind of diversity, and it certainly is not what a sane person might regard as fair and equal treatment. |
