To the Editors of The Crimson:

The October 17 article discussing "exam bias" is both confusing and lacking basis. Whether this is a result of irresponsible reporting or the irresponsible nature of Klitgaard's assertions, or a combination thereof, is open to question. For example, his primary assertion is "...that women and minorities at top universities often do not perform as well academically as their high academic aptitude test scores would predict." This is later rendered unclear by his claim that "...the tests themselves are not biased as far as predicting academic success. A math score of 400 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, for instance, predicts college grades about as accurately for women, Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor as it does for other students." The language is confusing; so much so that while working our way through the article we felt akin to the minotaur attempting to find his way out of the Cretan labyrinth of King Minos. In any case, Klitgaard seems to contradict his primary assumption, thus invalidating his argument before he even begins.

Yet he continues and through his convoluted, illogical arguments denigrates affirmative action policies as somehow harmful to minorities and to the greater society. We are disturbed that anyone would question the validity of affirmative action.

The factor of affirmative action is only one of many considered in the admissions policy. To isolate this single factor is highly discriminatory. Individuals such as musicians, children of alumni and wealthy contributors, All-American and Olympic athletes, children of prominent businessmen, sons and daughters of present and former presidents and statesmen, as well as those from diverse geographic and socio-economic backgrounds have certain advantages in the admissions policy. Harvard has a vested interest in attracting and retaining students of high achievement and diversity in these areas. Yet, these groups, which are also actively recruited, have not been subjected to widespread and sweeping judgments on their intellectual capabilities. Likewise, Harvard has a vested interest in attracting and retaining qualified minority students; compliance with federal affirmative action policies is contingent on receiving government funding for research. If we question the minorities right to be here, we must question the strengths and weaknesses of these other groups as well.

The presence of minorities and women on this campus creates diversity just as much as the other factors mentioned above. Not only does the University benefit from the dynamic exchange of ideas and culture but minority individuals benefit as well. We flatly disagree with Klitgaard's assertion that affirmative action is harmful to minorities. We do not believe that they are less capable of doing the work. On the contrary, by providing opportunities which were non-existent in the past and by stimulating highly motivated students to reach their fullest potential, equality will be hastened.

Perhaps the most dangerous assertion is the limit he places on these groups' ability to perform. To limit the hopes for high academic success is to destroy the capability to attain that success. People tend to live up to the expectations imposed on them, if they are told their capabilities are low, then they will often cease to strive for higher goals and thus fail to realize their full potential. These statements are not only dangerous but irresponsible as well, for they stifle intellectual curiosity and destroy self-esteem.

If anything limits the intellectual capabilities of women and minorities, it is the attitude perpetuated by comments such as Klitgaard's. Elizabeth M. Einaudi '83   Melita Marie Garza '83