Chap­ter 5 exam­ines the strate­gic deci­sion by Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty to estab­lish a women’s var­si­ty rug­by team in 2013, a move that brings atten­tion to the inter­sec­tion of ath­let­ics, admis­sions, and social engi­neer­ing. The chap­ter opens with an analy­sis of a rainy-day rug­by match between Har­vard and Prince­ton, where Har­vard field­ed a sea­soned team, demon­strat­ing its depth and expe­ri­ence. In con­trast, Prince­ton’s team was still devel­op­ing, made up large­ly of ath­letes recruit­ed from oth­er sports. Despite the com­pet­i­tive nature of the game, the match prompt­ed a reflec­tion on the moti­va­tions behind Har­vard’s con­tin­ued invest­ment in ath­let­ics and the sub­tle forces at play in shap­ing the com­po­si­tion of its stu­dent body. This move to cre­ate a women’s rug­by team is framed not just as a sports deci­sion but as a cal­cu­lat­ed effort to bal­ance var­i­ous insti­tu­tion­al pri­or­i­ties, includ­ing ath­let­ic prowess and strate­gic admis­sions poli­cies.

Har­vard’s vast array of sports offer­ings, over fifty clubs, and its par­tic­i­pa­tion in Divi­sion I ath­let­ics high­light the university’s com­mit­ment to main­tain­ing a strong ath­let­ic pres­ence. How­ev­er, the intro­duc­tion of women’s rug­by was not just about expand­ing the ath­let­ics pro­gram; it was about strate­gic intent. Rug­by, par­tic­u­lar­ly women’s rug­by, is still rel­a­tive­ly under­de­vel­oped in the U.S., mak­ing it chal­leng­ing to recruit top tal­ent for a var­si­ty team. To address this, Coach Mel Den­ham turned to glob­al scout­ing, empha­siz­ing the diverse back­grounds of play­ers, many of whom came from afflu­ent fam­i­lies. This glob­al approach reflect­ed a broad­er recruit­ment strat­e­gy, ensur­ing that the rug­by team was com­posed of high­ly skilled ath­letes, which in turn bol­stered Harvard’s ath­let­ics pro­gram and enhanced the pres­tige of its teams. The recruit­ing tac­tics under­score how ath­let­ics, like oth­er com­po­nents of uni­ver­si­ty life, serve a more sig­nif­i­cant role in shap­ing the institution’s demo­graph­ic com­po­si­tion.

The chap­ter delves deep­er into Har­vard’s admis­sions process, par­tic­u­lar­ly the spe­cial cat­e­go­ry known as ALDCs—Athletes, Lega­cies, Dean’s Inter­est List, and Chil­dren of fac­ul­ty. These cat­e­gories make up 30% of the stu­dent body, with ath­letes receiv­ing an espe­cial­ly high lev­el of con­sid­er­a­tion, even when their aca­d­e­m­ic qual­i­fi­ca­tions fall short of the typ­i­cal appli­cant. The advan­tages grant­ed to ALD­Cs sug­gest that sports play a key role in main­tain­ing a cer­tain demo­graph­ic bal­ance with­in the uni­ver­si­ty, giv­ing pri­or­i­ty to ath­let­ic recruits who bring diver­si­ty in terms of both back­ground and skill. This sys­tem has raised con­cerns about fair­ness, as it offers cer­tain appli­cants pref­er­en­tial treat­ment based on their ath­let­ic abil­i­ties or famil­ial con­nec­tions rather than sole­ly aca­d­e­m­ic mer­it. The chap­ter points out how this prac­tice is not mere­ly about fos­ter­ing ath­leti­cism but is part of a larg­er strat­e­gy to con­trol the make­up of the stu­dent body, shap­ing Har­vard’s com­mu­ni­ty accord­ing to insti­tu­tion­al needs.

Look­ing back at the his­tor­i­cal con­text of Har­vard’s admis­sions process­es, the chap­ter draws atten­tion to ear­li­er bias­es, par­tic­u­lar­ly the anti-Semit­ic prac­tices that influ­enced Ivy League insti­tu­tions like Har­vard in the ear­ly 20th cen­tu­ry. The selec­tive nature of admis­sions, once moti­vat­ed by exclu­sion­ary prac­tices, now serves a dif­fer­ent purpose—ensuring diver­si­ty while main­tain­ing cer­tain insti­tu­tion­al goals. The cre­ation of a women’s rug­by team can be seen as a con­tin­u­a­tion of this tra­di­tion, where elite insti­tu­tions, like Har­vard, use admis­sions and ath­let­ics to sub­tly guide the com­po­si­tion of their stu­dent bod­ies. The dual pur­pose of expand­ing ath­let­ic oppor­tu­ni­ties while ensur­ing the right bal­ance of demo­graph­ics with­in the uni­ver­si­ty sug­gests that admis­sions and ath­let­ics are intri­cate­ly inter­twined. The chap­ter insin­u­ates that this delib­er­ate manip­u­la­tion of group pro­por­tions through strate­gic sports deci­sions is a form of social engi­neer­ing, where the insti­tu­tion con­trols who is includ­ed and how diverse its com­mu­ni­ty can be.

Ulti­mate­ly, this chap­ter uncov­ers the hid­den dynam­ics behind Harvard’s approach to ath­let­ics and admis­sions, show­ing how these deci­sions are not just about cre­at­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties for stu­dents but are part of a broad­er strat­e­gy to con­trol and shape the uni­ver­si­ty’s social fab­ric. The cre­ation of the women’s rug­by team is one exam­ple of how social engi­neer­ing can be employed under the guise of enhanc­ing ath­let­ic pro­grams. By recruit­ing stu­dents from spe­cif­ic back­grounds, includ­ing those with ath­let­ic tal­ent, the uni­ver­si­ty is able to main­tain a con­trolled yet diverse stu­dent body. This prac­tice reflects how insti­tu­tions, while fos­ter­ing diver­si­ty in cer­tain areas, also aim to pro­tect the sta­tus quo in oth­ers, cre­at­ing a bal­ance that meets their insti­tu­tion­al goals. Through this lens, the chap­ter encour­ages read­ers to recon­sid­er the deep­er moti­va­tions that dri­ve major deci­sions in high­er edu­ca­tion, reveal­ing the cal­cu­lat­ed strate­gies at work behind seem­ing­ly innocu­ous changes.