I don't know of any lawsuits, but the obvious comparison is to the Jim Crow Laws, i.e. Poll Tax and literacy tests, and the Grandfather Rule that accompanied them. So the legacy preference is essentially a modern day Grandfather Rule. Of course the con is that not all whites benefit from the legacy preference while the current generation of black applicants can, albeit to a lesser extent, benefit from it.
If the government was serious about making sure that academic qualifications are the only factor in deciding who gets into a school and who doesnt, then shouldn't they speak out as vociferously against legacy admissions as they are against the University of Michigan's Law School admissions criteria? But wait...Didn't the fact that Bush's daddy is a Yale alum entitle him to preferential consideration when he was applying to college?
I think the major argument against affirmitive action programs isnt necessarily that academics should be the sole judge of admissions, but that taking race into account is unconstitional. There is no law on the books banning grandfathering, as far as I know.
Assuming you're being serious here... Those dads and grandads who are conferring legacy status didn't have to compete against minorities for places at the school. So legacies take race into account.
Affirmative action is not unconstitional. What is unconstitutional is setting quotas to go along with it. Also, since we agree that academics shouldn't be the sole deciding factor, don't you think that a campus benefits from a diverse student body? It happens both ways. Some historically black colleges recruit whites with offers of four years of FREE tuition for being from an underrepresented background.
sheesh, citation to authority. What is this an actual intelligent discussion? We should be ashamed of ourselves. With regards to the legacy issue, I have taken Con Law both in law school and as a Government course and we talked about Hopwood v. University of Texas extensively (similar to Michigan case, ended at 5th Circuit, more or less banned any system which provides preferential treatment.). I don't recall any case regarding the legacy issue. But obviously don't quote me on that. In my opinion the Constitutional argument against Public Schools using legacies to base admissions is a pretty solid one. Obviously the rule on its face can benefit all races. However, the disparate impact the rule has on minorities makes it violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I think the argument would have some merit. It would be interesting to see how it played out. Obviously, private schools can, for the most part, do whatever the hell they want.
Okay, I'll offer a deal up to the liberals. We eliminate legacy preferences in exchange for the race-based criteria. What should happen at these universities is that a deadline is set for submitting applications. All academically qualified entries (SAT scores, grades) are thrown into a lottery and picked at random. That's it, easy as pie. Somebody's race, whether they played the flute in their high school band, or volunteered for Greenpeace should have no bearing on their qualifications.
Then you're dismissing other factors beyond academics. Admission boards need to consider non-academic activities to help them pick the most well rounded individuals for their campuses. I am in favor of eliminating the legacy rule as well as the race based initiative. Only the most well rounded individuals should gain admission into the program. Both processes are bunk. They discriminate. Period.
If you leave them the wiggle room to choose most "well-rounded" individuals then the liberals will pick all the do-gooders who volunteered for their school's Earth Day Action Committee and other nonsense like that. While one kid might be working part-time after school at the local Burger joint because he needs extra money, little Trust Fund Justin joins all the extracurricular activities and would be considered more "well-rounded". That puts us in the same boat we're in right now where class and race decide most everything. I say leave it to academic skills only, with a random lottery.
This is probably the best proposal that I've heard to end preferences. It seems a lot fairer than anything else that has been proposed.
Don't universities take into account part-time jobs as an extra curricular activity? I mean, how could you possibly dismiss it as a factor?
You're yanking my chain, right? The SAT is a joke. The only thing it measures is your ability to take it. I increased my score by 350 points in two months. My aptitude rose 350 points in such a short period of time? Hell no. I just learned all the "tricks" of taking it. Yes, that and most standardized tests are full of tricks.
The legacy bonus is so small in comparison to the miscellaneous ones (underrepresented group, scholarship athlete, socioeconomic disadvantage) that its use is mainly as a tie-breaker amongst fairly equal candidates. Based on the UM scales, the four points for legacy would equate to a .2 GPA boost (moving a 3.4 to the equivalent to a 3.6), but the points for anything in the miscellaneous category would move a 3.0 student to the equivalent of a 4.0. My opinion is that they should attack the entire "miscellaneous" category (I'm surprised no one has sued a school ever over the admittance of scholarship athletes with lower numbers) in the UM scale since that would bring it back to being more about the numbers with certain "enhancement" factors used to admit the most well-rounded students. I think you can declare any of those in the miscellaneous category as enhancement factors, but the point values need to be much lower (say 5 points tops for any of those factors) to bring them in line with other distinguishing attributes which applicants bring to the table.
I agree that the legacy preference is a relatively minor factor at UM Law School (not to mention that even as an affirmative action proponent, I have issues with the point system) such is not the case at every school. To give an example, I know a student who was admitted to the University of North Carolina as a legacy. He had a high school classmate with almost identical qualifications, from the same affluent neighborhood outside of Boston with pretty much the same extra curriculars, but the first student had lower GPA and test scores than the classmate. The first student would have been borderline as an in-state applicant while the second student would have gotten in had he applied in-state. They both applied to UNC and only the legacy student got in (the classmate ended up going to Georgetown - not a bad school, I hear).
And John Edwards comes out for the elimination of legacy preferences in admissions. Maybe he lurks here.
Re: Re: has there been a minority lawsuit against legacy preferences in college admissions? See Ian, when you refer to some people's extracurricular activities as "nonsense" then it's hard to take you seriously. I mean, did it ever occur to you that working after school and and gaining real-world experience would be considered part of a "well-rounded" education, even by us liberals?
I agree, but there should be. Or at least the legacy requirements ought to be eliminated. IF you can't hack it, then you can't hack it.
Re: Re: Re: has there been a minority lawsuit against legacy preferences in college admissions? No, it never occurred to me that working after school would be considered part of a "well-rounded" education by liberals. How many points does the University of Michigan give you again for putting "working after school" on your entrance application?
Re: Re: Re: Re: has there been a minority lawsuit against legacy preferences in college admissions? My guess is "a lot" ... if you're working for your daddy's company and he's worth millions, contributes to the Booster Club etc. etc. etc. You're the one after all that put out the ridiculous suggestion that volunteering for Greenpeace is going to sway the admissions dept. Perhaps volunteering for Greenpeace does no good at all but is in fact a red flag ... ALERT ALERT ... future noncontributing alumni - REJECT.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: has there been a minority lawsuit against legacy preferences in college admissio Yes because we all know wealthy white liberals never contribute their own money to universities, they prefer that funding comes out of the public dole. You know, let the little people pay for their trust fund child's education.