Harvard's 1987 affirmative Action Report begins with the following statement:

The University affirmative action plan represents both a commitment to hire and promote underrepresented groups, and a positive effort to assure that minorities, women and handicapped individuals are not underrepresented among our employees...The affirmative action plan commits the University to continuous evaluation of progress toward this goal.

Unfortunately, the facts do not correspond with this rhetoric. While the statistics documented in the summary of the 1987 Affirmative Action Report as published in the April 3, 1987 issue of the Harvard University Gazette show a percentage increase of "minorities" among both the faculty and the non-faculty from 1983 to 1986, the percentage of Black faculty has been declining since the mid-1970s.

According to David Evans, the senior admissions officer of Harvard-Radcliffe, although the numbers were once as high as 6 percent, Blacks now compose fewer than 2 percent of the College faculty. Though the full 200-page Affirmative Action Report brings this decline out clearly, the conflated statistics of the published summary give the deceptive appearance (deliberately or otherwise) that all minorities are making gains at Harvard, which is simply not true for Blacks.

Of the few Black administrators who have remained at Harvard during the last 15 years, nearly all have been "rewarded" with deputy or assistant positions and have seen their careers stagnate. Only a handful of Black faculty members from the 1970s remain here, since very few of them received tenure offers. As Dean Spence's 1984-85 Dean's report on tenure policy states, "Our ability to attract the ablest young scholars in all fields will depend on how credibly we can say that Harvard is an excellent place to begin an academic career." This statement particularly applies to top-level minorities, for whom a career in education often means rejecting more lucrative options in the job market.

Yet not one Black occupies a top level position within the central administration, nor has a single Black been appointed to one of the six vice-presidential posts since President Bok introduced structural changes to Harvard's organization; nor has a single Black served from Mass. Hall.

The case of Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III highlights the desparate plight of Black faculty and administrators here at Harvard. As reported in The Crimson last year, Eugene Rivers, who has thoroughly investigated the case, alleges that Dean Epps was unfairly passed over for promotion to Dean of Harvard College when this position opened in 1985. (Instead at the recommendation of Dean Spence, the post went to L. Fred Jewett '57, who had been serving as the Dean of Admissions at Harvard) I will ignore this accusation in making my argument; for it is not the central issue of the case.

However, as Mr. Rivers asserts,

What is relevant is that when Harvard had an opportunity to hire a qualified Black whose relevant credentials were beyond question and who could, unlike Jewett, send a powerful national message to Blacks and other minorities that a career in higher education was a viable career option, they rejected the opportunity.

The case of Dean Epps is unfortunately not an exception, and it raises serious doubts about what Bok erroneously labeled Harvard's "commitment to the goals of...affirmative action."

What can be done to overcome the obstacles hindering the effective implementation of Harvard's affirmative action policy? First of all, significant attempts must be made to overcome what Affirmative Action Officer and Assistant to be President John B. Williams called "a barrier of will." If, as Dean Jewett stated, "central policy can set the tone [for University action]," then significant differences can be made, according to Williams, "by individuals who want to have an impact on the problem," especially with strong leadership from the President.

Harvard must also make its affirmative action reporting network more effective. Government Professor Martin Kilson argues that a faculty-based cross-departmental mechanism is needed to search for talented Blacks and pressure for their appointment.

One excuse frequently articulated by those whose commitment to effective affirmative action programs extends no further than their principled rhetoric is that the "pool" of potential candidates is too small and therefore the dearth of Black faculty and administrators merely reflects this unfortunate "fact." Even if there is in fact such a shortage, there are important ways that Harvard could help to expand the pool of qualified Blacks.

A program proposed by Rev. Peter Gomes of the Memorial Church and modeled on the Mellon Fellowships suggests an effective way to attract Black Ph.D. candidates to Harvard for a two-year program that would allow for a period of "on-site mutual inspection." Under this program, 25 or 30 Blacks each year would be offered a two-year fellowship between teaching, research and other on-campus involvement--at the DuBois Institute, as residential tutors in the houses, and in other areas. At the end of two years of mutual evaluation, the most promising candidates would be offered junior faculty appointments.

Harvard's stated "commitment to hire and promote... minorities" is very strong; now Harvard must back up this rhetoric with concrete action. Until it does, Harvard will fail in its responsibility to set a worthy example for other institutions to emulate.

The author is a member of the William J. Seymour Society.