I would like to correct a misunderstanding which became the center-piece of the argument in the dissent to the staff editorial on March 18 concerning the conditions of release for the Alternative Senior Gift Fund. Contrary to what was stated, the ASGF does not include a quota based on availability statistics or any other numerical calculation in its conditions of release.

In addition to any questions raised about the validity of quotas as a device to rectify under-representation in general, using availability statistics in establishing precise standards can be particularly difficult. Such data is problematic on a practical level as there are not universally agreed upon criteria for determining the available pool of people qualified for Harvard professorships.

One method of defining availability is determined by looking at the percentage of women and minorities granted Ph.D.s within a particular period of time. It is, however, difficult to reach a broad consensus on how to best assess this pool. There are disagreements over the precise period of time that should elapse between receiving a Ph.D. and being counted as a candidate for tenure.

Next, one must address whether the calculation should be based on the rate of Ph.D.s granted by Harvard alone or include other comparable institutions. In the case of the latter, one must also define what constitutes a comparable institution.

Additionally, problems arise because the availability statistics used in Harvard's internal affirmative action reports are aggregated broadly into three categories: humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. This has the potential to obscure more significant departmental trends. In the natural sciences, for example, the availability pool of women in biology is far larger than that of women in physics.

An additional method involves using statistics collected from academic professional associations of the percentage of women and minorities in their membership. This method attempts to avoid overstating availability rates, as not all who receive doctoral degrees stay in academia.

Because of these numerous difficulties in finding an accurate measure of availability, the ASGF funds will be returned to the University when a good faith effort toward achieving gender and ethnic equity is being rigorously pursued as determined by an independent board of faculty, alumni, and administrators.

One result of actively pursuing a policy of gender and ethnic equity will undoubtedly involve the faculty better reflecting current availability statistics, something which, regardless of the method of measurement, certainly cannot be said now. --Anna Baldwin '00,   ASGF '97 organizer