News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

TWSA Report

From Our Readers

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

To the Editors of The Crimson:

"What's all this about a Third World Students Alliance report and controversy?" That is what I was asking myself just yesterday. Apparently the TWSA published a booklet concerning minority presence at Harvard-Radcliffe. I read it carefully and liked what it had to say; there appeared to be no controversy. But reading the headlines of a March 11, article in The Crimson, I find "Students Fault TWSA Report."

Reading further I find that it is a "minority" faulting the report. What a paradox! Why would one "minority" fault another's claims? Is there dissension? Yes. I refer to one short passage to explain this, as it turns out, helpful paradox.

The first section of the TWSA report questions Harvard's admission process and uses as a premise the university's tendency to admit minorities mostly from the middle to upper classes. But what exactly does the report mean by "middle class"? It seems that it meant, curiously enough, a minority like Richard Zayas who wrote to The Crimson denying and attempting to demean the TWSA's convictions. Unknowingly, in the eyes of the booklet, he has incriminated himself.

Of course he's not going to agree with the report, it was not intended for his approval. Rather, I say this hesitantly, it was an indictment against the authenticity of his "minoritiship" at Harvard. It seems that he has lost touch with the essence of what the booklet says. As mentioned above, the fact that Harvard attracts this type of minority (which is not "bad", but when this minority becomes the majority of the number of minorities accepted, what true minority is there?) is one of the reports' first premises on which its further condemnation of Harvard/minority relations is built.

The outright evidence for the viability of the report's first premise thereby reinstates the validity of its later claims and the legitimacy of its call for change. Consequently, rather than reveal dissension, Zayas reveals foundation; intending to weaken the power of the report, he strengthens it. I, and hopefully anybody else who stands behind the TWSA report, thank Richard Zayas. Jose Razo '89

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags