‘Conversations’ Undermine Community

By Caitlin E. Carey

After the most selective admissions process in Harvard’s history resulted in the institution’s most diverse freshman class, the faculty de­cided to host a discussion of racism and classism dur­ing Freshmen Opening Days. Members of the Class of 2013 were assigned a thirty-page packet to read prior to the entryway discussions on September 1. During these discussions, students were asked to write down effects of privilege, questions they had about diver­sity, and their unique perspectives on the latter. The exercise, rather than encouraging an open dialogue about how to remedy issues of prejudice and division on campus, raised more questions about how to handle students’ differences.

Admittedly, race and class were controversial topics during the 2009 admissions season. Af­firmative action and financial aid were debated in high schools across the country. Some disgruntled stu­dents misguidedly concluded that a few of their peers were offered admission solely because of their minority status. Others wondered why their families were required to pay full tuition while many incoming freshmen received a free ride. It is thus understandable that one of the finest academic institutions in the world would want to tackle such relevant issues.

As one might expect from a left-leaning college cam­pus, however, the overarching theme of the ar­ticles was the unfair advantage of the insensi­tive wealthy whites and the inability of different races and classes to act civilly toward each other.

The first of the articles, President Obama’s campaign speech on the state of race relations in America, came as little surprise. The third, which debunked the Asian-American “model mi­nority” myth, challenged race-based stereotypes.

The second article, a treatise by a black female professor on the relationship between racism and classism, sparked considerable controversy among the incoming freshmen. The author pitted racism against classism, concluding that racism is worse. Society places greater importance on outward indications of race, she argued, and white people are given the “benefit of the doubt,” while minorities are dismissed. For example, she attributed the small fortunes of otherwise impoverished white women to their race. White people who do not acknowledge the great privilege their skin color confers are to be regarded as ignorant. Interestingly, the author placed little em­phasis on her own privilege: she is a fourth-generation college professor, a lineage few people, black or white, can claim in this or any country. No doubt race and class are used by some to discriminate, but con­structing a hierarchy of discrimination struck many freshmen, including this one, as counterproductive.

The final three articles focused on class. One of these, written by a Harvard student, was perhaps the most poignant article of the packet, as it dealt with overcoming stereotypes and adjusting to campus life while retaining one’s identity. The third “article” presented, in table form, various income levels by eth­nicity, age, and marital status, among other measures.

The other item in this group addressed the lack of socioeconomic mobility in the United States. The author claimed that, in times of economic distress, “people on welfare are blamed for causing our bud­get woes; urban young men of color are blamed for crime; immigrants are blamed for taking away jobs; working women, gays and lesbians are held respon­sible for the breakdown of the nuclear family and the moral decay of society.” He dismissed the idea of the American Dream, claiming it is a delusion, a false sense of hope that is impossible due to the arrogance and detachment of the wealthy. Disturbingly, he lik­ened the dichotomy of the upper class and the working class to that of slavemasters and slaves. The wealthy are so entitled, he argued, that they become unable to communicate with those of more modest means.

The intent of the articles certainly seemed praise­worthy: initiating a conversation on such important and controversial is­sues as race and class should serve as a spur to further engagement with this challenging subject matter. A better result of these “conversations,” how­ever, would have been discussions about increasing unity and solidarity at Harvard—and not just an increased awareness of prejudice and inequality. The readings left many unanswered questions, including how society might solve this conflict of race and class.

Much attention has been paid to the isolation of the various cul­tural, ethnic, and economic groups at Harvard. Nationwide, people have spoken of de facto “segregation” returning to college campuses. Har­vard is a place at which diversity is and should be celebrated. Freshmen at the activities fair were bombarded by countless cultural, ethnic, and reli­gious groups. To draw attention to the negative aspects of diversity is to de­value the efforts of these orgaizations.

Addressing diversity on campus is an admi­rable endeavor. Harvard is arguably one of the most progressive schools in terms of ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic diversity. As President Drew Gilpin Faust noted in her convocation address, the class of 2013 is the most racially and socioeco­nomically diverse in Harvard’s history. With its reputation, Harvard carries the responsibility of set­ting an example for other institutions in the country.

Open dialogue on racism and classism is es­sential; neither can be tolerated on campus. Harvard unfortunately has established this firm stance. During Opening Days, time should be devoted to celebrat­ing students’ different backgrounds and experiences rather than lecturing about stereotyped hatred. It is important to remember the one commonality all stu­dents share: they all attend Harvard and thus belong.