Since the early 1900s, college applicants with familial connections have received preferential treatment in the college admission process. On June 29, the US Supreme Court overturned affirmative action, ending race-conscious admissions in colleges. With this decision, legacy preferences should also be banned as well because it hurts the diversity many colleges claim to want.
Starting in 1920, colleges like Harvard began considering alumni connections to keep their student body exclusively white Protestant. Harvard believed the growing Jewish student body discouraged traditional applicants from attending the school. To protect these applicants’ spots, they increased acceptance rates for upper-class white Protestant legacy students. Most private American universities followed suit, reserving 10-15% of their admitted spots for legacy students. In elite colleges, legacy applicants are six times more likely to be accepted than non-legacy applicants.
“Historically, people with more money have had more access to higher education,” Garfield counselor Kenneth Courtney said. In addition to easier access to standardized tests, private schools, and personal tutors, legacy admissions exacerbate academic disparities between socioeconomic classes by giving admission preferences to upper-class students. Giving extra privileges to legacy students makes it harder for first-generation and low-income students to advance through the opportunities elite colleges provide. This is why ending affirmative action is stupid when unfair systems like Legacy still exist.
In 1995, 96% of Ivy League alumni were white. As a result of this, BIPOC applicants have limited alumni connections compared to their white counterparts. Around 70% of legacy and donor-related students in Harvard’s class of 2019 were white, showing how the recent increase in racial diversity hasn’t made a significant impact on the racial diversity of legacy applicants. After the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Greater Boston Latino Network and other BIPOC advocacy groups filed complaints against Harvard, arguing “A spot given to a legacy or donor-related applicant is a spot that becomes unavailable to an applicant who meets the admissions criteria based purely on his or her own merit.” clearly violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In essence, legacy admissions is affirmative action for the rich, except the rich don’t need it.
So, why do colleges still consider legacy? “The bottom line is money,” Mr. Courtney said, “ If you have money and you give money to a school, your student gets in.” However, research compared the donations Texas A&M received before and after they stopped considering legacy in 2004. Donations actually increased from $61 million to $92 million between 2004 and 2006.
Colleges’ commitment to the outdated legacy system is hypocritical considering elite colleges claim to promote diversity in their college mission statements which legacy clearly violates. Nevertheless, this application season, all the Ivy League universities, and many other private schools will continue to consider legacy when choosing admittees. Legacy does not guarantee acceptance into any school, but it gives an advantage to people who don’t need it.
