What do you think about the growing demands for a US investigation into Harvard's legacy admissions? Forum

[AdminMod2]

Hey everyone, have you heard about the recent buzz surrounding Harvard's legacy admissions practices? It seems that more and more people are raising their voices, demanding a thorough investigation into the university's policies. As we know, legacy admissions give preferential treatment to applicants with family ties to Harvard, which some argue perpetuates privilege and limits opportunities for deserving students. Now, with the calls for scrutiny growing louder, it's time to discuss: should Harvard's legacy admissions be put under the microscope? What do you think about this issue?

[Aapl]

Legacy admissions cuts both ways. How about the Black and Hispanic Harvard grads who want their kids to go to Harvard?

How about the preference for the kids of Harvard Professors? Wipe that out too?

And of course the inevitable answer to all of this is to file suit to wipe out admissions preferences for the athletic programs. Why should bench pressing 300 pounds get you into Harvard? And who will that impact? The old saying "Be careful what you wish for...."

[Serjatclaw]

I doubt it will matter. Even without legacy admissions, being born to a family with Harvard ties (aka being born affluent and well-connected) practically guarantees an advantage over all other students. It's not like fixating on a single admissions practice is going to dissolve these generations-spanning networks of wealthy people or make them less influential.

They might do away with legacy admissions if they feel pressured enough, but it will do nothing to address inequality. Legacy admissions simply streamlined this already existing pipeline of rich kids going to prestigious schools (which are predominately run by people who, to no one's surprise, were also rich kids at some point).

[The Lsat Airbender]

Realistically, the Biden admin aren't going to push too hard on this and risk getting unfavorable law from the current SCOTUS

[msft]

Realistically, the Biden admin aren't going to push too hard on this and risk getting unfavorable law from the current SCOTUS

I will help you Last Airbender, no charge.


Harvard Aff Act case decided June 29, 2023.

The next big Harvard admissions case?

Audrey Anderson, who heads the higher education practice at Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, states the following. (Bloomberg Law podcast July 11, 2023)

Legacy and Donor Preferences

Special consideration for legacy and donors? Title 6 violation? Does it discriminate on the basis of race if school gets fed funding? A reg that Dept of Ed issued, that you can't have a disparate impact based on race. Most of those benefiting are white (legacy and donor preferences), therefore disparate impact, therefore Title 6 violation?

SCOTUS case, 2001, Alexander v Sandoval, a private party can't sue to enforce these kinds of regs under title 6.

Scalia said these regs re: disparate impact, are not authorized by title 6 therefore unenforceable.

The only thing title 6 outlaws is intentional discrimination.

In this case (legacy and donor preferences) they are not intentionally using race

(This case does not attack athlete preferences or the preferences for those who work at Harvard)

Anderson states the case is about putting political pressure on Harvard to stop donor and legacy preferences

USC, Johns Hopkins, Amherst, MIT, got rid of legacy preferences

It has only marginally improved diversity. Helps by 1% or less.

These preferences are not based on race

SCOTUS: Title 6 only prohibits intentional discrimination, the disparate impact rules (dept of ed) are not allowed by the text of title 6

THE TEXT OF TITLE 6 ONLY PROHIBITS INTENTIONAL DISCRIM

SCOTUS can't strike down things that private parties do

Fed funds
Harvard gets hundreds of millions of fed funds

Donor funds
There are restrictions on those
Harvard can't use the money for another purpose

Nor can Harvard use the money earned on those funds for another purpose

This complaint was filed with Dept of Ed Office for Civil Rights, they decide if they want to open an investigation

This is not made public

This is not a lawsuit, that's very important

This will be completely private until a settlement is announced