SCOTUS affirmative action ruling renews calls to end 'unlevel playing field' of legacy admissions
Experts say legacy admissions provides economic benefits for universities but does not increase diversity.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision against using race-conscious admissions for college, individuals from across the political spectrum called for the elimination of legacy admissions.
“I’m directing the Department of Education to analyze what practices help build a more inclusive and diverse student bodies and what practices hold that back, practices like legacy admissions and other systems that expand privilege instead of opportunity,” President Biden said following the announcement of the court’s decisions on Thursday.
The practice of legacy admissions
Legacy admissions is the process of giving favorable treatment to children of alumni. A 2019 study found that 43% of white students at Harvard were legacies, athletes or related to donors, faculty or staff (often referred to as “ALDC,” a catch-all term). For years, there have been calls to end that special advantage for students, a benefit that is sometimes called affirmative action for “rich white people.”
Emilio Castilla, a professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, confirmed this belief in a recent study, finding that legacy admissions is a form of favoritism that benefits predominantly white students.
“It’s definitely providing a port of entry into colleges and universities by individuals who are also very likely to already be able to get access to education,” he told Yahoo News.
According to Education Reform Now, a think tank focused on education policy, legacy admits make up roughly 10% to 25% of admissions at top universities.
Castilla says legacy admissions does not provide entry for students who are more qualified than others, nor does it increase diversity. “We found evidence that there are material interests; a lot of these legacy admits typically tend to be coming from richer families that are more likely to donate resources,” he said.
Justices from both sides of the political spectrum noted the effects of legacy admissions on Thursday.
“[Harvard’s] preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in a concurring opinion. “While race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most. Still, Harvard stands by them.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, cited the ALDC statistics in her dissent, noting that while “‘ALDC applicants make up less than 5% of applicants to Harvard,’ they constitute ‘around 30% of the applicants admitted each year.’”
Congressional pushback
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the only Black Republican in the Senate and a 2024 presidential candidate, also called for the end of legacy admissions Thursday, saying, “One of the things that Harvard could do to make that even better is to eliminate any legacy programs where they have preferential treatment for legacy kids, not allow for the professors... their kids to come to Harvard as well.”
“They’re looking for a way to improve the footprint of Harvard, let’s make sure that all admissions are based on academic scores, and not just eliminating affirmative action, but let’s look at the legacy programs,” Scott added in an interview with Fox News.
Most of the anti-legacy sentiment, however, came from Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
“If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous ‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged,” she said in a viral tweet. “70% of Harvard’s legacy applicants are white. SCOTUS didn’t touch that — which would have impacted them and their patrons.”
Last year, Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, a first-of-its-kind bill that seeks to stop universities from giving special treatment to children of alumni and donors.
Bowman promoted the legislation following Thursday’s decision, saying in an MSNBC interview, “If we’re serious about our democracy, equity and equality, end legacy admissions and we can do that in Congress.”
Merkley denounced the Supreme Court’s decision and said he and Bowman plan to reintroduce the bill soon.
“The Court has never addressed or limited the college selection processes that favor the children of well-established, predominantly white families,” he said in a statement. “Selecting applicants to universities based off family names, connections, or the size of their bank accounts creates an unlevel playing field for students without those built-in advantages, especially minority and first-generation students.”
