Alliance of Rhodes ScholarsReport on the Future of the Rhodes Scholarships
INTRODUCTION
The undersigned Rhodes Scholars believe that certain recent actions by the Rhodes Trust, while well intended, do not live up to the historical, moral, and ethical duty of the Trustees to carry out, as much as possible, the original wishes of the donor and founder. The actions depart from principles of scholar selection that have been validated over decades of the existence of the scholarship and recognized by generations of Scholars as grounded upon Rhodes’s Will, codicil, and contemporaneous expressions of intent.
We disagree specifically with the statement of the current Warden on the Rhodes Trust website that, “many elements of Rhodes’s original vision for the Scholarships were wrong and are obsolete.” While Cecil Rhodes can be criticized for many things – especially when judged by today’s culture and standards – the Rhodes Scholarship is not one of them. The scholarships have, overwhelmingly, been a force for good. The Trust and individual Trustees owe an historically proven and moral duty to the founder, and benefactor to us all, to carry out his wishes and vision as expressed in his Will and related documents.
Through changes in the world far more wrenching than today’s, the principles established by Cecil Rhodes for the selection of scholars, faithfully executed by the Rhodes Trust, have accomplished his ambitious and worthy objectives. Those selected for the scholarships have benefitted from their time at Oxford and have gone on to become leaders “who esteem public service as their highest aim,” as Rhodes intended.
Changes to the execution of the Trust required by law, such as expanding eligibility to women, are consistent with the duty of the Trustees. So is changing the administration of the Trust in ways that are clearly consistent with what Rhodes expressed as the purpose of his Trust, for example in expanding the connections and contact among Rhodes Scholars.
However, several major recent changes go against successful experience and fulfillment of the Trust’s historical duty to the founder’s original intent and vision in four main areas:
Generalization and reduction to mush of the concept of the “world’s fight” in which.
Rhodes charged Rhodes Scholars to engage.
Expansion of scholarships to authoritarian countries and to countries with little interest in or influence on the world’s fight.
Substantive changes to the selection criteria specified in the donor’s will.
Recent Expansion of the Trust to affiliate with other charitable organizations whose missions and actions are clearly unrelated to Rhodes’s wishes.
THE WORLD’S FIGHT AND SCHOLAR SELECTION CRITERIA
The intent of the Rhodes Scholarships has always been to identify, educate and inspire potential leaders of countries capable of playing a significant role in guaranteeing world peace. Rhodes wrote that he was looking for “the best man for the world’s fight.” This phrase has become the motto of the scholarships and has inspired generations of Rhodes Scholars, men and women, to play leadership roles in meeting challenges in their own countries, and in the world.
In recent years, however, the scholarships are not guided by the inspiring call to fight the world’s fight. The new motto, “Stand up for the World”, is pointless. The description of Rhodes Scholars as people “who are impatient with the way things are and have the courage to act” can apply to saints and fanatics alike.
Don Markwell, Warden of Rhodes House from 2009-12, wrote, “On his death in 1902, Cecil John Rhodes left a will and codicils that set out a great vision of an international scholarship program. It had essentially two fundamental purposes. The first was to broaden the horizons and promote a spirit of public service among outstanding young people with ‘instincts to lead.’ The second was to create a network of friendship between the major powers so as to ‘render war impossible’ . . .”
In 2023, the goal of rendering war impossible is best served by preserving and strengthening democratic institutions in countries where they exist and supporting those fighting in other countries to defend or establish them. There are many worthy causes in which Rhodes Scholars engage, including improvements in immigration, climate change and world health. However, losing the overarching world’s fight for freedom and democracy puts at risk these causes and all others.
We believe the cause of world peace would be far better served by distributing the scholarships to build critical masses of scholars in countries committed to peaceful democratic principles.
A related issue, also a departure from the intent of Rhodes will, is the choice of source countries for Rhodes Scholars. With the exception of Germany (1903-1913 and 1933-38) and South Africa under apartheid, the scholarships went to the citizens of countries that shared democratic forms of government and constitutional guarantees of individual liberties as well as market economies.
In 2013 scholars were selected from the United Arab Emirates, and in 2016 Rhodes Scholars were first selected from China. There are now Rhodes Scholars from Saudi Arabia and Syria. All four countries are rated “Not Free” by Freedom House. There were two reasons for these decisions: first, rich citizens of the UAE, China and Saudi Arabia offered to fund the scholarships and a financially strapped Rhodes Trust accepted; second, there was a hope, well-meant but speculative, that the broadening effect of a Rhodes Scholarship would influence a small number of future leaders within these authoritarian countries who just might be in a position to introduce democratic reforms and cooperative international policies.
Selling a scholarship for a country with an established authoritarian regime is inconsistent with the Rhodes Will and damaging to the Rhodes reputation; the hope of affecting fundamental authoritarian tendencies with a very small number of Rhodes Scholars is at best naïve. The role of these countries in the world’s fight is the opposite of what Cecil Rhodes intended.
Current plans for the scholarship are generally to double the students from Africa, and to spread more scholarships across “the Global South, including Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.” Very few of these countries will play a positive role in resisting the attempt of China, Russia, and other authoritarian governments to undermine democracy and human rights. Their leaders have other priorities for the present, primarily domestic development.
The criteria for selecting Rhodes Scholars have changed in recent years. The most important change – opening eligibility to women – required an act of Parliament in 1975. More recent alterations, however, do not comport with the founder's original intentions and directions:
Two of the four selection criteria in the Rhodes Will have been changed substantively. The original second criterion for the selection of a Rhodes Scholar, “fondness of and success in . . sports,” has been changed to “the energy to use one’s talents to the full.” The original criterion reflected Rhodes’s understanding of the importance to leaders of qualities that are developed and demonstrated in sports – teamwork, leadership, endurance, and sportsmanship. These qualities remain essential for leaders. Rhodes’s call to make the performance of public duty the highest aim of a scholar has been eliminated from the fourth criterion for selection. This omission fundamentally changes the entire selection concept. Only his concept of an “esteem for the performance of public duty” provides the purpose to which the scholars should apply themselves in later life.
Another misguided change in the selection process, this one informal, has been the growth of an emphasis in applications on hardship in younger years. Applicants for scholarship increasingly describe personal struggles in their narrative statements. A candidate recently won a Rhodes with the help of a falsified narrative of personal hardship in her high school years. Eighty-nine Rhodes scholars from recent classes signed a letter condoning the falsehoods in the application on the grounds that the candidate was an abuse survivor and entitled to be evaluated by different criteria. They demanded that her scholarship be restored. A subcommittee of the Rhodes Trust confirmed that personal essays in the applications over the years have become “formulaic heroic self-narratives,” often describing struggles against societal norms. The inclusion of and even emphasis on stories of hardship in an applicant’s pre-college years, is another major departure from the Rhodes Will. The Rhodes Trust correction initiated so far – changing the “prompts” for an applicant’s personal essay – may not be enough.
The selection process has also departed from the Rhodes Will concerning the provision that reads, “no student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a scholarship on account of his race” (emphasis added).
In the past, being female or a member of a minority group was a barrier to undergraduate success and therefore, to selection as a Rhodes Scholar. If anything, the reverse is true on today’s American campuses. Annual announcements in recent years of newly selected American Rhodes Scholar classes celebrate substantial minority representation and a large majority of women within each class as well as academic and leadership achievements. Judged by the results over the past decade, the Rhodes Scholarship selection process does not discriminate against women and minorities.
The Rhodes Trust website outlines an extensive program of “anti-racism initiatives.” These include efforts to “improve the diversity of the selection committees and [give them] unconscious bias training.” In addition, orientation programs instruct new Rhodes Scholars on racial justice, equity and other issues of conduct and attitude. The iconographies of Rhodes
House itself and the Rhodes Trust website have been made over. Rhodes Scholars have fought, and no doubt will continue to fight for social and racial justice. However, the initiatives directed at “legacy, equity and inclusion” are unnecessary, judging by the makeup of recent classes, and they violate the explicit provisions of the Rhodes Will, that is not to consider race as either a qualifying or disqualifying factor. Rhodes Scholars are to be selected based on the four specific criteria of excellence directed in the Will. The Rhodes Scholarship is an award to an individual based on excellence and an esteem for the service of public duty that can be demonstrated by persons of all backgrounds.
Assertedly to save money, and to compensate for the uneven geographic distribution of colleges and universities, the former two-stage selection process for American Rhodes Scholars was compressed to a single tier in 2005. Sixteen committees now choose two scholars each – instead of the former, broader system of 50 state committees each choosing two candidates, feeding into eight regional selection committees each choosing four Rhodes Scholars. Initial screening and endorsement systems within colleges and universities vary widely and are not comparable to the selection process.
An important advantage of the former two-tier system was the participation of more former scholars in the selection process, providing intense two-day exchanges between former and aspiring scholars. It allowed for a closer look at the most promising candidates, leading to potentially better selections. Additional interviews are especially important in the era of Chat GPT and similar aids to essay composition, as well as the increasing number of achievements claimed by applicants that are difficult to assess and verify. The Trust should return to a two-tier system for selecting scholars from the United States, especially since financial difficulties are no longer a constraint.
FUNDRAISING AND PARTNERSHIPS
For almost a century, Cecil Rhodes’s bequest provided enough income to fund the Rhodes Scholarships. Beginning in the 1990s, fees at Oxford increased and the size of the endowment declined as a result of market downturns in 2001 and 2008. In 2003, the Rhodes Trust formed a partnership with the Nelson Mandela Foundation and pledged a contribution of 1 million pounds a year for ten years, which was more than 10% of the endowment at the time, to fund scholarships for African student leaders to attend universities in Africa. As a result of these developments, it became clear that Rhodes’s bequest could not support the existing number of scholarships and the Rhodes Trust undertook a major campaign of fundraising.
The fundraising campaign was very successful, and the financial future of the scholarships is now quite positive. The intense fundraising, however, has not been reduced. Instead, the very success of the fundraising has led to activities that depart from the original intention of the Rhodes Will. All Rhodes Trustees today are required (by the Governance Protocols) to “view the Rhodes Trust as a significant personal philanthropic priority.” All Trustees must “work actively to promote fundraising for the Rhodes Trust.” These protocols exclude outstanding scholars and political leaders in favor of those who can raise money. At the same time, fundraising is a major focus of communications from Rhodes House to former scholars. The steady flow of requests for donations is a breach of the traditional relationship between Rhodes House and the alumni.
The Trust has formed a series of partnerships with organizations that have different objectives from those in the Rhodes Will – the Atlantic Fellows, the Schmidt Science Fellows, and Rise. The partner philanthropies benefit from the Rhodes Scholarships’ prestige. In exchange, they make financial contributions to the Rhodes Trust which are often considerable. Essentially, the reputation of the Rhodes Scholarship built up by the efforts of scholars and trustees over more than a hundred years is being sold and used for purposes that are not in accordance with Rhodes’s Will.
The Rhodes House staff has expanded enormously (now more than 100) – as has Rhodes House itself through a major construction project. The Rhodes web site now has a tab marked “Venue Hire.” Rhodes House can be hired out for meetings and conferences as well as for weddings and private dining. A high level of use of the center by outside organizations will dramatically change the atmosphere at Rhodes House. Rather than a home in Oxford for scholars, it will be a busy site for activities having nothing to do with the Rhodes Scholarships.
All this administrative overhead has reduced the number of scholarships that could otherwise be funded from the existing Rhodes bequest. About 60% of the expenditures of £78,000 per scholar pay the Oxford fees and the stipends. The other 40% of the expenditures go to overhead – “Scholar Programme and Support Costs,” “Global Engagement and Events,” and “Shared Services and Rhodes House.”
A FINAL WORD
The Trustees make major decisions regarding the Rhodes Trust. However, the Rhodes alumni are a unique and accomplished group, and many are eager to contribute their considerable experience and knowledge, and not simply their donations, to the resolution of important issues like those raised in this report. One of the Warden’s duties in the Governance Protocols, is to include alumni in the decision-making process. We recommend that representative groups of alumni, including those who have signed this report, be organized to inform the Board in important areas, beginning with the issues raised in this letter.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Rhodes Trust should restore Rhodes’s original emphasis on and meaning of the world’s fight, to include the defense of democracy and freedom.
2. The Trust should eliminate scholarships for countries with corrupt and/or autocratic regimes and consider providing scholarships for Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, and Chile.
3. The Trust should restore the original selection criteria of the Rhodes Will:
Update the second criterion on “manly sports” to specify the qualities that competitive sports develop,
Restore the fourth criterion’s explicit emphasis on public service as the highest aim of Rhodes Scholars, and
Emphasize in all Rhodes publications the ban on qualification or disqualification based on race.
4. The Trust should discontinue codes of conduct, retreats, and other forms of indoctrination programs for Rhodes Scholars.
5. With financial support for the Rhodes Scholarships no longer an issue, the Rhodes Trust should bring major fundraising activities to an end.
6. While encouraging Rhodes Trustees to include fundraising as an important part of their duties, commensurate with their means, the Trust should eliminate the provision in the Governance Protocols that all trustees donate money and engage in fundraising.
7. The Trust should end its role in the Atlantic Fellows, Schmidt Science Fellows, and Rise programs.
8. The Trust should reverse plans to rent out the Rhodes House conference center and instead dedicate it to research and scholarly purposes, opening it to the entire university.
9. The Trust should reduce the Rhodes House staff and administrative overhead and spend the savings on additional scholarships.
10. The Trust should restore a two-tier selection process of both state-level and regional interviews for US Rhodes Scholars.
11. The Rhodes Trust should review and revise its communications to former Scholars and potential scholarship applicants so that they highlight the themes of public service and the nature of the current world's fight, including the defense of freedom, universal human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
12. The Rhodes Trust should establish a process for former Scholars to participate in discussions with Trustees on these recommendations.
SIGNATORIES
Dennis Blair (Virginia and Worcester ’68)
David Bock (Idaho and Jesus ’67)
Dan Carrell (North Carolina and Merton ’63)
James Crawford (Missouri and Balliol ’68)
Colin Dueck (Prairies and Saint Antony’s ’93)
Robert Earl (Pennsylvania and Exeter ’68)
George Giard (Texas and New College ’60)
Jim Hansen (Colorado and Merton ’93)
Roger Houghton (New South Wales and Balliol ’69)
Peter Kalis (West Virginia and Brasenose ‘73)
John Knubel (New Jersey and University ’63)
Christoffer Koch (Germany and St John’s ’05)
Daniel Lubrich (Germany and Merton ‘02)
Fred Manget (Georgia and Oriel ’73)
James Moose (Arkansas and Magdalen ’61)
Guy Parkhurst (Oklahoma and Lincoln ’64)
Peter Perinchief (Bermuda and Balliol ’68)
Larry Pressler (South Dakota and St Edmond Hall ‘64
Kent Price (Montana and Pembroke ’67)
Robert Randolph (Virginia and Magdalen ’67)
Tom Reinecke Wisconsin and St John’s ’68)
Gerald Robertson (South Africa and Balliol ’64)
David Satter (Illinois and Balliol ’68)
Michael Shea (Iowa and Balliol ’68)
Jonathan Tepper (North Carolina and Christ Church ’98)
Michael Tselentis (Rhodesia and Magdalen ’73)
Paul Van Buren (South Dakota and University ’60)
Andreas Witte (Germany and University ‘08)
