Shock Therapy

IN 1921, alumni and students protested President A. Lawrence Lowell's decision to bar Blacks from Harvard's first-year dorms (Lowell's cynical manner of prohibiting the admission of Blacks to Harvard). They won, and the decision was reversed.

In 1969, Black students staged protests and planned boycotts until the faculty developed an agreeable plan for the formation of an Afro-American Studies Department. They won, and we still have that department.

In 1982, the Third World Coalition at the Law School caused a national uproar over a class on civil rights created and usually taught by Derrick Bell. Since Bell had left the school, it was to be team-taught by a Black and a white professor.

The Black students boycotted the class and held alternate lectures by minority teachers. Before the end of the term, the Law School appointed a minority professor to teach the class for the following year.

In 1989 and 1990, students held many protests about the number of professors in the Afro-Am Department. Last spring the department had only one tenured professor--who was on leave--and no junior faculty at all. The University responded by securing Henry Louis Gates Jr. Now the department has five tenured faculty members, several junior faculty members and visiting scholars.

WITH ISSUES of minority hiring at Harvard, protesting has a solid record. When student groups, alumni and other interested parties make their demands known loud and clear, the University responds (after extreme pressure, after some time and in their own way). Unit it is compelled by such vocal protests and bad press, however, the University usually drags its heels on minority hiring.

At Harvard Law School, the issue of minority hiring is about to explode. A student group is in the Massachusetts Superior Court trying to win legal standing to sue the University. Derrick Bell is calling on Harvard to extend his leave, which he took in order to protest the lack of minority faculty, and is filing discrimination charges with the U.S. Department of Education.

The current protesting tactic is to try to force the Law School to hire a more diverse faculty through legal action. This goes one step beyond marches and sit-ins, although those are happening also.

The legal actions signal that, at Harvard Law School at least, the community is no longer willing to wait for the University to act on its own. This may just be the step that will force Harvard to stop dragging its heels on minority hiring.

STUDENT GROUPS and faculty members such as Derrick Bell have been bashing the faculty minority hiring record for years.

They have a lot to complain about. Out of 64 tenured or tenure-track professors at the Law School, only five are women and six are Black. Last week, the Law School faculty voted to tenure four professors, all of whom are white.

Derrick Bell has been urging the Law School to hire more minorities for over a decade. In April 1990, he took a leave of absence and is refusing to return to HLS until they hire a law professor who is a woman of color.

But in the spring, his allotted two years of leave is over. Bell is planning to file suit for discrimination and take other legal measures. But barring any legal injunctions. Bell has only three options: he can convince Harvard to extend his leave, he can come back or he can resign.

President Neil L. Rudenstine said last week that he will not make any exceptions for Bell. And he shouldn't.

Bell may have felt forced to take a leave of "conscience," and he may think it's the University's fault, but that should not be enough to change this particular University policy. If Harvard starts allowing extra leaves, it will have to grant that privilege to other professors with causes. It will become difficult to draw the line between protesting and convenient association with this school.

If Bell feels so strongly that a woman of color needs to be hired at Harvard, then he cannot come back before that time without compromising his principles.

That leaves Bell with only one choice-ending his tenure at Harvard. Bell would be greatly missed at the Law School. But he might actually be able to make a stronger statement about the diversity problem by not being at Harvard.

He would lessen by one the already small number of minority professors. If other Black professors follow suit, the Law School could be left with the embarrassing situation of having no Black professors. That position would be untenable. The student protests and the backlash from alumni would be considerable. Harvard would have to hire more minority professors.

A mass exodus of Professors, of course, is counterproductive to learning. Law professors shouldn't be expected to leave their jobs to make a statement. Students shouldn't be forced to boycott classes and use their school. No member of the Harvard community should have to evacuate Cambridge in order to make a statement.

But it seems that Harvard's hiring committees only respond when jolted with large volts of electricity. We hope more students and faculty help deliver such voltage.

PROTESTS MAY NOT be the only answer. Law students are also trying to shock Harvard into action by using what they have learned in contracts class and applying it to Harvard's hiring practices. Oral arguments in the Coalition for Civil Rights (CCR) case were heard in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) last Tuesday.

The court will decide if the students have standing to sue their school for discriminatory hiring practices. And if they rule that they can sue Harvard Law School, the case will go into discovery. That will enable students to examine University records to determine whether discrimination has occurred.

The student group claims that the school violates its contract with the students when it creates an unbalanced learning environment. They accuse Harvard of deficient environment in which they are harmed by not having free association with women and minority faculty members.

The only issue facing the Supreme Judicial Court is whether the students can sue their school. No doubt, the decision here will set a precedent for other universities. Students have certain expectations of a university when they accept admission--just as students are accepted under certain preconditions about their personal qualities.

Students should have standing to sue their schools over contractual violations. If a school claims to have a non-discrimination policy, and the students think that the university isn't following through with this policy in faculty hiring, then they should be able to do something about it.

We pay enough tuition yearly to merit some recourse with the University beyond just griping in the Undergraduate Council and staging some protests. Students shouldn't just have to accept a situation as beyond their control just because Harvard doesn't want to give them any power.

In situations like the CCR suit, the students have a legitimate grievance that should be handled by the state judiciary. This isn't just a dispute about dining hall programs or library check-out rules. The coalition is accusing Harvard of discriminatory hiring practices. That merits a day in court.

IT IS NOT CLEAR if this new dimension of dissent will work with the Harvard administration. If the law students or Derrick bell succeed in their legal action, it is not definite that there is anything they can do to force Harvard to hire certain people. There are too many factors--such as the consent of those to whom the University offers jobs--beyond the control of Harvard's faculty hiring committees.

But there are some things that Harvard should be doing to provide a more diverse faculty--even if a court doesn't force them to comply.

The hiring committees should more actively recruit minorities in graduate and professional schools. They should reevaluate the criteria by which they judge candidates and update the standards where needed--taking into account the suggestions of students, young faculty and graduate students. And they should make efforts to entice minority professors to come to Harvard.

The only thing we can count on is that Harvard won't change without pressure. The current tactics, however, might be creative enough to send Harvard an insistent message: Hire a more diverse faculty or spend the next several generations tied up in legal action.

Harvard's energy would be a lot better spent just trying to provide a more diverse faculty without blocking up the judicial system. Eventually they will have to give in anyway.