Parker: I think to call Ibriham's point of view anti-intellectual is just utterly wrong. It seems to me that his argument is one based on the sociology of knowledge, which is a well-recognized and, I think, correct point of view that knowledge is rooted in experience. I don't see the issue as communication. I see it more as one of quality and relevance. But I don't think it's inevitable that including non-whites and women on the faculty will necessarily make for diversity in the point of view. But I think that it probably will. Its very strong tendency is to make for diversity in the point of view because of the sociology of knowledge perception that what one regards as most relevant and important and the way one goes about portraying and critiquing it will be rooted in one's experience.

Fried: My difference with you is, if what we are talking about is the selection of faculty members, which is a very careful individual selection, one can go directly to the point of view, one need-not pass through surrogates to indicate it.

Crimson: I would like to focus this a little more on Harvard.

Parker: To my mind the reason to integrate our faculty, bringing both women and non-whites onto the faculty, doesn't, most importantly, have to do with diversity of point of view. It has to do simply with justice. In 1954, the Supreme Court said that primary and secondary schools must be integrated. Fourteen years later they said. "The time is now We're going to judge by results, not by good intentions or promises" It seems to me at Harvard we're in that position Perhaps we were in that position long ago, but certainly in 1984, we're at a stage where we should judge by results. Do we have as many non-whites and women on the faculty as we ought to? And it seems to me that the answer is clearly, no

Fried: Well, Richard, when you speak of justice, then that suggests that people should be on a faculty at a major university because a group they purport to represent, and that representation is itself a very troublesome and dubious notion, but a group that they purport to represent is owed, as it were, a certain proportion of seats It's the United Nations conception of a university.

Parker: Not at all No. I don't see a law school as a United Nations where the mere fact that there are numbers of people in certain groups out there requires that you have the same number here. My assertion is that there are plenty of non-whites and plenty of women who are qualified to teach here, and we don't have enough of those qualified people here.

Fried: Now, the word "qualified" is often used, and it is of course the central weasel word in this debate. I can't imagine what it means to be qualified to teach at the Harvard Law School, because qualification suggests some kind of minimum standard in the way that somebody might be qualified to be a policeman, or somebody might be qualified to get a driver's license. I suppose that the notion at institutions such as Harvard is not to get people who are qualified, which is a minimum standard, but to get those who are the best.