Patronage

THE ACTIONS of Professor Robert J. Kiely in obtaining appointments for a close friend are politically significant and philosophically disturbing. Through use of his influence as master of Adams House, professor of English and dean for undergraduate education, Kiely got the Rev. Hugh G. Berryman, whom he describes as a "good, close friend," three teaching and advising jobs here and tried unsuccessfully to get him a fourth. In each case, it is clear that Kiely's connections were the crucial factor in Berryman's appointments--the authorities formally charged with making the appointments all agree on this.

Patronage is the appropriate word for Kiely's actions, and patronage, in any society which values justice, is a disgrace. It is a bad system which gives privileges in getting jobs to those with friends and connections that it denies to others. Such a system creates a class of outsiders, denied access to positions simply because they don't have friends in high places.

A community which allows patronage inevitably prolongs injustice, and permits subtle racism and sexism, despite any anti-sexist or anti-racist beliefs the community may hold. It was against just such a system that the progressive reforms of the sixties were aimed. On the University level, the form these reforms took was the affirmative action program, which requires that before any appointment is made, a through search must be held for those normally excluded from the selection process. Those normally excluded, not surprisingly, turn out to be women, blacks and other minority group members.

The first question is not whether Berryman was qualified for the posts Kiely used influence to help him get. The question is, rather, would Berryman have gotten these positions without Kiely's exercise of power? Would he have gotten appointments as a teaching assistant in Expository Writing or as a resident tutor in Eliot House if he were put on an equal footing with the hundreds of other job-seeking graduate students who look for such positions as ways to stave off mounting expenses and declining scholarships?

But even more disturbing issues arise concerning the senior tutorship in Adams House. Here serious questions about Berryman's qualifications were raised at the time of his appointment, questions so serious that the dean of the College, nominally charged with naming senior tutors, apparently tried to stop the appointment.

At issue is not whether Kiely's personal judgment was, in retrospect, wrong. What's wrong is that Kiely could provide a job for someone on the basis of only his personal judgement and no one else's, in spite of the fact that his judgment may have been colored by his friendship for the individual involved.

That Harvard is wracked with patronage, as some would maintain, is no excuse. Kiely has evidently been an active participant in Harvard's patronage system. Saying that everyone does it does not erase the wrongness of his actions.

Harvard must take it upon itself to remedy a situation in which patronage is permissible. All appointments should be open to application from all qualified people, and availability of open posts should be publicized. Every appointment should be subject to close scrutiny by a vigilant public, aware of its rights and in tune to injustice. And in fields where their interests enter in, student representatives should play a decision-making role in considering who gets what jobs. In these ways, Harvard can hope to eliminate a recurrence of Kiely's unfortunate actions and the unjust general pattern they seem to represent.