Harvard (and presumably similar institutions) was deeply scared by "the sixties" (which stated late and lasted into the next decade) and *took steps* -- effective steps to see that such things would not happen again. Their principal method was to screen admissions for social attitudes, and they were quite successful. That meant that the class background of the typical undergraduate changed markedly in less than a generation.
I remember attending commencement in the fraught summer of 2003 -- and noticing that practically the only anti-war button I saw during the week was the one that I was wearing. The sole mention of the invasion of Iraq from the commencement podium came in what was to be the humorous speech, delivered by comedian Will Farrell. The "political indifference of the student body at Harvard College" (and their families), noted by a "group of Harvard alumni from the Vietnam War era" five years later, was already very much on display.
Since the 17th century Harvard has existed to educate the children of the ruling class and talented members of other classes who would be socialized into ruling class attitudes. But it has been more and less adventurous in how it did it.
As the sixties began, Harvard led the other Ivies in "non-traditional admits" -- more public school students, foreign students, people of color -- more undergraduates who were not PLU. (It was, e.g., the first to lift the Jewish quota.) And the socialization proceeded apace: in contrast to other institutions, where titles were punctiliously insisted upon ("Visiting Associate Professor Jones..."), perhaps to make up for low pay, at Harvard everyone was "Mister" (or "Ms.," when that became necessary), from the lowliest undergraduate to he president of the university.
But all that changed after the sixties. For example, Final Clubs (Harvard's social register undergrad societies), which practically disappeared in the 1970s, were back stronger than ever by the turn of the century. The Harvard my children attended was in general a much more moneyed affair than my sixties college. And that was no accident. Summers rightly notes the transformation in these years of "Harvard Square from a bohemian enclave into an outdoor mall."
I think in fact that socialization of a more class-homogeneous undergraduate body required a refinement of "all the privileged must have prizes." I recall attending commencement in the 1990s in Adams House (one of Harvard's undergrad colleges) where prizes were indeed given to many graduating seniors -- but carefully spread around: part of the message to each grad was, "See, you didn't get all the prizes. There are other people (within the proper set) who get some, too." Excellence was subordinated to group solidarity. And Harvard continued to perform its traditional social tasks. --CGE
Doug Henwood wrote:
> <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402674>
>
>
>
> All the privileged must have prizes 10 July 2008
>
> The banality and sense of entitlement of rich students at Harvard left John
> H. Summers feeling his teaching had been degraded to little more than a
> service to prepare clients for monied careers ...