End Legacy Admissions
By Marina Avilova ‘23
As independent organizations, private schools often forego their own standards for money. Giving preference to children of wealthy alumni has always been a tool of elite institutions such as Phillips Exter. This paved path for the well-connected is, by definition, an act against diversity. Here is why legacy admissions are not only classist, but also racist.
First, we have to unpack the motivations behind legacy admissions. Unsurprisingly for a problem endemic to elite prep schools and universities, it largely comes down to money. Harvard’s Report for the Committee to Study Race Neutral Alternatives notes that “financial support [through alumni donations] is essential to Harvard’s position as a leading institution of higher learning; indeed, it helps make the financial aid policies possible that help the diversity and excellence of the College’s student body.” The reasoning of the aforementioned piece was that, by raising the number of parents with money, Harvard would raise the frequency of large donations. But legacy admissions seem antithetical to the very diversity Harvard’s report claims the school promotes.
There’s simply no denying that legacy admissions have been used in the past to keep out diverse, non-white populations from secluded institutions like Harvard (or Exeter). One might argue, however, that with the increase of BIPOC alumni in the last few decades, legacy admissions have become less racist. Such a view ignores the context of our modern world, where systemic racism still keeps predominantly white institutions from diversifying. Behind a facade of equality stands a calcified arrangement that clings to the exclusive principles of the past.
William Deresiewicz, a former Yale professor, comments on the situation, “Our new multiracial, gender-neutral meritocracy has figured out a way to make itself hereditary.” As much as we desperately want to view legacy admissions as a social climbing opportunity, as some way to help students get ahead, it wasn’t designed that way—and the numbers show it.
“Whatever the incidental benefit to a handful of people of color, legacy admissions preferences primarily serve to advantage the advantaged: The overwhelming majority of beneficiaries continue to be white and often wealthy applicants who do not need another leg up in the world.” says Ashton Lattimore of the Washington Post. Legacy admissions have created a separate stream, an aristocracy of sorts. It is yet another reinforcement to the already deeply ingrained and deeply racist apparatus of hereditary privilege that keeps Black and other people of color from reaching equality.
A New York Times study showed that, out of 10,000 boys who grew up in rich families, only 17% of Black men (already fewer in number) retained their wealth in adulthood, as opposed to 39% of white men. And, of course, schools like Exeter already had far fewer BIPOC alumni to begin with. The systemic racism that allowed for this is only perpetuated by a legacy admissions system that mainly relies on money. “One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” Ibram X. Kendi said about the aforementioned study.
A system that supports classism is, therefore, a system that supports racism—the two cannot be separated. Legacy admissions are an example of continuing to rely on what has worked well (for the institutions’ budgets) in defiance of the right thing to do. We need to dig at the very root of the rotting tree to achieve true meritocracy. Then, and only then, can the Academy proudly state that it gives equal opportunity to youth from every quarter.