Some questions and answers about Harvard's Commitment to Affirmative Action

This month, the Office of the Assistant to the President is publishing the 1996 Affirmative Action Plan, which details the progress made over the past five years (from 1990 to 1995) in increasing the representation of women and minorities on the Harvard faculties and staff. Here, James Hoyte, assistant to the president and associate vice president in charge of affirmative action, and Mela Martorano, director of equal employment opportunity and compliance, answer some questions being asked about affirmative action at Harvard.

What are Harvard's major accomplishments in making the University more inclusive over the past five years?

Harvard values diversity, and that culture is reflected in the efforts and progress made by all the Schools and departments and in the President's recent report to the Overseers, "Diversity and Learning," which emphasizes the importance of diversity in the student body.

Harvard's early embracing of affirmative action policies (it developed its first affirmative action plan in 1971, one of the first such plans submitted to the federal government), as well as its current set of policies and procedures, create a climate that encourages initiatives that foster diversity. Our highly decentralized environment has brought creative and different approaches to achieving diversity at the different Schools and Vice President Offices. The student bodies at each School are keenly aware and concerned about these issues, and their active participation serves as a continuous catalyst for promoting diversity in the faculty.

One of the most talked-about examples of progress is the Faculty of Arts and Sciences' Afro-American studies department, which has become the strongest in the country. This concentration of world-renowned scholars offers a rich climate of intellectual debate in which individuals can learn to value diversity out of conviction, and not out of an obligation to meet current legal requirements.

Would you comment on the representation of women and minorities on the Harvard faculty over the past five years?

The representation of women and minorities on the faculty depends in large part on their representation at other major research universities, because Harvard generally recruits from these institutions. Harvard's figures are comparable to those of other major research institutions around the country. Achieving greater diversity in isolation will be difficult; these institutions must work together in formal and informal ways to bring about change in the numbers -- especially the numbers of minorities and women pursuing careers in higher education.

Harvard makes a variety of efforts each year to expand the representation of women and minorities at different levels in the University, and these efforts are documented in the Affirmative Action Plan and its summary. Over the past year, many significant appointments were made, especially at the tenured faculty level. For example, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences tenured six women; the Graduate School of Design tenured two women, one of them a minority; and the Business School tenured three women, one of them a minority.

It is important to remember, of course, that tenure appointments do not happen quickly. The search for a tenured professor often takes well more than a year, and we need to keep the time horizon in mind when looking at the annual numbers. In addition, percentages at the tenured level increase slowly because the turnover at the tenured level is very slow. In the other groupings -- junior faculty, research faculty, and other faculty -- turnover is higher, but the number of newly hired women and minorities only equals that of those leaving Harvard, often to join other competitive research institutions.

Overall, minority representation in the faculty increased from 13.5 percent in 1990 to 19.0 percent in 1995, whereas the representation of women rose from 28.2 percent to 31.6 percent in the same period.

How has the recent debate on affirmative action influenced Harvard's policies and procedures?

There have been no recent changes to Harvard's policies and procedures. Rather, we have continued an ongoing tradition of discussing these issues at various levels at the University. The University's Equal Employment Opportunity Committee meets four times a year to discuss special initiatives, areas requiring special attention, and progress in achieving diversity. Each School and Vice President Office has one or more committees in which diversity is also discussed.

Nationwide, the strong political interests surrounding affirmative action have made it difficult to engage in a rational, thoughtful analysis of the many issues related to diversity in general, and affirmative action in particular. Looking to the future, we must find ways of continuing Harvard's commitment to equity in employment in an environment in which affirmative action policies and procedures will continue to be challenged. Racial and gender bias continue to be obstacles to achieving the most effective use of our nation's human resources at all levels of the private and nonprofit sectors. New and innovative strategies for overcoming the conscious and unconscious effects of negative stereotyping must be implemented at Harvard and elsewhere.

Could you give some examples of strategies designed to overcome negative stereotypes?

Diversity training programs, based on videos or on specific interventions designed by specialized consultants, are being used successfully by many institutions in both the profit and educational sectors. The success of many of these programs in the corporate world is especially noteworthy. Corporate leaders seem to recognize that a homogenous workforce cannot serve a heterogeneous market or society. They strive to maximize the productivity of all employees, including women and people of color. Last year, Harvard's Office of the Assistant to the President encouraged Schools and departments to initiate and sustain diversity training efforts.

There are other strategies for combating negative stereotyping, including communications models developed to handle difficult issues. Chris Argyris, a former Harvard Business School professor who is renowned in the field of organizational learning, for one, has created a model that encourages people to examine their own assumptions. An example of such an assumption might be when a person uses the term "qualified minorities."

Do stereotypes prevent women from advancing professionally?

Stereotyping and gender biases can affect the representation of women in top-level positions, including tenured faculty at research institutions. There are examples of gender bias in some major institutions, including the exclusion of women from informal but vital networks, the belief that women are best suited for lower-paid positions in the clerical and staff support fields, or the belief that, for most women, family commitments will interfere with career commitments. Harvard -- like our entire society -- must constantly take account of these issues, although its record in the appointment of senior women administrators is a good one.