Harvard: The "Barry Bonds" of Ivy League Schools

In her recent piece, "Is there hope for Harvard? It matters more than you think," published in the New York Post, Carol M. Swain mounts a critique against Harvard University, alleging the institution has prioritized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives over academic excellence. While Swain's concerns might resonate with some, I thought her perspective was extremely myopic.? Her analysis glaringly overlooks critical dimensions of the debate around fairness and merit in academia which warrants a deeper examination.

Rebuttal Arguments

1. The Admissions Scandals

At the core of my contention is Harvard's entanglement in a major admissions scandal, such as the ongoing lawsuit by Students for Fair Admissions and a federal civil rights probe over legacy admissions, e.g. (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023)).? These controversies underscore systemic flaws in Harvard’s admissions process that significantly predate any DEI efforts critiqued by Swain.? The Supreme Court’s recent striking down of affirmative action based on striking data pointing to racial disparities in admissions at Harvard further complicates Swain's narrative, suggesting that the issues at Harvard transcend mere policies on diversity.

2. Legacy of Unmeritocratic Admissions

Swain’s critique conveniently omits the historical role of legacy admissions in promoting an unlevel playing field.? Originating in the 1920s as a measure to counteract the increasing number of Jewish immigrants being admitted on merit alone, legacy admissions have long distorted the concept of meritocracy at Harvard.? Arguing that Harvard has sacrificed academic excellence on the altar of DEI overlooks this century-old practice of privileging applicants based on lineage and wealth — hardly indicators of personal academic merit.

3. Critique of Carol M. Swain's Blame

Swain places undue blame on Harvard’s former president, Claudine Gay, for the institution's perceived departure from merit-based excellence.? However, this analysis fails to recognize the broader dynamics at play, chiefly that the critical outcry seems to arise not from the implementation of race-based admissions policies per se, but from these policies’ realignment away from favoring traditionally privileged demographics.

Counterarguments

Responding to Swain, it's vital to underscore that the essence of the issue isn't Harvard's promotion of DEI but the institution's long-standing history of admissions practices that have favored the wealthy and well-connected.? The crux of the whole matter reflects a broader national conversation about what constitutes fairness and excellence in higher education. The critical viewpoints should not misconstrue efforts to level the playing field as a departure from academic rigor.

In advocating for a comprehensive overhaul, critics like Swain miss an opportunity to champion an admissions system that values true meritocracy—one where every student's potential is weighed without the influence of their socio-economic background or historical racial privilege.

Analysis

Harvard stands at a pivotal juncture, with its credibility and moral authority in the academic realm under scrutiny.? Your family’s last name and the size of their bank account are not a measure of academic merit.? The institution’s challenge is now to evolve past practices that have mired it in controversy towards a transparent, fair, and genuinely meritocratic admissions process.? This evolution is critical not only for Harvard but as a beacon for other institutions grappling with similar issues.? It’s time for Harvard to truly embody the intellectual virtue it has long professed, ensuring its legacy is defined by fairness, inclusivity, and genuine excellence. In the meantime,

Although Ms. Swain heaps all of the blame on the shoulders of former President Claudine Gay, her firing basically amounts to the proverbial two wrongs not making a right, e.g. the issue is not that Harvard has race-based admissions, but rather that the race-based admissions no longer favor White applicants.

Because of the unconstitutional nature of their admissions process, Harvard’s eliteness is tantamount to Barry Bonds in the 90’s: mega power, plenty of hits, exciting to watch, exhilarating for the fans…but it was all fake.? What I’m waiting to see is what will become of Harvard’s ranking in U.S. News & World Report Best College Rankings.? In 2023, Harvard was ranked #3 behind Princeton and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.? Well, where do you now rank them that their admissions process has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?? And oh by the way, that part has nothing to do with Claudine Gay.

Source Article:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/opinion/is-there-hope-for-harvard-it-matters-more-than-you-think/