Under the Surface

AT first glance, the new set of Harvard admissions figures released two weeks ago seem to give cause for most advocates of diversity to cheer. In a year when the number of applicants overall declined 11 percent, the proportion of minorites admitted jumped slightly (about 1.5 percent) to 32.3 percent. Meanwhile, two groups--Hispanics and Asian-Americans--reached all-time high representation within the admitted Class of 1993 at 6.9 and 15.3 percent respectively, although levels for Black and Native American students remained virtually unchanged at 9.6 and .5 percent each.

Other figures, if not cause for satisfaction, at least recognize outrageous problems from past years. While women outnumbered men by 135 to 77 in last year's admitted class of Black students, this year's gender representation at least approached reasonable levels with 108 women and 100 men admitted.

BUT two trends have emerged that threaten the fundamental proposition of diversity as Harvard perceives it, especially over the long term. For every group besides Asian-Americans, admissions rates remain below national representation levels. Meanwhile, leaders of all student groups express concern that as competition increases among minority applicants, economic diversity among the students will decline.

Black representation at Harvard, for example, has yet to surpass significantly a level reached 20 years ago--the first year Harvard began recruiting efforts. Yet the representation of Black students here still falls below the 12.4 percent representation in the population at large. Hispanic students too come to Harvard in fewer numbers than their 7.5 percent nationwide representation.

While no one ignores the fact that fewer minority students applied this year than last (coinciding with a decrease of the applicant pool as a whole), in the final analysis the results ought to be judged according to a central principle of affirmative action. That is, under-represented minorities should be admitted at levels that address fundamental or historical social inequities. At Harvard, which stands as an educator of national stature, such levels arguably should be equal to or even higher than representation reached by minority groups nationwide.

But a more troubling pattern common in non-minority admissions may be appearing in that of minorities as well--with more devastating results. The trend is this: as the number of qualified, diverse student applicants increases, the pressure Harvard faces to recruit economically disadvantaged students actually decreases. For instance, when more Hispanic student applicants from outside the Southwest and from wealthier backgrounds gain admission--as happens as the Hispanic community grows--those in the barrios and inner cities face higher odds against admission.

What this means for non-minorities is that Harvard remains primarily a school for children of the middle and upper-middle classes. What it means for minorities is a legacy that conveniently overlooks those who experience first-hand the harshest problems of minority life in America, and those best equipped to understand it. This legacy harms both those minorities unable to gain admission, as well the Harvard students unable to gain from a more diverse body of experience.

AS always, these problems and others are best addressed through open discussion by the entire community. We have called before on the Harvard admissions office to release complete and detailed statistics about all its admitted groups in the belief that discussion can only help solve problems. Most recently, this call has been for an open response to long-held suspicions by the Asian-American community of discrimination.

In the instance of minority admissions in general, Harvard should allocated more funds for minority recruitment, openly address biases for or against students of different economic background and remind itself and the community of its commitment to provide top education to all in this country who could serve others with it.