To the Committee on Admissions
Last summer, the Supreme Court held in two companion cases brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina by Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action lobbying group. This group argued that the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions have forced colleges and universities to make fundamental changes to the mechanisms they use to create racially diverse classes, which remains a valid and necessary educational interest. Washington University responded to the Court’s decision by adding an optional supplement to its application for the Class of 2028, which includes questions tackling topics such as communities and life experiences. The Court explicitly stated in its decision that race could be considered in college admissions by means of essays and student writing samples.
The overruling of race-based affirmative action in college admissions was a commendable decision. Morally, affirmative action failed because it gave credence to the notion that one’s worthiness in attending an elite academic institution, such as Harvard, was intrinsically tied to the color of their skin. Legally, affirmative action blatantly violated the Constitution because of its failure to guarantee that no racial discrimination would ever occur in the college admissions process, and because it justified discriminating against some races by advantaging others. As the evidence has shown, Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action programs concretely discriminated against Asian applicants. From a constitutional standpoint, it was irrelevant if Black and Latino applicants benefitted from such programs; because the Equal Protection Clause does not tolerate any sliver of racial discrimination, the Court was correct in striking down race-based affirmative action in its entirety because it created situations which allowed racial stereotypes about Asian applicants to seep into and influence the decision-making process, which is not only racist but deliberately repudiates everything the Fourteenth Amendment stands for.
While ending race-based affirmative action was a necessary step in making the admissions process fairer, it is not an end-all-be-all solution. Indeed, there is one measure every college and university can take to level the playing field for all applicants: eliminating the use of legacy preferences. Legacy preferences grant certain applicants advantages based on factors that are out of their control, which ultimately prevents the college admission process from reaching its full potential in being as fair as possible.
Before we talk about legacy preferences, we must briefly discuss the role that standardized test scores have played in college admissions. While conventional wisdom suggests that SAT or ACT scores are an indicator of one’s ability to succeed in college, the tides have now shifted. Standardized test scores are less of a reflection of an applicant’s academic ability and more of an indicator of their financial standing. Applicants from a wealthier socioeconomic class can afford private tutoring and other resources that will help them score high, which ultimately benefits them in the admissions process. Most colleges and universities, although motivated by the COVID-19 pandemic instead of these realities, enacted test-optional policies, which have somewhat leveled the playing field by opening doors for applicants with fewer means. The University of California system even went a step further, instituting a test-blind policy across its nine campuses, which will curb the influence of money in the admissions process to an arguably greater extent than test-optional policies ever will.
There is one easy measure every college and university can take to level the playing field for all applicants: eliminating the use of legacy preferences.
Why the talk about eliminating test scores in the admission process? If sentiments can shift so rapidly against test scores because of how they perpetuate socioeconomic inequality, then so can the tides around legacy preferences, which do the same thing, and arguably to a greater degree. Giving an advantage to an applicant based on whether their parent attended the same institution, and then deducing the likelihood of the student or their family donating large sums of money to the school, could not be more morally bankrupt. By keeping these preferences intact, institutions demonstrate that they are willing to prioritize money over merits when it serves their interests. This is an unacceptable sentiment on all grounds. If institutions truly aim to make their admission processes fairer, eliminating such preferences would have been the first step they took, especially considering that money can easily be found in other places. Legacy preferences also disproportionately advantage wealthy white applicants, a reality that invites subsequent litigation. If Students for Fair Admissions can successfully argue that the consideration of race in college admissions violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it employs racial discrimination, they can easily employ the same logic with respect to legacy preferences. Democrats have also introduced legislation in Congress to ban legacy preferences nationwide, and the introduction of such legislation should serve as an indicator of just how unpopular these preferences are.
If we want to make the college admission process fairer, let’s act boldly and end legacy preferences once and for all. It’s about time.
Jack Samet ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jack.samet@wustl.edu.