Searching for Diversity Beyond Harvard Yard

In his October 16 article, "Distracted by Diversity," Daniel Choi argues that it is not Harvard's responsibility to give so-called unmerited educational opportunities to under-represented minorities. Why should Asian-Americans who score better on the SAT than these other minorities be kept out of Harvard? If Blacks and Hispanics can't get the necessary SAT scores, it's not Harvard's fault. Choi states that "what really needs our focused attention are minority communities beyond Harvard Yard--from the barrios to the inner city."

We, the Multicultural Study group of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (just beyond the Yard), whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Choi that "true educational diversity can exist at Harvard only when all groups in society are on equal footing." We find fault, however, with what Choi concludes from this statement: "Until then...it's not Harvard's fault."

We do not wish to dispute, nor to devalue his anger at the possibility that Asian Americans will, in the future, see the gates of Harvard close before them. We wish to point out, however, the logical shortcomings and weak moral ground of his argument.

First of all, Choi lumps all Asian Americans into one category and assumes that all of these make up the group that has been able to succeed. In fact, Asian Americans are a diverse group of people with different languages, different cultures and different needs. Many Asian Americans struggle to overcome poverty, discrimination and prejudice in their daily lives. Choi's portrayal of Asian Americans as successful and intelligent perpetuates a stereotype which distorts the real needs present within the diverse Asian American communities.

Second, Choi measures academic success by SAT scores. He argues that this is how Harvard and other equally prestigious universities measure success and ability. But SAT scores offer only one part of the picture. They may be skewed in favor of those who have the luxury of attending coaching workshops. Many poor students cannot afford the tuition for these workshops and are therefore at a disadvantage.

Also, as Choi himself points out, tests such as the SAT may be culturally biased. They favor those who have succeeded in integrating a particular culture (whether or not they originated within that culture).

Finally, the College Board itself, which administers the SAT, intends the scores to be used in conjunction with many other factors to determine a candidate's qualifications for admission. The ability to score high on the SAT may be correlated with the ability to score high on similar tests, but it is not necessarily correlated with creativity, divergent thinking and raw brilliance.

In claiming that SAT scores are a valid measure of scholarly merit, Choi then implies that educational institutions such as Harvard are meritocracies, promoting merit above all else. In fact, candidates are not admitted based purely on grades and test scores as Choi would have us believe.

"Legacy"--preference for alumni children and athletes--plays an important role in the admissions process. Jerome Karabel and David Karen wrote in The New York Times on December 8, 1990 that "the image of institutions like Harvard as bastions of academic meritocracy that bend their rigorous standards only for certain racial minorities is both naive and mythical."

Choi points out that it is in the barrios and inner cities (just beyond the Yard) that efforts should be directed toward educational equality because it is in the homes and schools of young Blacks and Hispanics where the problem resides. He is right, but that is only one piece of the problem.

As long as the educational institutions of this country which produce the leaders of this country continue to use the sterile, amoral protection of numbers to exclude minorities from their circles, we will have no change out there, beyond the Yard.

Without powerful leaders willing to commit resources to schools, communities and minority-owned businesses beyond the Yard, nothing will change. Without trustworthy role models for the minority children of this country to admire and take hope from, nothing will change.

And without increasing opportunities for students at elite institutions to train side by side with minority classmates and learn first-hand about one another's differences, similarities, difficulties and joys, nothing will ever change.

For mirrored in the inadequate representation of minority youth at Harvard is the inadequate education of all students at Harvard not given an opportunity to interact as colleagues with these minorities.

It is easy to point the finger and ask why is it our problem since we had nothing to do with its causes. But it is wrong. It is wrong both intellectually and morally.

We have something to do with the causes of this problem as long as we allow the vicious circle to repeat itself over and over again. Non-action simply means letting others act. We mustn't be fooled into believing that this is not our problem, nor that of Harvard.

Before us lies a choice: to allow the past to repeat itself or to accept responsibility and build the future. Harvard Multicultural Study Group   Harvard Graduate School of Education