10
THE HARVARD CRIMSON
EDITORIAL
APRIL 14, 2023
STAFF EDITORIAL
COLUMN
To the Class of 2027: What the Numbers Don’t Tell You
RHYME AND REASON
TO THE CLASS OF 2O27: Congratulations, and welcome to your new community. You might just bring about a more vibrant, equitable world. BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD
T
o the Class of 2027: Welcome to Harvard College! With every new class comes a beautiful mosaic of perspectives, dreams, and possibilities that illuminates the Harvard community. As the old cliché goes, it’s the people who make Harvard a truly transformative place — and we can’t wait to meet you, the newest additions to our colorful campus, at Visitas. As you excitedly explore the different facets of the community that you may soon call home, one of the first things you will likely notice are the numbers: the percentage of the Class of 2027 admitted students hailing from each region of the country and around the world, the racial composition of the admitted class, and the proportion of students intending to pursue various fields of study. While these demographic breakdowns from the Admissions Office paint a partial picture of our campus’s vibrant future, there is one glaring gap in the data that distorts our view of diversity at the College: the lack of descriptors related to socioeconomic class. Why was this statistic — vital to understanding the composition of the Harvard undergraduate population — conspicuously omitted from the school’s press releases yet again? The answer is obvious: For the College’s entire history, socioeconomic diversity at Harvard has been abjectly non-existent. Of course, given its genesis from pockets of wealth and political influence, it’s no surprise that Harvard was built to educate the elite. What is quite galling is that it still does. According to a study by Harvard’s own Economics professor Raj Chetty, at the turn of the millennium, there were 23 times as many high-income students enrolled at Harvard as low-income students. Much more recent data from The Crimson’s first-year survey for the Class of 2025 indicates that 13.9 percent of the current sophomore cohort reportedly hails from households earning less than $40,000 — a bracket that, by contrast, accounts for 29 percent of the American population. Why would the Admissions Office admit this reality, or even publish the statistics necessary to corroborate the numbers, when Harvard prides itself on being accessible to low income students? The lack of socioeconomic diversity data is particularly insidious because many students can go through Harvard never noticing this homogeneity — never truly comprehending how their cohort of peers utterly fails to be representative of the rest of the country and the world. Class is not always visible on the surface, making the lack of public statistics on socioeconomic demographics especially dangerous at an institution that touts its ability to cultivate future citizen-leaders. Given the value of a diverse student body to provide more perspectives and lived experiences to campus discourse, admitting more low-income students must be a top priority for Harvard. Carefully weighing socioeconomic factors would also help correct for the persistent inequity that plagues Harvard’s admissions process, in which wealthy, privileged applicants routine-
Harvard’s Not Diverse. That’s Perverse. TRUE DIVERSITY. You can’t just stop at undergrads. That simply just won’t do. True diversity means you need diverse teachers, too. BY MIREYA SÁNCHEZ-MAES
ly perform better on metrics weighed by college admissions officers. It does not escape us that Harvard just released a triumphant announcement about financial aid expansion, wherein families making under $85,000 annually (up from $75,000) will not be required to contribute to their student’s education or living expenses at Harvard. This accomplishment is penny-sized given that it fails to get at the root of the problem — a systemic shortage of low-income admits. Already, Harvard is a less expensive option than a public university for more than ninety percent of American families. The problem, then, is not with the amount of financial aid being offered at Harvard; it’s the dearth of students this aid is being spent upon. Harvard’s socioeconomic diversity problem begins even before admissions decisions occur. Most qualified low-income students don’t apply to selective colleges despite the fact that those who do enroll have very high graduation rates. Given that research shows that targeted outreach to these high-achieving, low-income students is both cost-effective and impactful, Harvard should prioritize recruiting low-income students, increase outreach to non-elite high schools and community colleges, and expand high school summer programs for prospective low-income students. Harvard should also publish data on the socioeconomic breakdown of admitted students in the same way it does for racial and geographic statistics. Without these statistics, students are hard-pressed to hold Harvard accountable for its commitment to fostering diversity of all kinds. Harvard hides other demographic disparities, too, by its refusal to publish more granular details about its admitted students. Descendants of slavery in America, or Generational African Americans, are commonly perceived to be underrepresented on campus. Harvard should provide additional data on ethnic breakdowns within broader racial categories to highlight the disparities in representation that exist within groups. By refusing to collect or publicly share these more detailed statistics, Harvard is choosing to ignore inequalities within its blanket celebration of “diversity” and risk exacerbating such divides even further. The Harvard Class of 2027 will probably go down in history: It may be the product of the last admissions cycle wherein Harvard employs race-conscious admissions in its current form. After this summer, it will likely be harder — perhaps significantly harder — for American colleges and universities to enroll diverse student bodies. Yet we refuse to accept backsliding from where we are today in terms of our beautiful, technicolor-brilliant student body, and we can (and should!) continue to push Harvard for even more diversity across multiple forms. So to the Class of 2027: Congratulations, and welcome to your new community. As you excel in your studies, forge ahead in new disciplines, and join the ranks of those educated at America’s oldest institution of higher education, never neglect to question the numbers that surround you. With an attitude like that, you might just bring about a more vibrant, equitable world.
S
–This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.
up y’all, how’s it going? I hope you’re doing well, ‘Cause I’m about to shed some light On Harvard’s personnel. Think about your teachers. Now think about your peers. Notice how diversity, With age, just disappears? Anyone who goes to class Quite easily can see The white homogeneity Of tenured faculty. ‘Course, if you just look around Then you’ll be sure to find A faculty of color with A truly bad-ass mind. They’re a leading reference For scholars in their field And pave way for discoveries That once had been concealed. They’ve won several awards And even wrote a book! Their teaching virtuosity Leaves all their students shook.
Anyone who goes to class quite easily can see the white homogeneity of tenured faculty. But tell me, what’s the likelihood This Harvard teacher’s got A tenure track position? Or what’s more, a tenured spot? Faculty of color make up Just a tiny fraction Of all the tenured teachers here That you can see in action. If you do not yet know the stats I’ll state them here again: 56 percent of them are White Caucasian men! The second largest group we have Is women who are white They make up 22 percent. That’s quite the number, right?
This process has been criticized, And I think rightly so, For lacking the transparency Departments need to grow. For without detailed feedback And some free communication, There are even less checks To prevent discrimination. And though Dean Claudine Gay, Last year, did help to introduce A new plan to, in theory, Make this process less obtuse, If someone doesn’t get the tenure For which they apply, Those same ad hoc committees Still don’t have to tell them why. This shields committee bias, Which, we all know exists And fuels a “lack of trust in” The whole process that persists. But also, it’s just hella weird. Why try and play it pious When we all know committees Are all plagued by people’s bias? Harvard has a history Of letting people go Who pioneered their field In ways that really truly show. I’m talking ‘bout García Peña And ‘bout Cornel West Who, behind closed doors, Were denied tenure and suppressed. These scholars are exceptional, And lead here and abroad. So Harvard’s bad decision Shows how much the system’s flawed.
You can’t just stop at undergrads. That simply just won’t do. True diversity means You need diverse teachers, too.
That means only 22 percent of tenured folks Are faculty of color. That’s so small – holy smokes!
But this leads to my second point That you all likely know: Harvard, as a school, Loves to put on quite a show.
And even that statistic, is itself, quite complex, for only five percent are Black and four, Latinx.
They flaunt on their brochures, “diverse campus community” And yet, somehow the tenure track Receives impunity.
Underrepresented, still, And to a worse extent, Are women folks of color Who make up seven percent.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, But it needs to be said, ‘Cause many Harvard higher ups Can’t get it through their head:
Surely, now it’s plain to see That something isn’t right: For people who have tenure, Overwhelmingly, are white.
If you run a school that has some students and some teachers, And you want diversity To be one of your features,
And yet, much of the discourse That surrounds diversity Centers around students In the university.
You can’t just stop at undergrads. That simply just won’t do. True diversity means You need diverse teachers, too.
But in that conversation, We’re too quick to forget, That tenured staff positions Are also hard to get.
We know the talent pool exists I see it every day. So if you truly value it Then back up what you say.
And though for Harvard College, There exists some oversight To make sure student bodies Aren’t mostly male and white,
Harvard says, in summary, That tenure is reserved For “excellence” and “eminence” In people they’ve observed.
Those same policy pressures It seems do not extend To faculty appointments For this whiteness doesn’t end!
But I reject this notion. For if this claim were true, Then excellence would mostly come From white and privileged few.
Now don’t misunderstand, I’ll be clear ‘bout what I’m saying, Many folks with tenure here Are very truly slaying.
The truth about the process Is it needs to be redone Cause people who deserve to Aren’t getting tenure, hon!
The problem, as it seems to me, Has two distinctive parts The first involves the bias That the process oft’ imparts.
COURTESY OF SHANIVI SRIKONDA
By which profs will be reviewed.
Tenure track promotions, For example, must include A full ad hoc committee
–Mireya Sánchez-Maes ’24 is a joint concentrator in English and Theater, Dance, and Media in Currier House. Her column “Rhyme and Reason” appears on alternate Mondays.
