Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the SC eliminates affirmative action then legacy needs to go as well. There are millions of people that were systematically denied the ability to be a legacy. Many colleges well into the 1970s only admitted a token number of URMs.
If AA is outlawed but not legacies then we are outright giving an advantage to the majority. Don’t see how this would make any sense.
Oh, boy. A real legal scholar here.
I think this is the best practical argument for affirmative action. Legacy preference plus sports recruiting (water polo, lacrosse, etc) as a practical matter favor whites. Without affirmative action, you could have a situation where the academic credentials of black and Hispanic students would have to be stronger than whites (and in fact, that is the case with Asians now, who don't benefit from sports and legacy to the same extent whites do)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes are more likely to donate. Grads who don’t fall into those categories don’t understand the importance of donating.
I was an athlete. Educate me, what is the importance of donating to a school with an enormous endowment when there are other causes I can support?
Being grateful for the education you received and wanting to pay it forward.
I paid for the education I received. There are a lot of competing causes out here.
Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes are more likely to donate. Grads who don’t fall into those categories don’t understand the importance of donating.
Anonymous wrote:A few universities do it already (MIT?). It’s not a good look in this era, so only a matter of time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Soon, I hope, especially if the SC strikes down affirmative action.
Very difficult to rationalize giving a thumb on the scale to children of alumni (who generally skew wealthier and have received more advantages) than to underrepresented minorities.
Last year a lawmaker in NY introduced a bill that would ban legacy preferences at all NY colleges (public and private) but a quick Google search doesn't bring much up, so I guess that's dead or stalled.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S8498
I kind of wonder that if affirmative action is illegal (rather than just not mandated), how it is that legacy admissions (which are also naturally based on origin) are legal? I'd love to hear a lawyer explain that one (clearly I'm not a lawyer).
The protected classes are generally race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin. No discrimination/preferential treatment for or against (except is limited circumstances). Legacy status is not covered by the applicable laws or precedents.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the SC eliminates affirmative action then legacy needs to go as well. There are millions of people that were systematically denied the ability to be a legacy. Many colleges well into the 1970s only admitted a token number of URMs.
If AA is outlawed but not legacies then we are outright giving an advantage to the majority. Don’t see how this would make any sense.
Oh, boy. A real legal scholar here.
Anonymous wrote:If the SC eliminates affirmative action then legacy needs to go as well. There are millions of people that were systematically denied the ability to be a legacy. Many colleges well into the 1970s only admitted a token number of URMs.
If AA is outlawed but not legacies then we are outright giving an advantage to the majority. Don’t see how this would make any sense.
Anonymous wrote:Why it is in the interest of the university for legacy admissions to continue - outside of donations?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why it is in the interest of the university for legacy admissions to continue - outside of donations?
Once elite colleges stop filling 1/3+ of the class with legacies (they tend to be the children of the uber-wealthy, CEOs, SCOTUS, Senators, celebrities, etc.), the school stops feeling quite so “elite.”