Diversity and Quality

I AM PLEASED THAT THE CRIMSON has asked me to state my views on the role of affirmative action in Harvard's hiring policies. I believe that Harvard can have, and must have, a strong affirmative action program that reflects our commitment to equal opportunity while fully respecting the academic standards of the University. Since this subject has aroused considerable interest, I would like to make my position as clear as possible.

In 1968, the situation at Harvard was not one of which we can be proud. In that year, the proportion of minority persons in salary and wage positions was approximately 3 per cent. Virtually no minority workers were employed on Harvard construction projects. The proportion of women and blacks in tenured faculty positions was negligible.

Since that time, we have made considerable progress. By 1970 the proportion of minority persons in salary and wage positions had risen to 8.6 per cent. At present, the proportion stands at 12.3 per cent. During the past 18 months, the proportion of minority workers had approximated 15 per cent and the University received an award in 1972 from the Association of Minority Contractors in Boston.

Accurate records for the employment of women and minority persons in other categories date back only to October 1971. At that time, 313 minority persons (6.5 per cent) held corporation appointments, while 376 (7.7 per cent) hold such appointments today. In the case of women, 900 (18.7 per cent) held corporation appointments in October 1971 while 979 (20.1 per cent) hold such appointments at present.

There is inevitably less change among assistant, associate, and full professors, especially in an eighteen month period, because turnover is slow and relatively few women and minority persons have entered certain specialized fields, particularly in the sciences, where many appointments are made. Nevertheless, in October 1971 67 (4.4 per cent) minority persons and 64 (4.2 per cent) women held professorial positions. Today, 74 (4.8 per cent) minority persons and 88 (5.7 per cent) women occupy such positions.

The University has a moral obligation to provide equal opportunities to women, minority persons and all other groups who work or seek to work at Harvard. Our sorry record in past years suggests that we must make special efforts to fulfill this obligation. At the same time, we must never forget that the primary purpose of the University is to encourage research and teaching at the highest level of quality. Some people fear that affirmative action will inevitably conflict with our efforts to maintain high standards of teaching and scholarship. I disagree. If we are prepared to invest the necessary time and effort, affirmative action can contribute to Harvard's quality and not detract from it. To accomplish this result, we must observe two import principles.

First, we must make special efforts to identify promising candidates for any position where minorities no women seen to be underrepresented in relation to their availability.

Second, in choosing among candidates to fill any position, we must base our decisions entirely on the candidate's ability to carry out the responsibilities that the position requires. At the faculty level, and particularly for tenured positions, we must select the persons most likely to make the greatest contribution to scholarship and teaching in their respective fields. Affirmative action must not be construed to justify the appointment of less qualified persons from any group simply to provide role models or atone for past short-comings. Reverse discrimination is illegal under Federal law and under HEW guidelines. It is grossly unfair to more qualified candidates who are denied appointment for reasons for which they are not responsible. Above all, it compromises the primary functions of the University.

If these two principles are observed, the essential purposes of the University will be strengthened, not weakened. For example, in early 1968 not a single woman or black held a tenured position in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Under these circumstances, special efforts to widen our search by identifying promising women and black professors should help to improve the quality of the Faculty, since it is hard to believe that a faculty seeking the highest possible distinction would include no members who are either black or female.

Considerable anxiety has been expressed by many persons across the country about the affirmative action program adopted by the Federal government. Much of this anxiety seems unfounded and rests upon claims of what might happen rather than evidence of actual abuses by the government.

Government requirements do involve a substantial administrative burden. Fantastic amounts of time and energy have been devoted in this University to gathering data, obtaining computer printouts, and preparing hundreds of pages of reports to HEW. Within the faculties, some persons complain of the extra work involved in making a special attempt to identify promising women and minority candidates and in documenting these efforts. Despite these costs, I believe that the extra work has been worthwhile. Our poor record prior to the past four years suggests that special efforts have indeed been necessary. In addition, the efforts we have made have allowed us to understand our personnel policies more fully, to identify many deficiencies, and to provide more genuinely equal opportunities at Harvard.

The greatest source of anxiety has arisen over the use of numerical targets and goals. There is an understandable fear that such targets will be subtly transformed into quotas with the result that hiring decisions will be distorted in order to achieve stated goals.

On the basis of my experience in affirmative action at Harvard and in mediating analogous industrial disputes, I believe that numerical targets can play a useful role in many categories of employment by stimulating greater interest in affirmative action and in monitoring its implementation. At the same time, I have reservations about the use of numerical targets in other areas, particularly faculty hiring. For example, in any given period, tenure appointments will be made in extremely diverse, highly specialized fields, and selection committees will choose from only a small number of leading experts in each field. It is virtually impossible to guess how many minority persons or women are included among the serious candidates let alone how many will ultimately be appointed and agree to come. Under these circumstances, I would prefer to rely on procedural safeguards that are designed to insure that promising minority and women candidates are identified and considered without bias. The University has been developing procedures of this sort, and we are refusing to process appointments unless there is evidence that the procedures have been followed.

Regardless of my own views, the government has insisted on the use of numerical targets for faculty hiring, and we have therefore complied. In projecting goals, however, we must be aware that the targets are inherently unreliable. We must also bear in mind, as the Federal regulations make clear, that targets are not quotas and that reverse discrimination is not required and is actually unlawful. If the government begins to retreat from these principles, we will resist as strongly as we can.

Despite the reservations expressed above, I believe that affirmative action has been highly beneficial. In the last analysis, however, no government program can insure genuinely fair employment practices at Harvard. Without continuous effort and concern we can perpetuate countless subtle forms of discrimination. If we are not rigorous in selecting our faculty and staff, we can also make appointments of less qualified persons simply because they happen to belonv to some underrepresented group. On the other hand, so long as we are willing to make the effort, we can maintain a policy that will be scrupulously fair and unbiased while simultaneously enriching the quality of our Faculty and staff. If we fail to do so, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Derek C. Bok is a former basketball player at Stanford University.