Diversity Debate: Rudenstine Speaks and Mansfield Strikes Back

President Neil L. Rudenstine renewed a longstanding debate among Faculty members earlier this year with two public statements in support of affirmative action.

Rudenstine wrote an open letter last April defending affirmative action in the face of Hopwood v. Texas, the United States Court of Appeals decision forbidding the University of Texas from considering race or ethnicity in its admissions decisions.

Rudenstine objected to the court's decision, saying that "student diversity contributes powerfully and directly to the quality of education in colleges and universities."

He continued by arguing that measures other than the traditional criteria of test scores and grade must be used in evaluating applicants.

"[Harvard takes] great care not to view people simply as the sum of their grades and test scores," Rudenstine wrote. "We view applicants as individual human beings with a complex set of talents, qualities, interests, backgrounds and experiences."

The public letter came on the heels of Rudenstine's 58-page report in January to the University's Board of Overseers titled "Diversity and Learning."

While he does not defend rigid quotas for minority applicants, Rudenstine strongly supports Harvard College's current policy of considering race or ethnicity as a "plus factor" in college admissions.

Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield '53 blasted Rudenstine and the report for endorsing a policy which he said sacrifices academic excellence in the pursuit of diversity.

Once race was considered as a factor, Mansfield wrote on the editorial page of The Crimson and in an article published in The Weekly Standard, Harvard began accepting applicants of poorer academic standing.

"[There] is one big difference [Rudenstine] does not mention: the stubborn and unwelcome fact that blacks do not perform as well as other groups on standardized tests," Mansfield wrote. "It is certainly unwelcome, and all the more because the difference is not small."

Days after Rudenstine's letter about Hopwood was released and Mansfield's article was published, Rudenstine's arguments were attacked in a meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) by professors who claimed Harvard's policy of affirmative action encouraged students and professors to play "ethnic politics."

Mansfield claimed Rudenstine's annual report was anything but apolitical.

"Harvard has jumped with both feet onto one side of this political debate," Mansfield said during the meeting.

"We're more liberal than Clinton, who wanted to amend, not end, affirmative action," he wrote in The Crimson.

Rudenstine forcefully ended the hour-long debate with an uncharacteristic show of emotion, defending his position as thoughtful and well-reasoned.

The document examines diversity from a historical context, invoking theories of John Locke and J.S. Mill who, Rudenstine writes, emphasized the value of diversity of ideas in creating the best possible educational environment.

It then cites the efforts of past Harvard presidents Charles W. Eliot, Class of 1853; A. Lawrence Lowell, Class of 1877 and James B. Conant '14, all of whom sought to diversify Harvard by recruiting students of different geographic, ethnic and, eventually, racial backgrounds.

"I don't think I am playing ethnic politics," said Rudenstine, emphasizing each word by pounding on the table.

"I went to John Stuart Mill, President Eliot and writers of the 19th century precisely to avoid bringing politics into the debate."

Although he conceded in an interview the next day that diversity could be seen as a political issue, Rudenstine said he approached the topic solely from an academic angle.

The president also lauded the debate as being "exactly what a faculty meeting means."

Rudenstine said all citizens agree on the importance of diversity, but they differ over the proper means of fostering it.