Dear Harvard College Undergraduate Students, FAS Faculty, Amanda Claybaugh, Undergraduate Educational Policy Committee, and whomever else this may concern,

We begin this letter with Veritas (truth); we are imperfect activists. We stumble, we learn, and we speak anyway, because in this case, silence would be our greatest failure.  We want to directly acknowledge the backlash this committee has faced, and especially the vitriol directed towards Amanda Claybaugh. Being made the public face of controversial policy is never easy, and no one deserves to be personally targeted for carrying out institutional decisions. We extend our genuine sympathy in recognition of that.

That said, we refuse to soften the truth. The proposed grading policy is blatantly racist. Its harms are not hypothetical and have a history of heavily harming and burdening students of color and first-generation, low-income (FGLI) students. And although we are centering our focus on these identities, this policy harms those who already face structural barriers within this institution and beyond it, such as international students and students with disabilities.  The administration has said the quiet part out loud by framing the goal as “differentiation.” But differentiation, in this context, is not a neutral pedagogical principle. It is a euphemism for ranking, sorting, and stratifying students in ways that mirror and reinforce existing racial and socioeconomic hierarchies. Overall, it has been proven by many educational experts that differentiation serves solely for the purpose of ranking and socioeconomic sorting (Bowles & Gintis, 2011).

If Harvard is committed to honesty, then it must be transparent about what this version of “education” is truly prioritizing.  The composition of the Undergraduate Educational Policy committee raises serious concerns about perspective, representation, and the priorities driving its policy recommendations. Of its 21 members, 20 are white (about 95%), and 13 are white cisgender men (around 65%), with only one member identified as non-white. Such demographic homogeneity limits the range of lived experiences shaping policy decisions. When a nearly all-white committee ignores pedagogical research, and favoring an economic perspective it risks reproducing structural inequities. 

It is already known that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often have less access to educational resources than students at well-funded prep schools. Many FGLI students enter college facing the consequences of educational achievement gaps, and as such, we have to work twice as hard to be on the same playing field as our peers. But don’t get us wrong, we are capable of doing just as well and overcoming barriers, and Amanda Claybaugh rightfully points this out when she states: “Data show that students from under-resourced high schools do not currently perform lower in GPA…we do not expect the new policies to affect them disproportionately.”  What Claybaugh fails to acknowledge are the experiences of students and the contradictory evidence. What this grading policy will do is create segregation.

At predominantly white institutions, black and brown students make up a disproportionate share of the FGLI population. Any policy that claims to be neutral while further burdening FGLI students will thereby widen racial gaps in education. Research in social psychology supports this concern. Studies on “academic differentiation,” including work by Claude Steele and other scholars of stereotype threat, demonstrate that heightened evaluative pressure disproportionately harms students from marginalized groups. Steele (2010) shows that such differentiation practices often sort Black students downward, not because of lower potential, but because evaluative environments amplify existing inequities. In this way, the proposed grading policy would not simply measure performance; it would reproduce hierarchy, reinforcing segregation within the institution rather than fostering equitable excellence.

Though Claybaugh denies this, it was true for Wellesley College (Butcher, 2014). In this study Wellesley economists reported that the 2004 grading quota initiative had expanded racial gaps, and that Black students saw a larger-than-average drop in grades. In addition, Cech (2021) finds that meritocratic ideology masks structural inequality. While stratified outcomes appear individually earned, which can make them appealing to school administrations, grading reform serves to legitimize racial sorting. 

Despite these findings, Claybaugh has asserted in the policy proposal that there is “no research” supporting the claim that such grading policies harm FGLI students. This assertion is simply false. The research exists. The data exists. What is being denied is not evidence, but the responsibility of this administration for the harm they will put their marginalized students through. 

To everyone reading this letter, we want to reiterate that FGLI students of color are no less capable, intelligent, or deserving than their more privileged peers. What differs is the burden we are forced to carry. Policies like this shift the costs of institutional decisions onto marginalized students while dismissing the resulting harm as accidental or nonexistent. So-called “neutral” standards can produce racial outcomes without discriminatory intent (Inoue, 2023). History shows where this leads, and ignoring those lessons only ensures the harm will be repeated. 

Harvard has moved towards harming students with marginalized identities and continues to do so with this policy. Most notably, we see this culture fostered through the closure of DEI offices. Minority students have been the most disadvantaged by these changes on campus, and they now attend an institution that doesn’t recognize and instead diminishes the diversity of their student body through this so-called “differentiation” policy. As we enter a period of significant political turmoil, marked by steps being taken to hurt minority students, Harvard has continued to show where their priorities lie. 

We urge you to center the well-being of your students rather than reputational concerns. Do not act on the whims of current reputation and forget how it will be remembered. Harvard history is sexist, racist, and classist. Regardless of its intent, this policy will reinforce that legacy. 

Let us work together in shaping a future that is supportive for all students while also expanding upon Harvard’s rigorous educational environment. This means creating targeted resources that acknowledge differences in experiences and identities, embracing different educational pedagogy, and recentering the enriching academic experience that is expected of Harvard. 

In doing so, we truly believe we can foster the equitable growth of all students on this campus.

Read it all if your skull is explosion resistant, but I can summarize sadly predictable message: real grading based on achievement and mastery of the subject matter is racist. Any effort to recognize excellence and superior performance while encouraging those of lesser skills and mastery to work and study harder and do better will only continue society’s centuries-long discrimination against people “of color,” because “heightened evaluative pressure disproportionately harms students from marginalized groups.”

The letter links to this petition:

“This petition calls on Harvard to reject the proposed grading policy, arguing that it is not merely flawed but racially harmful in effect. We center racism as a core concern, contending that although the policy is framed as neutral “differentiation,” it functions as a system of ranking and sorting that mirrors and reinforces existing racial and socioeconomic hierarchies. Because first-generation, low-income (FGLI) students and students of color are disproportionately affected by structural inequities long before arriving on campus, the policy would compound those disadvantages rather than correct them.

Drawing on research in education and social psychology, the petition argues that stratified grading systems and heightened evaluative pressure often widen racial achievement gaps. It maintains that policies presented as meritocratic or neutral can still produce racially unequal outcomes, effectively legitimizing inequality by attributing disparities to individual performance instead of structural conditions. Historical examples of grading reforms at other institutions are cited as evidence that such policies can expand racial grade gaps, even without explicitly discriminatory intent.

The letter also challenges the administration’s claim that there is no evidence these reforms disproportionately harm marginalized students. We assert that denying this research dismisses the lived experiences of students who already face systemic barriers. We emphasize that students of color and FGLI students are equally capable, but racism and structural inequality shape the burdens they carry within predominantly white institutions.

We urge Harvard to reject the policy and instead pursue reforms that uphold academic rigor while actively dismantling, rather than reproducing, systemic racism.”

Is there a more horrifying example of the harm affirmative action, DEI, and the race victim racket has inflicted on our minorities, academia and the nation?