By Sonali Kolhatkar
Who will benefit from the Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down race as a factor in college admissions? Mostly, just wealthy white people.
That’s because the ruling refused to touch so-called “legacy admissions.” Colleges are free to continue giving preferential treatment to the children of alumni, donors, and other well-connected, privileged people.
Former president George W. Bush is a classic example of how legacy admissions are effectively a form of affirmative action for the rich. How else would a mediocre student like him be admitted to Yale University? Because his father and grandfather were Yale alumni.
Legacy admissions give wealthy people a leg-up in ensuring that generational wealth, privilege, and power remain in the family. And the origins of the practice lie in antisemitism.
According to Jerome Karabel’s book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, legacy admissions were a way to reduce the number of Jewish Americans who were academically qualified to win admission but who didn’t fit into the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant tradition that such schools uplifted. Elite universities changed the goal posts, ensuring that family ties gave mediocre but well-connected white Protestants an edge.
That preferential treatment continues today, reinforcing white supremacy.
For example, according to the Ivy League admissions consulting firm Admission Sight, “more than 36 percent of the students in the Harvard Class of 2022 are descendants of previous Harvard students.” Students whose parents didn’t attend Harvard had, since 2015, “a five times lower chance of being accepted.”
And where legacy admissions don’t apply, wealthy families have yet another entry point: plain old bribery.
In a court case stemming from the college admissions scandal that broke in 2019, it was revealed that the University of Southern California was willing to consider applicants whose families offered large donations to the school. These “special interest” or “VIP” donors received preferential treatment.
Even the public University of California system has been found to give preferential treatment to wealthy white applicants. A state audit found that at least 64 people, most of them wealthy and white, were admitted in recent years to UC schools solely because of their family connections and donations.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling on affirmative action doesn’t end race-based preference. For wealthy white people, it further entrenches it.
The good news is that Neil Gorsuch, a Supreme Court conservative who voted to end affirmative action, also agreed with his dissenting liberal colleagues that legacy admissions had to end.
President Biden responded similarly. “I’m directing the Department of Education to analyze what practices help build… more inclusive and diverse student bodies and what practices hold that back,” Biden said after the ruling. That includes “legacy admissions and other systems that expand privilege instead of opportunity.”
As Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon told MarketWatch, “The longstanding use of legacy and donor preferences in admissions has unfairly elevated children of donors and alumni — who may be excellent students and well-qualified, but are the last people who need an extra leg up in the complicated and competitive college admissions process.”
To that end, Merkley and Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York recently introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, which would end preferential treatment for applications from wealthy, privileged families.
Whether or not the bill moves in Congress, the fact remains that college admissions are biased — toward wealthy white Americans. Those conservatives celebrating the end of affirmative action have exposed yet again how their real agenda is to protect the unfair advantages of wealth.
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This commentary was produced by the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and adapted for syndication by OtherWords.org.
richard says
Why the fuss? It’s all about Class, Race, and Gender for the elites –always has been, always will.
All I can say is plus ca change, plus ne change pas; c’est la meme chose.
Thucydides was right when he commented in the famous Melian Dialogue–as we learned in school, the enraged all-powerful elitist Athenians tried to force the tiny island of Melos into joining them in a war on Sparta– on the eve of the Peloponnesian War,431-404 BC: ” δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν ‘The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”
Technology changes, but people don’t.
Richard says
Legacy admissions? Nothing new. The elite have their privileges; just ask them.
As Thucydides commented in The Peloponnesian War, 431-404 BC, a really long time ago:
“οι δυνατοί κάνουν ό,τι θέλουν και οι αδύναμοι αντέχουν αυτό που πρέπει
oi dynatoí kánoun ó,ti théloun kai oi adýnamoi antéchoun aftó pou prépei
‘The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”
Technology changes. People? Not so much.
Stephen Playe says
Legacy admissions seem, and in many ways are, unfair. They give some applicants an advantage on the basis of something other than objective academic achievement. This has been true of racial and ethnic selective recruitment and recruitment of star athletes. Maybe athletic scholarships have no place in a fair system. Has anyone been suggesting that?
Also, suggesting that legacy admissions specifically benefit rich, white people fails to acknowledge that many of today’s legacy applicants are the children of the racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies that academia has been selectively educating over the past decades. Today’s legacy applicants are racially, and culturally diverse.
Further, generous donors need not be alumni so the writer should separate, not conflate these issues.
Finally, there is evidence suggesting that the children of alumni are not only more likely to apply to the school, but more likely to be happy there, and more likely to succeed academically than their objectively matched cohort.
Instead of trying to legislate fairness I would propose that we allow colleges and universities to decide how to best fill their ranks to provide the optimal educational environment. They will consider creating an interesting mix of students, maybe some good sports teams and maybe a good dose of rah rah children of alums.
Then the free market will allow them to succeed or fail without the involvement of the Supreme Court.
Sherry says
@ SP. . . Really??? In this “maximize profits”, dark greedy side of Capitalism. . . I would be completely astonished to hear of any university choosing academically worthy students over wealthy ones. “Follow the Money” to learn the motivation for almost everything.
atwp says
Just because Whites appear to have the admissions power dosent mean people of color can’t be admitted to the so called top colleges. We will live, we will get educated, we will prosper. We survived Jim Crowe, why can’t we triumph now? We will.
Wow says
Years ago I worked in IT at a university and I can tell you the “legacies” were handled quite differently from regular applicants. For starters they only paid a small nominal fee to apply. Their qualifying standard was lower. The university did everything they could to accept them and only seldom, very reluctantly, turned one down. Not a level playing field at all.
Sherry says
Thanks for the “factual” information Wow! It’s so interesting to see how often the same people who speak out against giving a “boot strap” to the poor to pull themselves up by are often the same people who give the privilege of the wealthy the OK. There is something very sick about that kind of thinking.