I say “appears” in the title because this editorial, from the Harvard Crimson of all places (that’s the student newspaper), is so poorly written that I’m not 100% sure about what it says. Since it’s a short editorial of 5 paragraphs, I’m asking readers to see if my interpretation is correct. You can read it by clicking on the screenshot below; note that it’s a product of the entire editorial board:

My take is that the piece decries Harvard’s attempt to recruit rural American students because that constitutes a form of “geographical affirmative action”—presumably reflecting both socioeconomic background, politics, and so on—that interferes with what the Crimson sees as real affirmative action: that based on race and ethnicity. I may be wrong, but I don’t think so. Let’s put the paragraphs up one by one (indented) with my reaction (flush left):

With anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions’s lawsuit against Harvard underway, court documents demonstrated last week that Harvard, in order to attract a more geographically diverse student body, sends interest letters to students from rural “sparse country” with PSAT scores lower than the usual threshold to receive such letters. However, Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons testified that this threshold is not lowered for Asian Americans. While we affirm the importance of geographical diversity in Harvard’s admissions, we would be remiss not to underscore the interrelatedness between geography, racial, and socioeconomic diversity.

The background to the letter, as indicated in that paragraph, is the lawsuit against Harvard by a group representing Asian Americans who were denied admission despite their having higher scores, grades, and extracurricular achievements than members of other ethnic groups—particularly blacks and Hispanics, who, as everyone knows, are admitted at a much higher rate with lower scores. Harvard fought tooth and nail to avoid divulging its admission criteria in this case, but it lost.

Documents presented to the court revealed that what hurt the Asian-Americans was largely Harvard’s downgrading of these applicants’ “personality scores”: assessments of their character and persona given subjectively by the admissions office, who never meet the applicants. (Alumni interviewers who did interview Asian Americans in person did not give them lower personality scores.) This editorial deals with “interest letters” targeted to rural Americans with PSAT (preliminary SATs, a standardized test) scores lower than those usually sufficient to prompt Harvard’s sending of those letters. However, apparently Asian-Americans with lower PSAT scores didn’t get the “consider Harvard” letters.

This is apparently a way to trawl into the admissions net students from rural America who wouldn’t usually apply to Harvard. In other words, it’s a form of affirmative action for “middle of America” students who have backgrounds different from the affluent and achieving elite who constitute much of Harvard’s student population. But what the editorial board means by “we would be remiss not to underscore the interrelatedness between geography, racial, and socioeconomic diversity” eludes me. It appears to be some form of warped intersectionality, but I think they really mean “if we consider geography preferentially, it means we might have to downgrade the emphasis on race or socioeconomic class”.  Whatever it means, it’s bad and obscurantist writing. Doesn’t Harvard teach its students to write clearly?

The next paragraph:

Harvard is going through a difficult time defending affirmative action as an important practice that creates a diverse environment on Harvard’s campus. The admissions process is by no means perfect, and one issue lies in the aforementioned way in which Harvard recruits rural students to apply to the College.

This is a superfluous paragraph, but in the second, poorly written sentence we get an inkling that recruiting rural students is somehow a problem for affirmative action.

The next paragraph:

In that vein, the College must change its practices with respect to recruitment of students from “sparse country.” Part of its mission is to encourage intellectual transformation by having students live in a diverse environment with people from various backgrounds and with different identities, and diversity is multifaceted. Therefore, if Harvard wants to create a truly diverse college community, it must not sacrifice some forms of diversity for others. In this case, Harvard has sacrificed racial and socioeconomic diversity for geographic diversity. Indeed, the Admissions Office’s use of lower standards when sending interest letters to white students from rural states unfairly benefitted those students at the expense of rural students from minority races and lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Here we have a petulant DEMAND: the college must changes its practices to create more diversity among its students.  In the case above, Harvard is trying to include geographic diversity, which, since we’re talking rural American, probably comes with ideological diversity and simply more diverse viewpoints held by those from rural backgrounds.

I see that as a useful form of diversity, and experienced it myself when I went to college and encountered many students from small, rural areas of Virginia. It was eye-opening but nice to interact with those people, and many remain my friends (let me add that William and Mary hardly had any black students then: maybe one in my class of 969!)

What the Crimson is beefing about seems to be that by simply sending out letters to students (not Asian students, mind you) from rural areas, students with lower than normal test scores, it is “sacrificing” racial and socioeconomic diversity for geographic diversity. But socioeconomic diversity and viewpoint diversity are surely correlated with geographic diversity in this case, simply because students from rural areas are likely not as well off as those from urban areas and have, on average, different political and religious views. (I’m just guessing here, of course.)

The claim that the letters of interest are sent to “white students” from rural states as opposed to nonwhite students or “those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds” must surely be speculation on the editors’ part, as I doubt that Harvard knows the ethnicity AND socioeconomic status of those lower-PSAT rural students to whom they send letters. Nor do I think that Harvard is targeting only white students from those areas; why would they do that? Rather, the Crimson editors seem exercised by the fact that any white rural students who get these letters constitutes unfairness to minority and poor students.

That makes no sense to me; after all, these are just “interest letters” that probably say something like “we know about you and would like you to consider applying to Harvard.” It is by no means a guarantee of admission to Harvard, merely an attempt to swell the applicant pool by getting more rural students.

Penultimate paragarph:

Though we uphold our standing behind the Admissions Office in its support of affirmative action, its diversity search leaves much room for improvement. To maintain its integrity, the Admissions Office must stop attempting to cram many different backgrounds and ideas into a very small number of boxes to tick, as it belittles the entire process as well as the students that work hard to be competitive applicants.

Another demand. My translation: Harvard should stop trying to recruit rural students and, in general, reduce the number of “different backgrounds” it’s looking for. I think the editors mean that Harvard should concentrate largely or entirely on black and Hispanic students.

We would like to see Harvard continue its efforts to make the campus a truly inclusive space. In order to do so, the College should actively address such problems and make the admissions process more equitable. As a result, the Admissions Office should change its approach to this particular diversity search, however well-intentioned it may be. Harvard should critically analyze its scouting processes to minimize bias and ensure the comprehensive evaluation of every prospective student. In sum, the Admissions Office should not use one form of diversity to belittle another. Students deserve better than that.

This really says nothing beyond what was said in the previous paragraph. However, the phrase “the Admissions Office should not use one form of diversity to belittle another” is both wrong and gramatically incorrect. Nothing is being “belittled”: letters are being sent to rural students. That apparently has the editors upset because they think that increasing geographic diversity will necessarily reduce racial diversity. At least that’s my take on their editorial. But if that’s what they’re trying to say, why don’t they say it clearly?