Earlier this month I blogged about legacy preferences. I took a stand and wrote that if race preferences opponents want to be consistent in our arguments against skin color preferences, we must oppose legacy preferences. No individual should be discriminated against or granted preferences based on factors like race, sex, or whether his father graduated from the school and contributes money to his alma mater.
Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation writes about legacy preferences in a piece titled, “Legacies of Injustice.” She notes that almost “every selective college, public and private, gives a sizable edge to underrepresented minorities” and the college admissions process contains many exceptions to grades and scores. Being the son or daughter of a graduate of the school is one such exception. But unlike race preferences, legacy preferences don’t seem to stir up much ire. They should.
“Legacy preferences are the original sin of admissions, the policy that fundamentally compromises fair, merit-based standards. Universities can’t in good conscience tip the admission scales for the more privileged and then ask the less privileged to compete solely on merit. What’s more, eliminating race while keeping legacies will make the admissions process less fair, not more fair, because it will open up minority slots to competition by whites but not vice versa.
“Legacy preferences are an especially terrible idea for tax-supported public universities, since they make it possible for rich, white, and less qualified kids to take seats that are at least in part supported by the tax dollars of poor, minority families.”
Dalmia makes a fair point. Legacy preferences are as odious as race preferences in that both reward accidents of birth irrelevant to college admission. Why should someone born with dark skin be rewarded based on that skin and others rejected on the same basis? Why should the daughter of a Yalie be preferred by Yale over a student who is better qualified than the daughter of a non-Yalie?
How do we ban legacy preferences? One way is to append such bans to Ward Connerly’s state ballot initiatives. Another way would be to force tax-supported schools to pin down a definition of merit. That is, post on web sites grades and scores required for admission, which will put applicants on notice that admissions criteria apply to all prospective students.
Dalmia’s article should be read in its entirety. She discusses the free market’s influence on encouraging private colleges to eliminate preferences and whether there can be true meritocracy in admissions. She provides a thorough and convincing argument against legacy preferences and why race preference opponents should take a strong stand against them.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Half a century ago, America was embroiled in a legal and moral struggle to end government-sanctioned racial discrimination. Under a system known as Jim Crow, our government treated citizens differently based on race. Today, America still treats citizens differently based on race under a policy euphemistically known as “affirmative action.” 
Wise King Solomon once said, “of making many books there is no end.” The same could be said for studies. Every week there are new studies on a myriad of topics. People research, compile, interview, measure, and quantify to create studies about every subject under the sun.
