‘Affirmative action for the privileged’: why Democrats are fighting legacy admissions

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
As the country adapts to a post-affirmative action world, progressives are ramping up the political and legal pressure on universities to scrap their use of legacy admissions. A Democratic bill, introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York, and a civil rights inquiry at the Department of Education could represent a serious threat to legacy admissions.

“Though the supreme court gutted race-conscious college admissions, make no mistake, affirmative action is still alive and well for children of alumni and major donors, and taxpayers shouldn’t be funding it,” Merkley told the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...egacy-admissions-affirmative-action-democrats
 
I favor legacy admissions at private schools.

The schools are obscenely expensive, and part of what one pays for is future consideration.

Our obligation is to make excellent education available to everybody who did the preparation work to deserve it,
and that has to be done with tax funded schools, not elite private institutions.

We don't tell private country clubs and the like who they can accept or reject, and private schools are no different.

Populists need to concentrate on what is important
rather than waste effort dealing with their jealosy.
 
Studies have shown that legacy admissions and monied applicants massively favor white applicants and thus constitute their own from of AA.

Even when two applicants are equally qualified the one who comes from a family with more money tends to be the one to get chosen. Even in schools where they do not seek that data (family wealth) directly, it is clear the subconscious bias slips in.


That is exactly why SC Justice Thomas and the rest of them wanted AA that favored 'other than white people' killed. It was seen as tipping the playing field towards fairness and society was seeing gains by PoC and women due to these programs. They want to slow those gains. They want to maintain the advantage they built in.

Many of these moves, including Trumps MAGA platform are really targeted at slowing the gains PoC and Women have been making (get women back in the kitchen) to ensure the gains white males especially have enjoyed for hundred of years are maintained.

They saw PoC and women succeeding despite the obstacle and are trying to really tilt back the field towards white males, to slow them.
 
QP! said:
Studies have shown that legacy admissions and monied applicants massively favor white applicants and thus constitute their own from of AA.

Even when two applicants are equally qualified the one who comes from a family with more money tends to be the one to get chosen. Even in schools where they do not seek that data (family wealth) directly, it is clear the subconscious bias slips in.


That is exactly why SC Justice Thomas and the rest of them wanted AA that favored 'other than white people' killed. It was seen as tipping the playing field towards fairness and society was seeing gains by PoC and women due to these programs. They want to slow those gains. They want to maintain the advantage they built in.

Many of these moves, including Trumps MAGA platform are really targeted at slowing the gains PoC and Women have been making (get women back in the kitchen) to ensure the gains white males especially have enjoyed for hundred of years are maintained.

They saw PoC and women succeeding despite the obstacle and are trying to really tilt back the field towards white males, to slow them.
Click to expand...

This still averts the differentiation between what should be expected of public and private institutions, QPI.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
This still averts the differentiation between what should be expected of public and private institutions, QPI.
Click to expand...

Sure i am fine with one standard for all. I am fine with them doing away with AA entirely if they also do away with all the ones that benefit white (males).

But if you are going to tell Harvard 'no AA', then tell them 'no legacy or wealth' as well based on the same principle or let both decide on both.

What i am not ok with is the SC or gov't selectively giving privilege to one group while taking it from another.
 
QP! said:
Sure i am fine with one standard for all. I am fine with them doing away with AA entirely if they also do away with all the ones that benefit white (males).

But if you are going to tell Harvard 'no AA', then tell them 'no legacy or wealth' as well based on the same principle or let both decide on both.

What i am not ok with is the SC or gov't selectively giving privilege to one group while taking it from another.
Click to expand...

That's our fundamental difference in opinion, then.

I think that completely separate standards for private and fully tax supported schools are totally appropriate.

I don't feel that it was appropriate at all for the courts to tell Harvard what to do with their own admissions policies.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
That's our fundamental difference in opinion, then.

I think that completely separate standards for private and fully tax supported schools are totally appropriate.

I don't feel that it was appropriate at all for the courts to tell Harvard what to do with their own admissions policies.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure we disagree.

My position is private schools should be able to do what they want free of gov't, as Harvard was trying to do, and whatever they decide i am fine with.

But if the gov't is going to get in and say 'No AA' then they should also say 'no Legacy' applying the same basic reasoning.

I would prefer gov't stay out but if in, then they must be more consistent, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top