“Affirmative action for the privileged.”
U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s June 29th tweet following this June’s overturning of affirmative action by the Supreme Court brings up a both necessary and unprecedented question. Calling out Harvard’s legacy admissions process in her post, a practice which the Justice Department recently launched an investigation into, Cortez seemingly equates the two disputed processes to each other—if you take down one, you must take down the other. While the tweet primarily underlines the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court, it also demonstrates the complexity of the data, raising the ultimate question of if there even is a “right” answer to admissions.
Affirmative action has sought to ensure that students of color receive fair treatment in the application process, specifically addressing systemic barriers such as underfunded districts and a lack of resources. Achieving a diverse student body not only promotes impactful educational experiences through the intentional exposure of a variety of perspectives and lifestyles, but it also gives more opportunities to otherwise indirectly excluded college applicants. The removal of affirmative action makes this difficult.
In response to the reversal of affirmative action, the demand for the abolishment of legacy admissions is being put under the spotlight, a practice that prioritizes the admissions of students and relatives of a school’s alumni and is wildly unpopular amongst public opinion and party lines. In Harvard’s case, white applicants are the beneficiary of legacy admissions: 70% of legacy and donor-related applicants are white, and these students are “six to seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than non-legacy applicants,” according to an article released last month by the BBC.
Following the trial from Students for Fair Admissions, Harvard is now being sued by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based group that “works with communities of color and immigrants to fight discrimination and foster equity through creative and courageous legal advocacy, education, and economic empowerment.” Their motive for the lawsuit aims to combat the fact that “up to 15% of admitted students” at Harvard are of Donor and Legacy Preferences, and that these preferences “advantage white applicants” and “systematically disadvantage students of color,” as stated in the lawsuit.
It makes sense, and even the 6-2 majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts seems to agree that legacy admissions are unfair. “A benefit provided to some applicants and not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter,” the opinion reads: a development that legacy admissions easily unveils. Harvard has not provided a clear answer about its approach to legacy admissions. The university offered to continue to “review aspects of their admissions process” in a statement to CNN, hoping to remain “dedicated to opening doors to opportunity,” but has not spoken of legacy admissions yet. However, other esteemed institutions have abandoned the practice, such as Wesleyan College and MIT.
Yet several factors discourage institutions like Harvard from giving up donor and legacy admissions. In addition to contributing to a strong alumni network and community, the intentional inclusion of legacy and donor applicants, according to a 2017 study conducted by the Committee to Study Race-Neutral Alternatives, preserves the “generous financial support,” that enables expansive financial aid policies. Harvard fears that removing legacy admissions would diminish engagement and support amongst alumni, despite many studies finding minimal evidence that legacy preferences are more likely to donate or that Harvard would be worse off financially without them.
In a world where admission and access to education still excludes many races and socioeconomic classes, removing affirmative action while preserving legacy admissions will perpetuate the stigma, especially around elite institutions, that only the most privileged applicants deserve an advanced education—a reputation that these institutions have been working hard to reverse. It is a “textbook example of systemic racism,” as written by James Murphy in a new report by Education Reform now, and legacy admissions hinder a college’s ability to effectively commit to and achieve diversity.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, Harvard has made slight adjustments to its application process. Removing its initial optional supplemental essay, Harvard has implemented five required short response questions into its Common Application, in time for the Class of 2024 admissions cycle. Such questions include “How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard?” and “How do you hope to use your Harvard education in the future?” These questions are intended to give students an opportunity to additionally expose their identity and personal experiences in light of the Supreme Court decision. Harvard should not stop here.
Additional essay prompts will not suffice in the pursuit of protecting racial diversity on Harvard’s campus. They cannot guarantee that diversity will effectively be recognized and welcomed, especially in light of the fact that Harvard’s loyalty to the privileged still stands. Instead, real, concrete changes need to be made to actually ensure that Harvard’s promise to “foster a diverse student body” and “advance a culture of belonging” is not being broken.
A commitment to diversity cannot exist if an institution is also committed to classism. As seen with the removal of affirmative action from California schools in 1996, rates of diverse admits will likely drop, ultimately impacting access to higher paying jobs and career pathways. If the Lawyers for Civil Rights beat Harvard, the institution ought to remove legacy admissions out of a genuine recognition of its injustice and not because they were obligated to do so. If Harvard continues to defend the controversial practice of legacy admissions, then we all must ask ourselves; who is it really benefiting?
Layla Chaaraoui ’26 (laylachaaraoui@college.harvard.edu) wants college admissions to be fair, diverse, and not based on whether or not you have a building with your last name on it.