Excerpts from President Charles M. Vest's remarks at MIT's 24th annual celebration of the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., February 13, 1998.
Last year, I spoke on this occasion about the looming attack on affirmative action. Like any good scientist or engineer, I cited data from MIT and elsewhere to support the assertion that affirmative action as a policy was just beginning to bear fruit in the world of advanced education and research, and that -- both here at MIT and in society as a whole -- we had far more work to do.
Since that time, however, I have come to believe that the focus on the goals of affirmative action is increasingly being lost in an escalating debate about methods. That saddens me, because I think that a genuine understanding of these issues must begin with the recognition that -- by any measure of opportunity, advancement, education or income -- women and minorities have not yet been fully integrated into the highest levels of America's economy and civil society.
Does that mean that we should defend every action, policy and process which has ever been taken in the name of affirmative action? Certainly not.
But does that mean we must continue to use effective, appropriate and vigorous means to end this unjust state of affairs? Unquestionably it does.
That calls for continuing discussion and debate. How do we get there from here?
But before we -- as a society or as a local community -- discuss the means of affirmative action, can't we accept the ends it is intended to achieve? Can't we agree that there is an important problem here, even if we cannot agree on the best means for its solution? If the opponents of affirmative action are not willing to acknowledge this -- then the debate is not about affirmative action, but about much more fundamental issues of social justice.
The concerns of justice are, in this case, squarely aligned with a pragmatic attention to economic and social well-being. Our nation grows more diverse with each passing year. Members of minority groups make up one quarter of our population today; they will make up well over a third of our population within twenty years.
In a post-industrial world, knowledge is the basis of economic achievement for nations, just as it is for individuals. The well-being of all America depends on the educational achievements of all our citizens. If we recognize and agree on that principle, then I think the debate can rightly focus on the best means to achieve a society marked by economic and social justice.
Unfortunately, I think much of the discussion in the last few years has been clouded by rhetoric that obscures rather than illuminates the issues. If we want to free ourselves from the fierce polarization which has characterized the national debate about so many social issues, we must all abandon the use of such "terms of concealment" and speak plainly.
I will go first. Like many of my colleagues, I helped shape -- and I strongly support -- the Association of American Universities' Statement on the Importance of Diversity in University Admissions. That statement talks about the immense value of diversity in enriching and enhancing the educational experience of all students. In attempting to describe the advantages of diversity for the entire community, however, we may have employed -- however unconsciously -- our own terms of concealment. By this, I mean that we may not have made a strong enough link between the promotion of diversity and the deliberate goal of expanding opportunity to students from groups which remain statistically underrepresented at the highest levels of American life. The extension of these opportunities is a good thing -- in and of itself. We should be forthright in asserting this.
And just as we should be clear about all of our reasons for supporting diversity, so we should examine some of the murkier language that has been used to attack affirmative action and other policies designed to promote and insure diversity.
Let's begin with the term "quotas" -- a term that is used to suggest that a certain number of people from targeted groups will be admitted or promoted regardless of qualifications. This notion still persists, despite the general acknowledgment that such quotas are, in the case of university admissions, unverified and unverifiable. Programs with specific numerical goals are explicitly rejected by the AAU and its member schools. Can we stop talking about a problem which doesn't exist?
Let us turn to another loaded word: "preference."
If admissions committees and officers were showing absolute preference for women and minorities, then women and minorities would be admitted out of all proportion to their representation in society as a whole.
If, on the other hand, "preference" means giving positive consideration to any factor other than grades and test scores, then surely an attack on preferences for race or gender should apply to preferences for athletic achievement, community service, artistic or musical ability, or -- in the case of many schools, but not here at MIT -- having alumni parents. These forms of "preference" are rarely attacked, because they are seen as part of a larger set of criteria.
"Preference" is thus another misleading term which effectively conceals the "one- factor-among-many" approach to admissions allowed by the Bakke decision, while subtly suggesting that minorities are over-represented in college populations.
Finally, let us turn to the most troubling of all these "terms of concealment." Ultimately, opponents of affirmative action in admissions complain that it results in the acceptance of candidates who are "unqualified" or, just as ominous, "under- qualified."
What can we say to this?
I believe that we should make all these points, and one more.
The ultimate test of any admissions policy -- or any other policy designed to promote diversity -- should be its ability to maintain standards of performance while broadening access and opportunity. MIT's graduates -- whatever their gender, race, ethnicity, or test scores -- continue to do extraordinarily well in their chosen fields. They constantly reinforce our reputation as one of the best universities in the world. By the pragmatic test of how our graduates perform, I think our admissions policies -- including our policies regarding diversity -- have been enormously successful.
MIT -- and society as whole -- should be willing to look at any alternative policy which produces the same or better results. But no amount of misleading rhetoric should confuse us into accepting anything less.
By all means, we should perfect our tools and refine our methods -- but we should never turn away from the pressing task before us. We have achieved too much not to stand our ground.
MIT Home Page