One of the most shopworn and least shocking of discoveries about USA higher education Is that of Ivy League “affirmative action” (aka preferential admissions) for the non-genius children of wealthy donors or powerful alumni (mainly WASPS). This “exposé” (which, to be fair, is also found at many other non-ivy schools) has been around about a century or so, and has since been repeatedly documented by many scholars, novelists, biographers, pretend radicals — and news editors who have not read much or got out enough.

Someone fairly high up on the editorial ladder at The Guardian — normally relatively up to date on such matters— evidently fits into one of these dim categories. At least they thought the scandal of legacy preference needed to be disclosed back in the unenlightened times of fourteen months ago, and then worth repeating, at least online, in January 2023.

As far as I can tell, a century’s worth of exposure has yet to banish this practice. True, the Ivies have opened up some, to Jews, Blacks, and (with difficulty), Asian-Americans. That’s good; but do not let it mislead you into thinking legacy DNA (plus Daddy’s fat checks) is no longer a major door-opener at practically all the expensive schools. As that peerless scholar of such matters, the late bard Leonard Cohen summed it up:

That’s how it goes,

And everybody knows . . . 

Nevertheless, when a school’s endowment reaches, say, eleven figures (Harvard = $40+ Billion), there’s also room for a sizable dollop of guilt offerings — er, “reparations.” And as the second Guardian report below advises, Harvard as of last spring has gotten on that bandwagon. Or at least, it’s made a reservation, and plunked down $100 million for the ticket.

This money, it hopes, will (to mix the metaphor) scrub a lot of corporate bad conscience; and when you’re the oldest college in the country, (13 years shy of its 400th anniversary) there’s doubtless a lot of corporate conscience in need of a good swabbing. The specifics are still taking shape, and we’ll not try to read those tea leaves.  I’ll only say that, carp about Harvard’s wealth all you want, and maybe its sins add up to a much bigger karmic tab, but 100 million bucks is, as some say, not chopped liver.

Anyway, there’s one more base to cover here: namely the experience at Harvard of this writer’s favorite pronoun, namely me.

Yes, it happened in 1968-1970. It came about despite the fact that I lacked most of the stuff The Guardian wanted to (re)expose: I have no relatives (AFAIK) who are alumni. Nor did any of them ever donate a penny to the place. And they were also Catholics, and many Irish; nary a WASP in sight.

For that matter, while I scored high on the SATs, My grades were merely in the Lake Wobegon “above average” quintile in both high school and college.

Oh yes, college: my B.A. is from Colorado State University (aka “Aggies”); a solid school, but definitely not elite. I applied to Harvard for grad school.

Ah, well then, the cognoscenti might say, knowing that it is slots in the undergraduate Harvard College that are the truest, rarest prize. Maybe so, close-up; but I’m here to say that in most of the rest of the world, “Harvard” is just Harvard.

I applied to Harvard Divinity School (HDS); I was interested in religion, but wasn’t sure what vocational path I’d take, and HDS had a Masters that wasn’t preprogrammed. But still, there was competition. So without money or pedigree, what could I offer?

Two things: first, “promise,” that is, an interesting off-beat start: from college to the civil rights movement, then to antiwar activism, and a “radical” outlook. Radical, yet nonviolent (That is, I’d been arrested several times, but was not part of the Weatherman fringe. Too many of those derailed their prospects by convictions for bank robbery or blowing themselves up.)

Besides this “promise,” I was a writer:  the proof was that my first book, White Reflections On Black Power, had come out in 1967. It sold modestly well, and was expected to be followed by others, likely on “relevant” topics.

So, smart (enough); radical (but not too much); and a published author at 25. Would this combo get me through the HDS admissions committee?

Worth a try; and in the spring of 1968, perhaps the apex of the Sixties, the answer was Yes.

At first, I was thrilled: I thought there could be nothing better than to study activist religion at Harvard, with a particular star professor as my advisor/mentor.

Hear me well, Friends: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

For me, Harvard was a dud.  Yes, they were generous with financial aid; and patient with my dropping or postponing courses. I still appreciate that.

But hardly anything else fit. Almost all my classmates in the ostensibly non-preprogrammed track were just kidding: they were really aiming for PhDs, and then teaching slots where the Harvard name would grease the skids toward tenure.

I don’t scorn them for this, but that wasn’t me. I respect scholarship; I’ve done some of it myself. But I soon knew that academia was not where I wanted to spend my “career”; and I haven’t had any regrets.

Next, my hoped-for mentor was a no-show: busy traveling the world, still riding the wave of his career-making best-seller, barely time to say hello.

Further, while the faculty was “distinguished,” they were all specialists, mostly shaped by German scholars and their ideas. Meanwhile I was an American Quaker, wanting to learn and write about Quakerism; they all “respected” this small peculiar group, but none knew much about it. I did a lot of reading, largely on my own.

And not least, I was a cub writer/journalist, learning my chops reporting on the activism around me (which had soon passed its peak and was on the long slide into the self-centered Seventies). At HDS, the arcane world of academia went round & round in its  own circles, and I was drawn steadily away from it into insurgent journalism on streets where religion was being acted out as part of the scene, from both right and left.

In 1974, my third book was published. It got a few good reviews and didn’t sell much. I was working my way through a vocational fog, resolved to be a writer, with special interest in Quakers, struggling to figure out how to do that and pay the bills. I was clear that neither HDS nor academia were the way out.  (In the 50 years since, I have not found anyone being paid a living wage for reporting/writing in depth about Quakers; the few who dip into it have day jobs, as I did til ten years ago. I’m not complaining; I worked it out.)

As for HDS, I didn’t really “drop out” of Harvard, just faded away, with no hard feelings on either side. I know this is true for HDS because they tell me every month or so, in letters that also ask for money.

Since then too, I’ve been careful on resumés and CVs only to say I attended HDS, not to imply that I graduated. And now and then, not that often anymore, I get to truthfully say in conversation, “Well, when I was at Harvard, yada yada . . .” And others take that however they might.

Or as Leonard Cohen puts it:

Everybody’s talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long-stem rose
And everybody knows  . . .

Ever wondered what it takes to get into Harvard? Stellar grades, impressive extracurriculars and based on a recently published study, having deep pockets and a parent who either works or went there. Those last two are pretty important for Harvard’s white students because only about 57% of them were admitted to the school based on merit.

In reality, 43% of Harvard’s white students are either recruited athletes, legacy students, on the dean’s interest list (meaning their parents have donated to the school) or children of faculty and staff (students admitted based on these criteria are referred to as ‘ALDCs’, which stands for ‘athletes’, ‘legacies’, ‘dean’s interest list’ and ‘children’ of Harvard employees). The kicker? Roughly three-quarters of these applicants would have been rejected if it weren’t for having rich or Harvard-connected parents or being an athlete.

Here’s the thing– Harvard is insanely competitive. The admittance rate for the class of 2025 was 3.43%, the lowest rate in the school’s history, in a year that saw an unprecedented surge in applications. But as more and more comes to light about Harvard’s admissions process, it’s clear that the school’s competitiveness is not just based on academic strength or great test scores, but also whether or not your parents or grandparents have donated significantly to the school.

This dynamic is inherently racialized, with almost 70% of all legacy applicants at Harvard being white. According to the study, a white person’s chances of being admitted increased seven times if they had family who donated to Harvard. Meanwhile in stark contrast, African American, Asian American and Hispanic students make up less than 16% of ALDC students.

This kind of systemic favoritism of the white, wealthy and connected is not new when it comes to elite academic institutions. It’s always been a bit of a rigged game, one that overwhelmingly favors rich white people.

Take the 2019 college admissions scandal for example. It’s been almost three years since the fiasco in which dozens of wealthy people attempted to pay their children’s way into legacy institutions such as Stanford and Yale. These parents paid thousands of dollars to get people to take tests for their children, bribe test administrators and bribe college coaches to identify their children as great athletes. Fifty people were ultimately charged in the scandal, including celebrities like Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin.

With all this in mind, it’s impossible not to think about the longstanding racist pushback against affirmative action in the US. Racist white people (including the Trump administration) have long scorned the system that was designed to give historically underrepresented communities a better chance at entering institutions they have been systematically excluded from. According to its detractors, the use of affirmative action at universities amounts to reverse racism against white people and has helped Black people in particular enjoy benefits that white people are now supposedly left out of (notions like this, including the idea that Black people in America go to college for free, are entirely false).

Judging by Harvard’s numbers though, it sounds to me like these people don’t actually think affirmative action is bad – they just think it should be reserved for white, rich people. And when it comes to Harvard’s revered status, these revelations about its admissions process poke gaping holes in the idea that anyone who is there has proven themselves “worthy” to be part of this elite institution.

Harvard and other schools like it have long been venerated as hallowed spaces where only the best and brightest minds are granted access – and many young people still see it as such. The reality, though, is very different. These are supposed to be the biggest geniuses on the planet, yet the school halls are filled with the progeny of the privileged who wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for their connections and money. For me, that’s not a whole lot to aspire to.

The Guardian — Reuters — Tuesday, 26 April 2022

Version #1 – The Original,
from the National Catholic Reporter

The world is watching in disbelief as Uganda, a country known for its vibrant diversity and rich culture, continues to regress on human rights issues, particularly concerning the LGBTQ+ community. The country on May 29 enacted a law, colloquially known as the “Kill the Gays” bill, that imposes severe and harsh penalties for homosexuality, including the death penalty or life imprisonment in some cases.

While the international outcry grows louder, the silence from a significant portion of Uganda’s moral and spiritual guardians — the Catholic bishops — is deafening.

This ongoing silence becomes more notable considering the Catholic Church’s influential role in Uganda, with nearly 40% of Ugandans identifying as Catholic. Catholic bishops, considered  moral leaders by millions, hold a unique position of influence and could potentially shift the narrative around this inhumane legislation.

Same-sex activity was already illegal in Uganda, as it is in more than 30 African countries, but the new law goes even further. It is, by any objective measure, a gross violation of human rights that contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions to which Uganda is a signatory.

Their silence indirectly contributes to a climate of fear, hate and intolerance that stokes violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.

On the international stage, Pope Francis has proven to be a breath of fresh air, guiding the Catholic Church to a more open and accepting stance toward LGBTQ+ issues. He recently — and several times — has harshly condemned laws that criminalize homosexuality. “Being homosexual isn’t a crime,” he said. “We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity.”

Yet, despite the pope’s words, Uganda’s Catholic bishops remain noticeably silent on this issue. Also silent is the Vatican’s Dicastery for Evangelization that oversees the dioceses and bishops in Uganda. Their silence creates a void, one filled by fear, discrimination and dehumanization. As moral and spiritual leaders, their words — or lack thereof — can shape public opinion, either legitimizing these inhumane laws or challenging them.

Ugandan Bishop Sanctus Lino Wanok, depicted homosexuality as “not human” and akin to “death,” while Fr. Agabito Arinaitwe, an influential priest in the important parish of the Uganda Martyrs Catholic Shrine, said, with reference to homosexuality: “It’s time we turn away from our evil deeds and turn back to the Lord.” They are not the only ones who have made such public comments.

This is a plea for the bishops to embody the spirit of the Christian doctrine they teach — one of love, compassion, understanding and, most important, respect for the dignity of all humans. All human beings should not just be tolerated, but celebrated —as my good friend, Kate, says.

The Catholic bishops in Uganda have a responsibility not to condone this legislation passively. Their silence indirectly contributes to a climate of fear, hate and intolerance that stokes violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.

By speaking out against this law, the bishops can align themselves with Pope Francis’ vision of a more inclusive church, one that respects the intrinsic worth and dignity of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

It is time for the Ugandan Catholic bishops and the Vatican Dicastery for the Evangelization to break their silence. It’s time for them to denounce this legislation as contrary to human dignity and the love that underpins Christianity. Their words could reverberate throughout the nation and the world, promoting a message of love and acceptance over hate and discrimination.

It’s time we hear from those trusted to guide the moral compass of their millions of followers. The silence is deafening; the cost can be death and the violation of basic human rights. That is not acceptable. The world, and most importantly, the LGBTQ+ community in Uganda, waits for them to stand up for the fundamental Christian principle to love thy neighbor.

 

Juan Carlos Cruz Chellew is an executive for Livent, a multinational company. In 2021, he was appointed by Pope Francis as a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and Vulnerable People. He is also a global advocate for survivors of abuse. He was born in Santiago, Chile, and has lived for the past 18 years in the United States.

NOTE: The above column was very striking to me, not only because of the topic, but because of the  almost line-by-line parallels with my own Quaker community. There are many Quakers in Uganda; there are also many Quakers outside Africa who are appalled by the legal repression facing LGBTQ Friends and others there. Quakers in the USA may be in special need of grappling with it, due to events described below. To facilitate this encounter, we’ve prepared a parallel version of the column, edited to specifically include Quakers in the discussion:

Version #2 –
from the National Quaker Reporter

[aka A  Friendly Letter]

Edited by “William Leddra” —  June 2, 2023

The world is watching in disbelief as Uganda, a country known for its vibrant diversity and rich culture, continues to regress on human rights issues, particularly concerning the LGBTQ+ community. The country on May 29 enacted a law, colloquially known as the “Kill the Gays” bill, that imposes severe and harsh penalties for homosexuality, including the death penalty or life imprisonment in some cases.

While the international outcry grows louder, the silence from a significant portion of Uganda’s moral and spiritual guardians — including the Ugandan Quakers — is deafening.

This ongoing silence becomes more notable considering the Quaker Church’s influential role in Uganda, with two yearly meetings of Ugandans identifying as Quakers . Uganda Quakers, considered  moral leaders by so many, hold a unique position of influence and could potentially shift the narrative around this inhumane legislation.

Same-sex activity was already illegal in Uganda, as it is in more than 30 African countries, but the new law goes even further. It is, by any objective measure, a gross violation of human rights that contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions to which Uganda is a signatory.

The Quaker silence [inside and outside Uganda] indirectly contributes to a climate of fear, hate and intolerance that stokes violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.

On the international stage, many Quakers, along with Pope Francis, have  proven to be a breath of fresh air, guiding the Catholic Church and many Quaker groups to a more open and accepting stance toward LGBTQ+ issues. [The pope] recently — and several times — has harshly condemned laws that criminalize homosexuality. “Being homosexual isn’t a crime,” he said. “We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity.”

Yet, despite the pope’s words, and the witness of many Quakers elsewhere,  Uganda’s Catholic bishops and Quakers remain noticeably silent on this issue. Also silent is the Vatican’s Dicastery for Evangelization that oversees the dioceses and bishops in Uganda. Their silence creates a void, one filled by fear, discrimination and dehumanization. As moral and spiritual leaders, their words — or lack thereof — can shape public opinion, either legitimizing these inhumane laws or challenging them.

Ugandan Bishop Sanctus Lino Wanok, depicted homosexuality as “not human” and akin to “death,” while Fr. Agabito Arinaitwe, an influential priest in the important parish of the Uganda Martyrs Catholic Shrine, said, with reference to homosexuality: “It’s time we turn away from our evil deeds and turn back to the Lord.” They are not the only ones who have made such public comments. Some Quaker leaders in Africa have made similar statements, as well as others outside that continent, including North America.

This is a plea for the bishops and the Ugandan Quakers to embody the spirit of the Christian doctrine they teach — one of love, compassion, understanding and, most important, respect for the dignity of all humans. All human beings should not just be tolerated, but celebrated —as my good friend, Kate, says.

The Catholic bishops and Quakers in Uganda have a responsibility not to condone this legislation passively. Their silence indirectly contributes to a climate of fear, hate and intolerance that stokes violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.

By speaking out against this law, the bishops and Quakers can align themselves with Pope Francis’ [and Jesus’] vision of a more inclusive church, one that respects the intrinsic worth and dignity of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

It is time for the Ugandan Catholic bishops and Quakers and the Vatican Dicastery for the Evangelization to break their silence. It’s time for them to denounce this legislation as contrary to human dignity and the love that underpins Christianity. Their words could reverberate throughout the nation and the world, promoting a message of love and acceptance over hate and discrimination.

It’s time we hear from those trusted to guide the moral compass of their millions of followers, both Ugandan Catholic and Quakers. The silence is deafening; the cost can be death and the violation of basic human rights. That is not acceptable. The world, Quakers in many other countries, and most importantly, the LGBTQ+ community in Uganda, waits for them to stand up for the fundamental Christian principle to love thy neighbor.

“William Leddra” is a Quaker writer who has reported on LGBTQ issues for many years.

URGENT POSTSCRIPT: Friends United Meeting, an association of Orthodox & evangelical yearly meetings in several countries, is having its triennial meeting in Nakuru, Kenya, on 2-8 July 2023.

From the FUM 2023 Triennial Orientation material:

Are LGBTQ+ persons safe and welcome [at the Triennial and in Kenya/east Africa]?

FUM: Homosexual activity is illegal and punishable with jail time in Kenya (and in most of Africa).

As a theologically and socially conservative society, all things LGBTQ+ are quite taboo, and that is true among most Kenyan Quakers as well. One thing to keep in mind is that public affection, even between straight men and women, is not common and might make people uncomfortable. And almost all of the Kenyans at the conference would be very uncomfortable with any public display of affection by a same-sex couple.

Our request: Please don’t come with an intention to raise the issue or with a desire to provoke conflict among Friends. But you can be your authentic self, and you may find that you will have surprisingly insightful and caring one-on-one conversations across the lines of difference.

---

[COMMENT: It feels appropriate to repeat the query in this Triennial FAQ Item’s heading]:

“Are LGBTQ+ persons safe and welcome?”

REPLY: To sum up, the most honest answers, based not only on careful reading here, but previous experience and current laws, are an emphatic “No,” and “No.” Further, given that in Uganda even “promoting” LGBTQ acceptance could be punished with a 20-year prison term, affirming-minded Friends of all orientations are well-advised to proceed with great caution.

Also, this statement “Please don’t come with an intention to raise the issue or with a desire to provoke conflict among Friends” seems naive at best or more likely disingenuous: in FUM over the past fifteen years, three yearly meetings have been torn apart, and a fourth completely destroyed, by long-running conflicts over “the issue.” And the Ugandan (plus other) African governments have been very active in “provoking” the current gravely conflicted situation.

Further, if these laws and recent history do not “provoke conflict” within Friends who are committed to universal human rights, does such passive acceptance live up even remotely to these Friends’ base commitments and testimonies?

Yet LGBTQ and allied Friends are being charged to forget or silence themselves about all that, past or present, in an official Quaker setting. You are expected to be in submission to legal and religious regimes, including many in their (your) own faith community, masked by songs and smiles, but of a systemically dehumanizing character, backed up by life-threatening official force.

So yes, Friends who are attending, stay safe. But please remember you are being made deeply complicit with grossly inhumane laws and policies that will be very hard to defend or reconcile with your home community’s faith and values. Expect to give an account when you return.

How do Friends enroute to this event “speak truth to power” in such circumstances? This is not an easy question. Thanks again to our Catholic brothers and sisters who are also raising it; and those unnamed here, who are risking their lives in Uganda and elsewhere to rescue and heal the many victims.

A final wish for you all, in the African argot: “traveling mercies.”

Father’s Day this year, two heavyset men were loitering near a Sikh temple in British Columbia. Then the president of the temple, a Canadian citizen and an activist named Hardeep Singh Nijjar, stepped out and climbed into his pickup truck to drive home for dinner with his family.

In his initial statement, Trudeau was cautious and spoke of “credible allegations of a potential link” between the murder and the Indian government. But in a visit to The New York Times on Thursday, Trudeau seemed completely confident that the Indian government had been involved.

2. Hard to choose: Canada and the Quad

By Gwynne Dyer — Sept. 21, 2023

First Prize: Two Fabulous Days in Beautiful Delhi!
Second Prize: Four Days in Delhi!

Having to wait an extra two days in Delhi after the G20 while the Canadian armed forces fixed a plane to bring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau home was not really a catastrophe, but there was clearly something else wrong.

The Canadian media made the usual fuss about the delay, of course, because it gave them something to write about. (They always need something to hold the ads apart.) But the Indian media were also writing about it, with local TV channels and news websites running reports about the “snubbed” Canadian prime minister’s “disastrous” trip.

That was bizarre because the travel arrangements of Canadian prime ministers are not normally big news in India. The Indian media had obviously been tipped off by the government that Canada was now an enemy whose misfortunes were to be celebrated. A week later it became clear why.

On Monday Justin Trudeau told parliament that India was suspected of involvement in the murder of a Canadian Sikh activist three months ago in Vancouver. Hardeep Singh Nijjar ran a plumbing business in the suburb of Surrey, but he grew up in the Sikh-majority state of Punjab in northwest India during the heyday of the violent Khalistan separatist movement.

He fled to Canada in 1997 and became a citizen in 2015, but he remained active in Sikh nationalist politics and India undoubtedly saw him as an enemy. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service reportedly warned him that he was “under threat from professional assassins,” and that proved to be true.

The hit was done by two masked men, probably local contract killers, near a gurdwara (temple) in Surrey on June 18. Who paid them? A rival plumbing firm? Islamist fanatics? After due consideration, Canada’s security forces concluded that it was the senior intelligence officer at the Indian High Commission in Ottawa.

He has been duly expelled from Canada. The Indian government, predictably, called the accusation “absurd” and expelled a Canadian diplomat tit-for-tat. Normally, there would then be a period of silent sulking before normal relations resumed.

This sort of thing happens all the time. Prince Muhammad bin Salman ordered the murder, dismemberment and disposal of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyib Erdogan waited four years before visiting Saudi Arabia again. Joe Biden even waited another ten weeks after that.

Russian exiles are poisoned in England by Moscow’s agents with monotonous regularity, and the British government doesn’t even hit “pause” on the relationship. Or at least it didn’t until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and even now the Russian embassy in London is still open.

So why should the assassination of a Sikh-Canadian in Canada on the orders of New Delhi cause such a fuss, assuming that this was actually the case, which is a pretty high probability?

Because of the timing. Specifically, because of the Quad.

Three other major powers with interests in Asia — the United States, Japan and Australia — are currently engaged in a complicated courtship of India. The mating dance is called the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” and the suitors hope that it will end up as a military alliance that will “contain” China.

India is interested because it sees China as its major rival, but it has been “non-aligned” for generations so it’s moving slowly. Now Canada, with close ties to all three of India’s suitors, is in a confrontation with India over some stupid murder they don’t really care about. It might even have been the rogue decision of a single Indian intelligence agent.

Canada’s friends and allies have all murmured strong support. But you can tell that they really wish the whole thing would just go away. India will never apologize or even admit wrongdoing, because great states, like four-year-olds, simply don’t do that sort of thing. But if Canada could see its way clear to letting the issue just fade away…

Trudeau can’t do that, because he has his own domestic politics to worry about. Once the security agencies pointed their fingers at India, he had to act or the opposition would have crucified him. That kind of information always gets out. He has to go on “defending Canadian sovereignty” for the same reason.

Good, because even though Canada is not directly involved in the “Quad” project, such a confrontation may delay or even sabotage the whole idea. It is a thoroughly terrible idea because the last thing Asia and the world needs is a huge new military alliance “containing” China.

The Chinese are paranoid enough as it is, and the “end of growth” in China is going to make that a lot worse. Don’t stoke the flames.

Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘The Shortest History of War.’