Trump Administration’s Demands on Harvard
The Trump administration has made certain demands regarding Harvard, particularly against accepting diversity, equity, and inclusion principles in their admissions and employment practices.
Many Americans resonate with the sentiment expressed by Martin Luther King Jr. about being judged by character rather than skin color.
However, this notion of “achievement” can be interpreted in various ways. Essentially, it refers to a current performance evaluation, irrespective of historical or future factors. Professionals like pilots, surgeons, and athletes are usually assessed based on their current capabilities.
No one really worries about whether surgeons face challenges; what matters is their success rates. If a “better” surgeon exists, patients will naturally opt for that choice if the current one can’t overcome particular hurdles.
Similarly, reasonable individuals in every field—from aviation to finance—choose based on proven abilities.
In some extreme cases, decision-makers might overlook the best candidates if they feel morally compromised, opting instead for what they perceive as a more ethical choice, even if it doesn’t yield the best results.
The second meaning of merit involves looking at the candidates’ trajectories over time. When selecting students for university admission, it’s partly about predicting success in a generally short timeframe. Other professions might require a longer assessment period, but these judgments remain largely empirical rather than moral.
The third definition of merit is more morally oriented. Here, it’s essential to consider past experiences and barriers faced by candidates, not just their potential performance moving forward.
For example, a Black applicant from a challenging background or a white candidate from a similarly difficult situation may gain an edge over others who are equally or more qualified. This perspective suggests that overcoming past challenges can correlate with future success. Nonetheless, moral considerations are significant, as they highlight the importance of historical context in assessing character.
These elements can sometimes intertwine, yet it’s crucial to note that race alone should not guide decisions based on the achievement theory.
A wealthy Black applicant with a privileged background shouldn’t receive preferential treatment over more deserving white applicants from impoverished families. While experiences of discrimination can be a factor, they shouldn’t overshadow qualifications, similarly applicable to any student with a history of privilege, such as some Asian or Jewish students.
The fourth aspect involves moral preferences related to group reparations for past injustices, yet it diverges from the achievement standard. Evaluating individuals based on group identity violates King’s vision since it rewards individuals merely for their demographic affiliation.
Colleges should have the freedom to define what achievement means, but once they establish their criteria, they shouldn’t manipulate, obscure, or misrepresent their practices. Unfortunately, many universities are failing in this regard.
This results in a detrimental outcome as their objectives focus less on genuine achievements and more on fulfilling a racial quota. This approach, aimed at achieving a certain percentage of Black students, raises legal and ethical concerns.
In contrast, other organizations like NBA teams prioritize performance qualifications over diversity. They select players based solely on their abilities, striving for immediate success.
For personal decisions, I consider a doctor’s current expertise. A good music director will often select musicians anonymously, focusing on their sound rather than their identities. Therefore, we must initiate an honest conversation about what “achievement” truly represents.
