The Supremes have ruled, in the Students For Fair Admissions case, that Harvard and UNC (and probably every other school in the country except Hillsdale) used race in admissions decisions in an unconstitutional manner. Hallelujah, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
The lefties are howling that the decision is raaaaaaaacist, that it perpetuates white supreeeeeeeeeeeemacy, and that in order to strike back at the evil white people, so-called legacy admissions at universities should be scrapped:
The next big fight over college admissions already has taken hold, and it centers on a different kind of minority group that gets a boost: children of alumni.
In the wake of a Supreme Court decision that strikes down affirmative action in admissions, colleges are coming under renewed pressure to put an end to legacy preferences — the practice of favoring applicants with family ties to alumni. Long seen as a perk for the white and wealthy, opponents say it’s no longer defensible in a world with no counterbalance in affirmative action.
It's a stupid argument, like most leftie arguments. We didn't fight a civil war over legacy admissions.
However bad their argument, I agree with their solution. As a taxpayer, I want public universities as well as private universities that get government money to be focused on education. I want admissions based on merit and academic achievement. I don't care who your parents are, I don't care if you worked at the soup kitchen, I want my tax dollars to support academic excellence.
So I'm all for getting rid of legacy admissions, especially for marginally-qualified students. I also support getting rid of athletic scholarships, especially for people who have no academic chance of graduating; let the major sports leagues create their own minor leagues. Let's get our schools back in the business of educating.
Update, 7/2/23: I think the left missed its target, as I don't think you'll find a tremendous amount of support for legacy admissions outside of those who fund or receive them. It's not the "bullseye on the right's chest" that the left hoped it would be:
In reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that race-based affirmative action violates the Equal Protection Clause, there has been a lot of what-about-ism.
The biggest what about is college legacy and donor preferential treatment, meaning applicants who have an alumni family connection or who were related to a major donor received preference. As if those preferences somehow excuse the illegal racial preferences that permeate higher education...
Lower and middle income white students also are disadvantaged because they receive zero preference: Not race, not legacy, not donor. The legacy and donor preference may benefit wealthy whites, but they also increasing benefit wealthy college-graduate blacks and other non-white groups.
So it’s a mixed bag, and a what-about-ism that really doesn’t even answer the question of whether racial preferences are unconstitutional.
But to the extent “eliminate legacy and donor preferences” is a dare, I accept it and agree. By all means eliminate the corrupting influence of legacy and donor admissions preferences.
I'm glad we can find this common ground with our friends on the left.
This comment on that post was 100% correct:
The court will never rule on legacy admissions because there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
If the whiners in Congress really wanted to do away with legacy admissions though they could simply pass a law that states that any college that accepts any Federal money must not have a legacy system.
But they’d rather whine about it for political points.
Update #2, 7/8/23:
3 comments:
So I'm all for getting rid of legacy admissions, especially for marginally-qualified students.
I'm curious about the mechanics of legacy admissions. I assume that legacy admissions relate more to the amount donated by the alumnus, with the number going higher for a more remedial student. Would charitable donations take a hit? Most of the prestigious universities have well-funded endowments.
I also support getting rid of athletic scholarships, especially for people who have no academic chance of graduating; let the major sports leagues create their own minor leagues.
I've attended two big football schools. Ohio State and Clemson. The end of athletic scholarships would be interesting. Alumni really like a good football game, but it would be tough to field an NFL quality team based on academics. It would be fun to try. How about private high school scholarships?
What if universities just had a transparent system? Make it clear how admission points are awarded, and see what happens.
I *love* Army football, although I fear for this year's performance. Still, I'd rather give up college football than fund millionaires through my taxes; universities should be about education, not football.
As for your suggestion just to be transparent about admissions, that would be great in theory but I wonder if it would be even easier to game such a system.
I may not have the exact solution at hand, but I know I don't like the system we have now. No sir, not at all.
As a former high school Head Coach, I can say there were a few majors in the past who had academic standards, Penn State was forced to recruit athletes that could qualify as a regular student. They were given (I believe) 6 exceptions for scholarships. If those students failed to meet academic standards after admission, the next # of allowable exceptions was reduced. I know I had a player they were recruiting until they looked at his academics. Then , no go. This was a few years ago and that player ended up in the MAC. I think you have to look at Vanderbilt or Georgia Tech for those standards now. Military academies Excluded.
Post a Comment