Elliot Gerson - Message to Rhodes Class Secretaries

Dear Class Secretaries,

I believe the best way to raise issues with the Trust is directly with the Trust, or directly with the AARS Directors as the elected representatives of Rhodes Scholars living in the United States—or through letters or articles in The American Oxonian. I don't think this unprecedented use of AARS Class Secretaries is a productive vehicle for the healthy dialogue we all value—but as you have been asked to circulate the concerns of a self-appointed “committee” of fellow alumni, let me address those points related to areas of my direct experience, and in some cases responsibility.

First, let me note that I have had, and welcomed, many conversations, Zooms, email exchanges, and even a meeting, over the past two years or so with several of the individuals leading this "committee," and will be happy to continue to. Moreover, and you wouldn’t know this from what they write, there has been extensive engagement of the Warden, and meetings as well with the Chair and at least three other Rhodes Trustees with members of the group on issues of concern raised by them. And I know the Warden plans further response to this latest communication.

It is I think fair to say that their concerns began with a belief if not a conviction that their fellow alumni who select Rhodes Scholars in recent times had done so unfairly, directed or at least encouraged by the Rhodes Trust to increase the diversity of those selected, and contrary to principles of individual merit as measured against the Trust's selection criteria. They could not, it seemed to me, imagine any other reason that classes now frequently tend to reflect the full diversity of our college campuses and country. Confronted with facts that in my opinion prove their assumptions wrong, they have now moved largely to other concerns about the Trust, as most of their attached “Report” of January 25 focuses on non-selection matters—though I think it is evident inferentially that their original concern strongly persists and may actually remain foundational for some of them. I won't comment on the issues they raise unconnected to Scholar selection as they relate to areas outside of my responsibilities for the Trust. Though given how misguided I suggest those concerns about selection practices are, I respectfully urge caution before you accept points uncritically that relate to other aspects of Trust policies and actions. But as they also raise a few new concerns or twists about Scholar selection, I will comment briefly on those as they are broadly in my areas of shared responsibility. And as I always welcome such exchange with fellow Scholars. With respect to the earlier concerns explicitly expressed about selection bias, I will append to this note my recent letter in The American Oxonian, Winter 2022, that address those directly in case you did not read it earlier.

Despite the “Report” beginning with a bold claim of actions “departing from principles of Scholar selection,” only a small portion of it even attempts to support such claims. First, though the connection to “Selection Criteria” is hardly evident, they would have readers infer that Scholars selected recently aren’t passionately enrolled in the “world’s fight” as they believe the Founder intended. The logic seems to be that because many Scholars today care deeply about, and elect to study, things such as “immigration, climate change and world health”—that they aren’t also passionately engaged in the “world’s fight for freedom and democracy.” Not only is there no connection in this argument logically or factually to how Scholars are chosen, the claims reflect that the letter signers simply do not know today’s Scholars.

Then, more directly, and cryptically given the context of their concerns, they point to the Trustees’ rephrasing of the criterion relating to sport, though without noting how long ago this happened. Indeed, 24 years ago and with no significant objections or concerns raised even then or at all since, the Trustees merely affirmed the actual practices of selectors over the preceding many decades by clarifying publicly the Founder’s intent in contemporary terms and as it had long been understood by selectors. And indeed, that clarification recognized the importance of the same values of leadership, character, and teamwork—and balance and well-roundedness—that Rhodes saw developed on Victorian playing fields. From my direct experience with selection for over 40 years, “success in sports” is no less important now than it has been over that period, and remains consistent with the Founder’s intent.

Next, the writers describe the “growth of an emphasis on applicants in hardship in younger years.” This is described as a “misguided change in the selection process.” This is both false and ironic. False because there has been no change. And ironic as the Rhodes Trust is the first fellowship or scholarship or educational institution of which I am aware that has called out this trend and taken special actions to fight it—a trend which grew among applicants and universities in all competitive admissions contexts and which we have consistently and actively rejected as a factor in selection. The writers assert that a candidate recently was selected for the scholarship “with the help of a falsified narrative of a personal hardship.” But they offer no evidence that such a narrative helped the candidate be selected, and there is none. What is true is that if the Trust discovers intentional and material falsehoods of any kind in an application the candidate will be disqualified. The writers’ further characterization of a letter written by Scholars in Residence about this matter is so devoid of context that it is meaningless.

Next the signers would have one believe because the Trust‘s initiatives to improve selection committee diversity—by the way, there have been no such new efforts necessary in the U.S. where diversity of all types on selection committees have been important for decades—or have orientation and other programs in Oxford on racial justice and similar themes, that such efforts have affected selection guidance or criteria. Nothing of the sort has happened.

In another failed attempt to connect the few changes in actual selection procedure over many decades with recent selections they imply are flawed, the signers suggest that the move in 2005 from a state and district system to a district-only system could be responsible for the problems they feel must be corrected. This too is demonstrably false. As noted in my appended letter to TAO, this change was advocated as well by my predecessor American Secretaries going back to more than 50 years ago, and on several different grounds of fairness—and never for reasons of economy or to alter the balance of winner profiles. There were many and in my view compelling reasons for this change which I will be happy to explain at length to anyone interested.

The writers also suggest that we have somehow transferred a first-stage screening from state committees to universities when they note how colleges “vary widely in screening and endorsement systems.” This suggestion is inaccurate and misleading. We make very clear to universities that their endorsement is required to indicate those qualified for the competition and to leave all selection after that basic determination to us. Moreover, endorsements have been required for most of our history, except for a short period about 50 years ago. 

Yes, the biggest “loss” in the move to two tiers was reducing opportunities for alumni to serve on a committee. In fact, however, the reduction is not as great as would appear. With term limits now imposed for anyone who serves, almost as many Rhodes Scholars have that opportunity today. But that opportunity has always been limited by the necessity for committees to be diverse in age, discipline, and experience. And the former and greater opportunity they lament as lost was enjoyed chiefly by those alumni resident in the least populated states, some with well fewer Rhodes alumni than annual Rhodes applicants.

I hope these points help you assess the various contentions about Scholar selection in the letter you received. 

Respectfully,

Elliot Gerson

American Secretary

February 5, 2023