Legacy Preferences

Richard Kahlenberg: Lineage Preferences Un-American

by lbarber on 10/05/2010

in Legacy Preferences

The New York Times blog The Choice is running a series on a book edited by Richard Kahlenberg, Affirmative Action for the Rich.

On the first post, the editor himself left this comment: (emphasis added)

The preference is provided based on lineage, which is un-American, and, according to three chapters in the book, is probably illegal as well, at both public and private universities.

So too, unlike preferences for disadvantaged students, legacy preferences aren’t a corrective in the admissions process — trying to recognize the obstacles that a student has had to overcome. Quite the opposite, they advantage the already advantaged.

A preference based on lineage is un-American…I’ve never heard it put that way before, but racial preferences opponents no doubt agree with the idea. I do. As lineage is “descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction,” shouldn’t the rationale also apply to preferences based on one’s membership in a racial group? Racial groups can be described as a sort of extended family, and its members share ancestry to varying degrees. The same arguments against lineage favoritism apply equally to racial/ethnic favoritism.

Kahlenberg seems to favor class-based preferences over race-based, from what I discerned from a few articles.

In the second post in the series, the blogger quotes from the book, including Kahlenberg’s call to “outlaw alumni preferences at all universities and colleges receiving federal financing.”

Yes, let’s! And while Congress is at it, outlaw racial and sex-based preferences at all universities and colleges receiving federal financing.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Legacy and Racial Preferences

by lbarber on 09/23/2010

in Legacy Preferences,Roger Clegg

Two major differences between legacy preferences and racial preferences are: 1) legacy preferences are racially neutral, although they might have a disparate impact on certain racial minorities; 2) the former are legal. Granting special treatment to children of alumni isn’t illegal; discriminating against individuals based on skin color is illegal.

Richard D. Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation edited a new book titled, Affirmative Action for the Rich, which tracks the history of legacy preferences in college admissions. He believes it’s time for legacy admissions to die. I agree. An excerpt from Inside Higher Ed:

[Kahlenberg] noted, and chapters of the book document, that the highly competitive nature of elite college admissions has focused scrutiny on why applicants are or are not admitted. Further, the elimination of affirmative action in several states (a shift Kahlenberg expects to spread), he says, makes it “hard to justify alumni preferences when you have gotten rid of help for minorities. Finally, he noted, “we are going through a populist moment in this country, where there is anger at illegitimate preferences or unfair advantages for wealthy people, and it seems to me that this issue is one that’s plainly unfair and Americans get that.”

The book offers legal reasons — such as those argued in two law review articles in 2008 — why alumni favoritism may be vulnerable to legal challenges.

Commenting on the article, the Center for Equal Opportunity‘s Roger Clegg said he believes legacy preferences should be abolished, at least in government-supported schools; however, he added that it’s wrong to argue that legacy preferences justify race-based admissions.

For example, some racial preferences proponents assert that since legacy preferences exist and tend to benefit white and Asian applicants, racial minority preferences should exist to balance things out. Clegg responds to this assertion in a 2003 article he wrote on the topic (emphasis added):

[T]he overwhelming majority of white and Asian applicants to any school are not children of alumni, so giving a preference to other groups simply results in double discrimination against most applicants, who are neither legacies nor the right skin color (it also would give a double preference to blacks and Latinos who happen to be legacies).

But, the objection continues, whites and Asians are more likely to have parents who are alumni from somewhere, and blacks and Latinos are more likely to have parents who are alumni from nowhere, so the net effect of legacy preferences is to help whites and Asians get in somewhere — assuming all schools have them — so why not counterbalance this?

But the logical counterbalance in this case would be a preference to all students for whom neither parent went to college. Why assume that all whites and Asians have a parent who is an alumnus, and that no blacks and Latinos do? Besides, a student may have strong and legitimate reasons for wanting to go to, say, the University of Michigan rather than his father’s alma mater at Mesa State in Colorado, and it’s not at all clear why the preference he might get at the latter — but doesn’t want — should justify racial discrimination against him at the former.

The focal point of all of these discussions should be what’s fair to the individual, regardless of how much money his parents make or whether his ancestors were slaves. Fueling the continuing cycle of government racial discrimination are disparities between the races. But it’s neither legal nor fair to penalize someone based on his race in order to bestow an advantage on another based on his race.

I tend to repeat myself on this blog, because these concepts are very simple. Regardless of the state of the country or present condition of certain racial groups, we the people must not allow our government to make decisions about people based on their membership in a racial group. Need you really ask why?

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Chicago to Experiment with Socioeconomic Status Admissions

by lbarber on 12/23/2009

in Class-Based,Legacy Preferences

diversityRacial preferences proponents in Chicago are panicking, if you believe this story, over a plan to consider a student’s socioeconomic status rather than his skin color when assigning to magnet and selective government schools.

In recent years, courts have ordered school districts to keep race out of the assignment equation. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that schools in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington, could not use race as a tiebreaker when assigning students. Bureaucrats must be subtler about discriminating and preferring certain races over others.

On the other hand, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that Berkeley Unified School District’s race-based assignment plan did not violate the state’s ban on racial preferences.

A 1980 consent decree, which allowed Chicago to assign students by race, was vacated in September. Affected schools will consider socioeconomic and legacy factors to assign students. Minority parents fear (strong word) the change will negatively impact their children. An excerpt:

“The data obtained by the Chicago News Cooperative shows that where race was not used as a factor in admissions, 85 percent of either black or white students would have to change schools to achieve an even distribution between the two groups across the entire school system. But in schools where race is allowed to be a factor in admissions, only 62 percent of either black or white students would have to change schools.

“Similarly, to achieve a balanced mix of black and Hispanic students throughout the district, 69 percent of either group would have to move at schools where race is considered in admissions. Where race is not taken into account, 81 percent of such students would have to switch schools.

The practical challenges to school integration are substantial, in part because white students make up only about 9 percent of the public school population, compared to a white population of 31.5 percent in the city. But at magnet, gifted, classical and selective-enrollment schools, 17 percent of the students are white, nearly double their presence throughout the public school system, according to data from the Illinois State Board of Education.”

After all, a balanced mix of races is what’s most important. According to “research,” the performance of lower-income students can be improved when they attend classes with higher-income students. But there’s a problem. The majority of students in Chicago are from low-income homes.

This is one of the reasons some racial preferences proponents prefer race-based assignments over socioeconomic status assignments. Is socioeconomic preference, or poverty, to be precise, a proxy for race?

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Legacy Preferences Redux

by lbarber on 12/29/2008

in Legacy Preferences,Ward Connerly

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.

According to Dalmia:

“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 }

Ban Legacy Preferences

by lbarber on 12/02/2008

in Legacy Preferences

legacy admissionsWhy 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)

Related Posts with Thumbnails

{ Comments on this entry are closed }