Ban Legacy Preferences
Why should the son or daughter of a university alumni receive preferential treatment from the admissions committee over other applicants? Why should a black applicant receive preferential treatment over white or Asian applicants?
The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) opposes both kind of preferences for the same reason: they are unconstitutional.
Inside Higher Ed briefly reviews the legal arguments against legacy preferences. Lawyers cite the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which some contend bars legacy admissions at government and private institutions. Specifically, the law states that all citizens have the same rights. Implicitly, the government is barred from conferring so-called hereditary rights. The post-Civil War legislation was enacted to prevent Southerners from discriminating against newly freed slaves based on heredity.
Other legal experts say the Constitution bars legacy preferences only at government institutions. Private institutions may legally use them, just as private institutions may continue factoring race into admissions decisions. The point, which shouldn’t be understated, is that the government may not treat citizens differently based on race. Private organizations have more leeway. Given our country’s sordid racial history of government-sanctioned and often mandated racial discrimination, it’s paramount that the government maintains a colorblind stance in relation to its citizens.
An argument against legacy (hereditary) preferences can be made under Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, which reads:
“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”
Some schools may be concerned that without legacy admissions, alumni support might decrease. That’s a possibility. Money is a strong motivator, and people expect their giving to benefit them and/or their progeny in some way.
In an op-ed in the Harvard Crimson, two students argued in favor of legacy admissions. “[M]any alumni, consciously or not, give because they hope that their children will be able to attend Harvard,” they write. “They also give because they want the Harvard that their children may attend to be as great as the one they attended. Such donations subsidize on-campus opportunities for all Harvard students—including the majority who are not legacies.”
Another (former?) student urged Harvard to end legacy preferences: “Coming from well-educated and relatively wealthy parents, our (future) children will already have an enormous advantage in the college admissions process. Should they ever decide to apply to and be accepted at Harvard, we would not want them to have any doubt in their minds that it is because of their abilities and future potential – not because their parents are Harvard alumni.”
If we want to be consistent in our arguments against skin color preferences, we must oppose legacy preferences for the same reasons. 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 a boatload of money every year.
(Photo credit: ABC News)
1
Christopher Wiseman
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Perhaps my belief is far too simplistic but I have always believed that the most effective “affirmative action” should be based on economic need rather than a completely subjective category such as race. Further as we become more of a “multicultural” society, do we revert to the “one drop” Jim Crow laws to determine “blackness” or are formulas to be based on racial/ancestral percentages, i.e., Obama would be entitled to only a 1/2 affirmative action score?
Economic need and poverty bare no preference for sex, race, religion, or cultural group. Whether in Appalachia or North Las Vegas, poverty breeds crime, lack of business and educational opportunity, and economic resources, yet the potential for success in the individual, knows no boundaries.
Identifying [insert student, small business, etc.] with the drive to succeed, the demonstrated ability to succeed, and the willingness to take responsibility for actions both good and bad, are factors that would indicate a far greater chance of success than determinations based in whole or in part with race or gender.
In the case of legacy preferences in public institutions, the test should be no different. Economic disadvantage is real, it is quantifiable, and it can be remedied in an even handed way. This country was founded with abhorrence for built in systems for economic and political power found in the monarchies of Europe. The legacy of our educational system should be of merit, not money.