Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
Adam Freedman ·
Oct 15, 2010 at 10:31am
According to a recent book, Affirmative Action for the Rich, it’s not just unfair but downright unconstitutional for state universities to give legacy preferences. Author Richard Kahlenberg summarizes his argument against legacies in the Chronicle for Higher Education. The legal argument is just part of his assault, but in a nutshell, he says:
- The Constitution’s prohibition against states granting “any Title of Nobility” was intended to wipe out all “government-sponsored hereditary privileges,” and
- The 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause extends broadly to what Justice Potter Stewart called “preference based on lineage.” (h/t: Above the Law)
Okay, I’m not convinced. But the book’s title got me thinking: do we favor legacy preferences? I suspect many of us oppose affirmative action because it is fundamentally unfair and impedes the creation of a true meritocracy. Isn’t it the same for legacy admissions? (I reserve the right to change my mind when my daughter reaches college age).
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
Two questions come to mind...
1. Why does he assume that legacies at state universities are "the Rich"? It's at best an indirect link for any university, but why should state school graduates be considered a "Nobility".
2. Is this the most important issue facing higher education? Have they nothing more important to worry over?
Edited on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:45amJul '10
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
Legacy admissions? Uh-uh. Try "alumni-contribution admissions."
The fact is that just being an alumn counts for squat. But being an alumn who generously donates to your alma mater causes the gates to swing wide.
That's capitalism, folks.
Jul '10
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
It is not only past alumni contributions, at competitive schools future contributions are factored in as well. SAT scores are secondary and that's the way it is. Yeah, yeah, there ought to be a law to change human nature. But hands off affirmative action, of course.
Edited on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:19amRe: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
To clarify, I think that Kahlenberg is opposed to legacy preferences at all universities -- so when he talks about "the Rich," he's including private universities. But the constitutional arguments apply only to "state actors" so they're limited to public institutions.
Jun '10
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
Unconstitutional? -- no problem. It shouldn't be any harder to define "continuity" than it was "diversity" as an institutional rationale for what would otherwise be an unconstitutional preference -- these guys being smart and all.
May '10
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
Excellent.
The Constitution’s prohibition against states granting “any Title of Nobility” was intended to wipe out all “government-sponsored hereditary privileges,”
I completely fail to see the nobility argument. Legacy admissions only work at a single school. There is no generalized notion of nobility.
Edited on Oct 15, 2010 at 1:22pmAug '10
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
This is a pretty silly argument for several reasons, and I say that as someone who is not a fan of legacy admissions.
The "nobility" thing is largely specious because legacy is mostly an issue at private schools who we might imagine deserve some freedom of association rights, however ill-advised or distasteful it may be for them to exercise them. I think (but may be wrong) that the service academies have legacy, but I could be wrong about that.
Also, it's probably worth noting that Grutter relied heavily on the idea of granting deference to university officials. (Which of course raises the jurisprudential paradox of applying "deference" to an issue that is supposed to decided by "strict scrutiny," but whatever). Therefore taking this logic seriously would require reversing Grutter.
Finally, I got a chuckle that the first "myth" is that legacy is a tie-breaker, and cites Espenshade to the effect that it's worth about 160 SAT points. This is true, but the left is always telling us that race is just a tie-breaker and in Espenshade's analyses the black effect is much bigger than the legacy effect.
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
I went to a high school where being a legacy mattered not only in admissions but in how the students were treated once there. I quickly got over the "this is unfair" feeling when I realized that it was still a meritocracy -- all the top students were first-generation. Even when others got a leg-up, the best still thrived. College is an even larger scale example of that. Sure, you might argue, but what about the people who didn't get in because slots went to presumably lesser qualified legacies? Yeah, but they're still going to end up at a school where they will do well. That's never taken away from them.
Aug '10
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
For a public university I would indeed oppose legacy admissions. Government-run institutions shouldn't discriminate on lineage.
Private universities should be allowed to use whatever criteria they want for admissions, including legacy.
Jul '10
Re: Are Legacy Admissions Unconstitutional?
I am not a fan of legacy admission policies. At some level they perpetuate a sense of unnecessary aristocratic privilege.
But, really? A Constitutional issue? Utter nonsense. Our system of higher education has scads of problems that need to be solved before this one. This at best a distraction. At worst, something else to blame the miserable state of our Universities on.