Harvard Can Kill the Diversity-Excellence Dichotomy

Harvard has an optics problem.

In the course of the (predominantly right-wing) assault on higher education, our detractors succeeded at convincing the American public of a diminished Harvard. Through an overt takedown of our presidency, our administrators, our hiring and admissions practices, critics recast Harvard as a cesspool for “woke” D&I groupthink antithetical to the University’s history of excellence.

A once-revered American treasure, they claim, has ruined itself by placing diversity before ability in admissions and hiring.

Opponents of inclusive, forward-thinking education have erected a false dichotomy: that diversity and selectivity are mutually exclusive, and therefore that the pursuit of a diverse student body and faculty necessarily requires we forfeit achievement.

Harvard must rectify that misconception — and do so with our actions rather than our words. We must remind the world of our selectivity and rigor by tightening standards in undergraduate admissions and faculty hiring.

By demonstrating that we can harmonize a dual obligation to diversity and merit, Harvard can dismantle the innately bigoted notion that the two are contradictory.

First and foremost, the University must reinstate a requirement that applicants submit a score on either the SAT or ACT.

At present, the absence of a universal and objective aptitude benchmark makes our admissions criteria seem more opaque and less meritocratic than ever. With fewer test scores, Harvard lacks an authoritative figure to point at when it faces criticisms that it has lowered standards.

Earlier this month, officials at Yale University announced a decisive shift away from their standing test-optional policies toward a “test flexible” model. By next fall, applicants will be required to submit ACT, SAT, subject-based Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate scores.

In recent years, it became something of a truism that testing requirements opposed diversity. New research suggests that was wrong.

Yale made the change in light of mounting evidence that — rather than harm diversity — mandatory testing policies provide a vital avenue for students from unconventional or underrepresented backgrounds to demonstrate academic talent that would otherwise go overlooked. High scores can give admissions officers the confidence that so-called “diamond-in-the-rough” candidates have what it takes to handle the work at elite schools.

Dartmouth and Yale have set the timer running. Harvard shouldn’t wait to act.

Requiring test scores of our applicants — hopefully with the test-flexible approach Yale has adopted — would once again allow Harvard to root its selection in a leveling criterion. To skeptics of the University’s commitment to achievement, the impact would be clear: Harvard still cares about ability.

If we furthermore emphasize the role of testing as but one piece in a larger holistic review, our institution can not only reinforce the meritocratic character of its admissions, but actively promote an economically and experientially diverse Harvard.

Second, Harvard should implement a strict and thorough academic background check for prospective hires to both the faculty and the administration.

Revelations of plagiarism among top Harvard officials, first in the presidency and then in other administrative positions, dealt a critical blow to the University’s public standing. Critics of our institution weaponized those findings and angled them directly at the school’s mission of diverse and inclusive education.

By our failure to sufficiently scrutinize new hires, we supplied fodder for the right’s false dichotomy: that an appreciation for diversity comes at the expense of a dedication to achievement. Thus, the University would be wise to establish a uniform, exhaustive, and transparent academic vetting framework for applicants to all posts relevant to education at Harvard.

We should apply such scrutiny not solely for the benefit of the actual operations of this school — indeed, many of these allegations do not raise serious concerns about the ability of the individuals in question — but for the sake of our public image. For an institution that relies on credibility, image is reality.

Our moment is ripe for reflection and adaptation. The University is outcast and weak — for reasons both founded and not. We must rise to the occasion, and recognize that our future requires the trust and appreciation of the American public.

That doesn’t mean we must choose between excellence and diversity. Instead, we can clarify that our commitment to the latter does not imply the abandonment of the former.

In fact, often, it bolsters it.

Lorenzo Z. Ruiz ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Greenough Hall. His column, “Searching for Harvard,” runs bi-weekly on Mondays.