You can’t see my face right now. But I’m smiling.The Supreme Court recently ruled that Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause by engaging in racial preferences in favor of blacks in admissions. Many if not most higher education institutions reacted with fury, promising to find new ways to carrying out the racial preferences. As noted, Harvard has been particularly brazen, SCOTUS “gave universities a narrow opening, and Harvard just announced it’s going to drive an affirmative action truck right through it”.The colleges and universities that have been the most aggressive and belligerent in defending illegal race-based affirmative action are finding their most cherished and lucrative admissions practices challenged: Legacy and Donor preferences.I’m down for it, as I wrote yesterday, reiterating my long-held view, By All Means, Eliminate Legacy And Donor Admissions Preferences Because They Are Corrupting, Regardless of Racial Impact
I am against legacy admissions preferences regardless of whether they have a racial impact on admissions, because they contribute to a cronyism that shifts the focus from the individual’s merits to the school’s interest in developing alumni fundraising. I’d like to see all identity-group admissions preferences eliminated to level the playing field and to increase the focus on the intrinsic merit of each applicant without regard to group identity.
Harvard not only was a big perp of racial preferences, it also loves it some legacies, though the practice is waning after the federal court case that resulted in the SCOTUS loss revealed the statistics:
36% of the Harvard Class of 2022 may claim a relative who was a student there in the past. Harvard legacy acceptance rate for the Class of 2025 is fascinating to look at, which is 16%. Similarly, only 12% of the new Crimson students who enrolled for the Class of 2024 identified themselves as legacy students.Students who have at least one parent who graduated from Harvard or Radcliffe, the university’s old sister institution, are considered “legacy students” by the admissions office at Harvard University. This “tip” has been granted to legacy students for many years.
The rabid virtue signaling that has greeted the SCOTUS decision puts these heavly legacy schools in a bind – and that bind may lead to legal action, as just happened to Harvard, Harvard’s legacy admission targeted in civil rights complaint, in wake of national affirmative action ban:
Harvard University’s admission practices unfairly favor children of alumni and wealthy donors, according to a civil rights complaint filed Monday with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.The complaint, filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights on behalf of Boston-area advocacy groups representing Black and Latino residents, calls for a federal investigation of Harvard’s admissions process and an end to so-called legacy and donor-related admissions, which gives admissions preference to the children and relatives of donors and alumni.
From the Complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education:
Each year, Harvard College grants special preference in its admissions process to hundredsof mostly white students – not because of anything they have accomplished, but rather solelybecause of who their relatives are. Applicants whose relatives are wealthy donors to Harvard, orwhose parents are Harvard alumni, are flagged at the outset of Harvard’s admissions process andare granted special solicitude and extra “tips” throughout. The students who receive these specialpreferences (“Donor and Legacy Preferences”) are significantly more likely to be accepted thanother applicants, and constitute up to 15% of Harvard’s admitted students.The students who receive this preferential treatment – based solely on familial ties – areoverwhelmingly white. Nearly 70% of donor-related applicants are white, and nearly 70% oflegacy applicants are also white.1 The results of this preferential treatment are substantial. Forexample, over the period 2014-2019:
• Donor-related applicants were nearly 7 times more likely to be admitted compared tonon-donor-related applicants; and• Legacy applicants were nearly 6 times more likely to be admitted compared to nonlegacy applicants.2
At the same time that Donor and Legacy Preferences disproportionately advantage white
applicants, they systematically disadvantage students of color, including Black, Latinx, and Asian Americans. As the Supreme Court has recently stated: “A benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter.”3 For example, experts have concluded that: (1) removing legacy preferences would increase admissions for applicants of color; and (2) approximately one-quarter of the white students admitted would not have been admitted if the Donor and Legacy Preferences, among others, did not exist.4 Further, these Donor and Legacy Preferences are not justified by any educational necessity because Harvard cannot show that the use of these preferences is necessary to achieve any important educational goal. To the contrary, the preferential treatment is conferred without regard to the applicant’s credentials or merits – the benefit is derived simply from being born into a particular family.This preferential treatment violates federal law….
I doubt legacy and donor practices violate federal law. Those benefits are available to the Obamas.
But there’s a certain satisfaction in seeing institutions like Harvard which practices and defended racial preferences getting it from all sides. The whole admissions system, like much of the administration of higher education, is a Potemkin Village of virtue signaling that needs to be exposed from every angle.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY