Reading today’s New York Times report about the increasing selectivity of America’s top colleges and universities, I was struck by the fact that not only was the author a Harvard alumnus, but so were the authors of the three books used as references in the article. It was a perspective from the selective group critiquing the selective group - a sort of public self-appraisal for the purpose of enlightening others about the nature of the beast.
I can understand why those individuals’ perspectives are considered valuable - what right does anyone who has aspired and failed to achieve admission to these top schools have to criticize their increasing selectivity? It is reasonable to claim that only those “on the inside” are able to provide insight - criticism from outsiders tends to sound more like bitterness. A failed applicant would hardly have a viewpoint that could validate such critical claims, right? Well, sort of. But selecting the principle speakers in a debate only from source of the problem compromises the likelihood of change.
This phenomenon occurs in a variety of contexts. Whether it is top designer Philip Starck declaring that “design is dead” or former Teachers College president Arthur Levine panning the current state of teacher education, it is the elite whose critiques we pay most attention to. Unfortunately, this state is self-perpetuating and ultimately exclusive. Criticism does not in itself create change, it simply calls for it. If the only people that are allowed to criticize are those on the inside, however, then there are no bridges that allow for the influx of new and potentially valuable ideas. Ironically, criticizing one’s own field may make it even more difficult to effect the change it calls for.
But it’s not like we can blame these people for having and expressing their opinion. We need to expand the right of comment to those with something important to say but without a recognized voice. Maybe I’m fighting the media, maybe I’m lamenting the popular hunt for hypocrisy in successful people. We will continue to pay attention when the CEO denounces the company, but it is crucial that we listen to those among us who know how to bring it down.