It's time to end legacy admissions

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

When the U.S. Supreme Court recently voted to strike down affirmative action admissions programs at colleges and universities, it turned a spotlight on another system that has slid under the radar for far too long and also advantages some students over others on factors other than merit.

Legacy admissions at more selective colleges and universities have long been a way of putting a thumb on the scale for the children of well-to-do or well-connected alums. The practice also has a particularly unsavory history. Developed in the 1920s, it was originally used to exclude Jewish and Catholic students and ensure sufficient spots for wealthy Protestant families. That makes its survival especially untenable, given the court's recent ruling.

How common is the practice? It varies, and data can be hard to come by. A recent New York Times story found that 14% of Yale University's class of 2025 comprised students whose parents had gone to Yale. "If the Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action, legacy preferences will not be long for this world," Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School, said in the story. Driver compared legacy preferences to being "a little like rooting for Elon Musk to purchase the winning lottery ticket."

Higher education officials, including those at the University of Minnesota, say legacy is only one element of the selection process among many. In a statement, U officials said that they allow students to add 10 "context factors" to their applications, including family employment or family attendance at the U. "Through this process, there is no one deciding factor for admission to the University of Minnesota," the U said.

Of course, no one has ever alleged that any reputable university uses legacy as the "one deciding factor." But it's worth considering whether a public land grant university, which relies heavily on taxpayer funds, has any business making legacy preferences a factor.

Fortunately, the momentum to re-examine legacy admissions appears to be building rapidly. Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a complaint with the federal Office of Civil Rights earlier this month, alleging that Harvard's practice of legacy admissions violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The group said in the complaint that the court's ruling made it "even more imperative now to eliminate policies that systematically disadvantage students of color." As the group's executive director, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, said, "There's no birthright to Harvard."

The complaint notes that "nearly 70% of Harvard's donor-related and legacy applicants are white." That, the group said, constitutes an "unfair and unearned benefit that is conferred solely based on the family that the applicant is born into. This custom, pattern and practice is exclusionary and discriminatory."

Additionally, shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, President Joe Biden announced he would ask the U.S. Department of Education to "analyze what practices help build a more inclusive and diverse student body and what practices hold that back, practices like legacy admissions and other systems that expand privilege instead of opportunity."

And the push could be bipartisan. U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., a presidential candidate, said that with the high court ending affirmative action admissions, it was time to retire legacy admissions as well. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., has legislation that would bar universities from such legacy preferences.

"We want to create as much opportunity for as many academically talented young people as possible, regardless of financial background or legacy status. There should be no doubt that a world-class education is within reach for students from all income groups."

And that is — or should be — the highest goal of a university: to create life-changing opportunities for students from across the spectrum.

There is a limit to how much the government should involve itself in the decisions of a private university over entrance requirements. However, those institutions that receive federal funding give taxpayers a strong stake in ensuring that certain criteria are observed. In our opinion, state schools should drop the practice immediately and voluntarily.

After all, nothing prohibits alumni from continuing to send qualified offspring to their alma mater, to glory in singing the same fight songs and reliving old memories through their children. Little prevents parents from donating to those colleges out of gratitude for the successful careers they have enjoyed.