Excerpts from President Charles M. Vest's remarks at MIT's 23rd annual celebration of the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., February 7, 1997.
It is the fate of every university president to face a heavy schedule of speaking engagements throughout the year. Some engagements are onerous; many are pleasant. Some are an honor; most are a duty. But a few are inspirations. This is always one such event. Perhaps it the most inspiring of them all.
We celebrate the ideals and the vision of Martin Luther King for many reasons: for the challenges he called us to meet; for the courage he dared us to match; for the stirring eloquence that moved our hearts and transformed our nation. Most often, however, we say we honor Dr. King for his "dream."
Certainly, his dream is as powerful today as it was in 1964 when, in a single address, he became the nation's most compelling voice for racial equality and social progress.
But Martin Luther King was, above all, a man of action. His dream is memorable and important precisely because he did so much to make it a reality. If we wish to honor him, then we must do the same.
To dream his dream is not enough--nor can we build the society of which he dreamed by command or decree. Rather we must work proactively to build it through the environments and opportunities we create for learning and working.
In the years since Dr. King's death, many of our nation's colleges and universities have made a deliberate effort to infuse Dr. King's dream with a measure of reality.
Over time, one important pathway to his goals--which we have come to call affirmative action--has yielded substantial results.
For example, US Census data tell us that, between 1980 and 1992, the aggregate percentage of minorities in the US population remained fairly stable at just over 25 percent. In that time, however, the percentage of minority undergraduates at US colleges and universities rose from 17.3 percent to 23.5 percent. That's progress by any standard.
At the graduate level, the rate of increase is comparable, but we need to accelerate the pace in order to reach a more acceptable absolute number. (In 1992, just over 15 percent of the graduate students in America were minority students.)
So much for the national picture. How does MIT look? Well, I have to say that--within this context--we look relatively good. Just yesterday I received a report on the enrollment of minorities and women in engineering programs in the U.S. shows that over the past five years:
We are proud of this ranking...yet the actual numbers show how far we have to go: While we have awarded a total of 1207 engineering doctorates over the past five years, we have awarded a total of 170 to women, 19 to Hispanic Americans, and 16 to African Americans.
With such numbers, despite their recent growth, it is no wonder that there are so few minorities and women on the faculties of our colleges and universities. Minorities still make up only 12 percent of the professoriate, and only 8.5 percent of those who are full professors. The situation is far worse if we look specifically at the fields of science and engineering. MIT is a case in point. Clearly, we have far more work to do.
To me, at least, these numbers have two important implications. The first is that, whatever its imperfections, affirmative action has improved access and opportunity for women and minorities in America. The second is that affirmative action, as most of us know from personal experience, is hardest to achieve--and most gradual in its impact--at the highest levels of our society. Real progress at these levels will occur only with more time and with much more effort.
Is such an effort necessary?
These numbers suggest that exclusion and discrimination are not merely historic artifacts, but continuing realities. They also suggest that steady pressure must be maintained until results are seen at the very top. To quit now will simply mean a long-term stratification of opportunity--a permanent glass ceiling.
Why, then, is affirmative action in higher education under attack from so many quarters?
This past July, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Hopwood v. University of Texas that "any consideration of race or ethnicity by the law school for the purpose of achieving a diverse student body is not a compelling interest" and therefore is not permitted (at least in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana).
The repeal of affirmative action by the University of California's Board of Regents gained national attention during the Presidential campaign. In Colorado, the governing board of the university system has cut back on its affirmative action programs.
Most disturbingly, California voters have approved a measure which would forbid any state agency or school from taking race or gender into account for purposes of hiring or admissions. (Implementation of this measure is on hold pending the outcome of numerous legal challenges.)
I believe that much of the support for these assaults on affirmative action derives from a fundamental ignorance--a lack of knowledge--about the true position of minorities in the United States. That ignorance was amply demonstrated in a survey conducted in September of 1995 under the joint auspices of The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.
This study indicated that 41 percent of white Americans believed that, economically, African Americans were just as well or better off than whites, and 44 percent of whites believe that African Americans are just as well or better off in terms of educational achievement.
On the question of economic well-being, the reality is that mean household income for African Americans is only 65 percent that of white households. On education, enrollment and employment for African Americans, especially in graduate school and on faculties, continues to lag significantly.
In addition to this lack of knowledge about present reality, I believe that part of the problem can be attributed to ignorance about population trends in the United States. While minorities account for approximately a quarter of the American population today, that figure will rise to just over 30 percent in 2005 and nearly 34 percent in 2015.
These trends suggest that the economic health of our nation in the 21st Century will rest squarely on the productivity, achievement and skill of a work force which will be increasingly diverse. In a technology-driven, post-industrial economy--an economy in which education is the single most important contributor to success--our nation cannot afford to short-change or ignore the educational aspirations of its historically disadvantaged citizens.
And, even as our nation's population becomes increasingly diverse, the average age of Americans is also increasing. So, these days, we hear a lot about the future of Social Security. Consider this: white Baby Boomers are going to depend for their retirement on taxes paid into the system by a work force that is markedly more diverse than it is now. If that diverse work force has not received the best education we can give it, then we will face the likelihood of severely constrained Social Security benefits.
I know that, even in the face of these realities, there will be many in America who will still argue that affirmative action is not a necessary and valuable tool in building a more equitable and productive society.
Even deprived of the argument that affirmative action doesn't work, or that we don't need it anymore, they will fall back on the idea that it is wrong because it violates the concept of colorblindness, which Dr. King himself characterized so eloquently as the ability to judge people "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
There are two responses to this challenge to affirmative action. One of them has been made with particular eloquence by one of today's winners of the Martin Luther King Leadership Award. In the July, 1995, issue of The Scientist, Jim Gates wrote of the value of genetic diversity in promoting the survival, performance, vigor and adaptability of biological systems. He suggested that the same principle could and should be applied to human societies.
"This nation," Jim argued "desperately needs to use all the means at its disposal to achieve the highest levels of performance in the increasingly international competition in science and technology. Diversity in both nature and other fields of human endeavor has shown to lend itself to increased levels of performance. Is it not prudent at least to be open to this possibility in pursuit of excellence in scientific , engineering and technological achievement?"
Jim's inspired defense of the value of diversity may be extended from science and technology to society as a whole. We will all benefit immeasurably from an integrated, cohesive society in which all individuals can realize their potential, and in which we can draw effectively on the individual and collective strengths and talents of our citizens of all colors and ethnicities.
Still, simply to speak of the shared advantages of diversity is to fall short of the basic premise embodied by Dr. King himself. In the end, we must pursue racial equality through affirmative action not simply because it will make our society stronger, or more adaptable or more prosperous (although it will do all those things). In the end, we must pursue these policies in spite of their costs and regardless of their benefits. We must pursue them because they are right and just.
That is why we need to honor and emulate Dr. King, for, although he was a pragmatic activist, he never let his pragmatism dilute his idealism. He knew that only moral leadership can move mountains and transform nations.
I hope, therefore, that the students, faculty and staff of MIT will join me during the year ahead in a renewed effort to sustain our university's commitment to diversity and opportunity in all aspects of our scholastic and professional lives.
Perhaps such a commitment is in part just an expression of pragmatic self-interest, but it also is an expression of an abiding sense of justice. Let us, together, pursue these goals as Dr. King did, not because they are good for us, but simply because they are good.
MIT Home Page