When Claudine Gay resigned as President of Harvard this week the gloating by some conservative activists and commentators was unappealing to put it mildly. Their unseemly glee seemed vindictive and disproportionate. It said more about them and their agenda than it did about Dr. Gay and the dysfunction at Harvard. When Gay did herself few favors with her NYTimes guest essay – in which she took little responsibility for her fall from grace – it just fueled their fire.
Oceans of print and pixels have now been expended by those weighing in on what all this does and doesn’t mean. There’s not much I can add except to wonder why Gay, like the two other university presidents, was not equal to the moment. That, and the unfortunate circumstance of a storied institution beholden to a new-fangled ideology.
Here was an accomplished administrator and brilliant scholar floundering in a Congressional hearing and caught flat-footed when subjected to relentless attacks on her credentials and credibility by those determined to bring her down.
Here was a venerable and powerful institution – with roots that date to the 17th century – caught unprepared and showing all the transparency of a Dickensian fog.
One certain outcome of this whole episode is that it has led to overdue scrutiny of the ideological framework of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) that Gay espouses. This is a framework that sees an unjust world through the lens of intersectionality and oppression. The proposed remedies seek to redress inequality not by expanding access but by engineering what it sees as more equitable outcomes.
Put into practice, this agenda fixes the world by structuring the result. If certain groups of students are not in the most advanced classes, for example, then the cause is racism and can be fixed by requiring proportional representation. The form this takes in secondary education leads to the eradication of traditional measures of success such as AP classes, tracking, and SATs. (I am no fan of any of these but for rather different reasons. Another story.) An extensive and well-researched scholarly article In Defense of Merit in Science is an account of the disastrous impact of this assault on meritocracy in higher education. Go here to download and read.
This approach to social change means that its advocates have given up on, or rejected, more traditional political and public policy efforts to create a more equitable society. Rather than the work of strengthening the social safety net and removing the social barriers to upward mobility – distribution of wealth for example, and measures to improve health care, housing, employment, educational opportunity, etc., – they move directly to the outcomes. If the result is not equitable, then rejigger the results and the process to manufacture it.
Governance
Another outcome of the whole Claudine Gay/ University Presidents’ saga is the focus on governance.
When someone of such institutional prominence plummets to earth so dramatically there are going to be questions. If Gay’s record and qualifications – remarkable though they are – were not up to snuff for the role of President of Harvard, then just who is responsible for appointing her? In Gay’s case, it is the insular and shrouded Harvard Corporation whose prime responsibilities are the guardianship of the organization and the selection of its academic and administrative leader. It appears to have failed on both those counts.
Did it function responsibly and with due diligence or was it swayed by ideological commitment and fast fixes? Did it elevate Gay to a role where her shortcomings were highlighted in the intense scrutiny that accompanies such a high-ranking position?
Pivot or Blip for DEI?
It remains to be seen whether this is a pivotal moment or a blip on the evolving landscape of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. But for sure, they are now seen and discussed as controversial and not just by conservatives. As social justice warrior activists double down, there’s a rising chorus of liberal and left-leaning voices now alert to the illiberal consequences of curbs on free speech, cancel culture, and the obsession with identities.
The era of no debate is over. Let the debate begin. What do schools want to achieve with their DEI initiatives? What are the ways by which they can be achieved?
In educational institutions, these and other related questions need to be resolved at the level of governance in partnership with administration. It would be helpful if national organizations and accrediting bodies provided frameworks for this essential exercise of reexamination of purpose.
Put another way: Help schools how to think, not what to think.
History shows that when people are lost, afraid, wanting diversion its a time they will trust in people that they shouldnt.
Those who land on top believe that they deserve their success and that it is morally justified. This is the trademark of a meritocratic society; currently, they are the winners of globalisation and practising in the realm of that standard, regarding those left behind deserving their fate. Whenever one of the mighty falls, they struggle to comprehend society’s social bonds, which have declined over many years and led to losing respect for one another.
We are living in dangerous times for democracy, which has led to a rising support for autocratic figures and rising xenophobia, a populist anger against the elites, and a backlash against racial, ethnic, and gender diversity.
This post has explained a lot that seemed incomprehensible from a distance – thank you! Sue
I thought this para explained a big underlying problem really well, better than I have seen elsewhere: “This approach to social change means that its advocates have given up on, or rejected, more traditional political and public policy efforts to create a more equitable society. Rather than the work of strengthening the social safety net and removing the social barriers to upward mobility – distribution of wealth for example, and measures to improve health care, housing, employment, educational opportunity, etc., – they move directly to the outcomes. If the result is not equitable, then rejigger the results and the process to manufacture it.”
It really is unfortunate how initially helpful concepts like intersectionality have been cheapened and dumbed down. And even worse that our side of the aisle has so failed to course correct to address the problems, leaving an open field for folks like Stefanik with really, really bad motives to gain traction.
At Harvard, it’s the Corporation Board that bears complete responsibility for a poisonous campus culture that allowed for Hooven to be hounded out, a la Kathleen Stock, for a Jewish student to be surrounded and shouted at while walking across the yard, and for the worst FIRE free speech rating of all campuses reviewed. Dr. Gay was a symptom, but not the cause. As the old saying goes, the fish rots from the head.
Susan Scheid´s last blog post ..Lofty Thoughts and Dead Leaves
Sue stole my comment, quoting your own about “strengthening the social safety net…” rather than “mov[ing] directly to the outcomes.” Rarely do symbolic figureheads function as intended. I remember when I was teaching in Amherst and affirmative action came to UMass. The admitted but underprepared black students tended to band together defensively, leaving those black students who HAD earned their rightful places with grades, test scores etc. feeling stigmatized and devalued. One such wrote a memorable letter to the school paper.
But everyone should know about Christopher Rufo (who bragged about getting Dr. Gay’s “scalp”), not to mention Stefanik’s “gotcha” interrogation technique (I sensed that the three were expecting follow-up questions that weren’t forthcoming. Stefanik had her quarry).
Sorry, I meant Christopher Rufo, not Mark Ruffo.
I took the liberty of correcting the typo.
I confess I have not followed the story although I was enough aware to think there was probably a lot more to it. I absolutely agree with your statement that schools need to be helped how and not what to think. At this point in time it is crucial.
Yes, to be “kicked out”( essentially) in such a short time means the choice was probably not right in the first place, and there were probably those just waiting for her to screw up.
Gay is out but the board is unchanged. Hmm.Makes it easy to imagine she is the scapegoat for the failures of oversight for which it should take responsibility.
For me, the coup de gras for Gay herself, is the double standard. The hypocrisy of claiming to support free speech while sanctioning Carole Hooven for speaking the truth. College speech codes are a real problem.