Is This the End of the Ivy League Nepo Baby?
A new complaint argues that legacy admissions violate the Civil Rights Act.

On Monday, a civil rights group filed a complaint to the Department of Education challenging legacy preferences in college admissions, arguing that the policy discriminates against black, Hispanic, and Asian-American students by privileging the children of alumni and donors, who are mostly white.
In the wake of last week's Supreme Court decision striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, the group argues that legacy admissions policies similarly violate civil rights laws banning race-based discrimination. However, it's unclear whether the group's challenge can pass legal muster.
The complaint, filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights on behalf of several Massachusetts-based black and Hispanic nonprofit groups, claims that Harvard's legacy admissions policy violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by giving preference to the mostly white children of alumni and donors. The complaint argues this disadvantages nonwhite applicants and essentially limits the percentage of nonwhite students at the school.
"Experts have found that reducing or eliminating Donor and Legacy Preferences enhances diversity in higher education – an interest Harvard has claimed to be of the highest magnitude," notes the complaint. "The fact is that, if the Donor and Legacy Preferences did not exist, more students of color would be admitted to Harvard"
According to the complaint, Harvard applicants who are related to alumni or donors have a significantly better chance of being admitted than nonrelated students. For example, from 2014 to 2019, the admissions rate for donor-related students was 42 percent and the legacy admissions rate was 33.6 percent, while applicants without these preferences had an admission rate of just 6 percent. In all, 28 percent of the class of 2019 was the child or relative of a Harvard grad. During this same period, 70 percent of admitted students with a donor or legacy preference were white.
"The 'tip' that donor and legacy applicants receive in the process is substantial," the complaint argues. "Experts have estimated that 'roughly three-quarters of white [donor and legacy] admits would have been rejected absent their [donor or legacy] status.'" This disparity, argues the complaint, amounts to a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in programs receiving federal funding.
However, while the complaint is correct in arguing that legacy admissions are fundamentally unfair and that such policies may suppress diversity at many elite colleges, it's unlikely that these arguments will convince Education Department officials.
"I am skeptical that LCR's complaint will prevail, unless they can prove that Harvard's legacy preferences were adopted or maintained for the purpose of benefiting whites (or keeping out non-whites)," wrote law professor Ilya Somin in The Volokh Conspiracy (which is published by Reason) on Monday. "Title VI (and other current federal laws) do not ban legacy preferences as such. And courts are unlikely to invalidate them merely because they disproportionately help white applicants relative to those from other groups."
However, there is still hope for opponents of legacy admissions, especially when it comes to public colleges. While legal appeals are unlikely to succeed, Congress would be well within its rights to pass legislation to ban the practice in public colleges and universities—as Colorado already has. If they did, it would likely receive broad bipartisan support. According to a 2022 survey, 75 percent of Americans oppose legacy preferences.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I like how people pissed off that the Ivy League can no longer be racist think they're tweaking someone's nose by suggesting the nix legacy admissions.
Yes, nix legacy admissions, by all means. You think Americans care if some billionaire's feckless kid can't go to Harvard any more merely because dad donated a rec center?
Legacy admissions are not prohibited by the CRA. This is just a temper tantrum.
And I say let them have their temper tantrum. The WEF, NPR-Totebag millionaire/billionaires are the ones pushing "affirmative action". Let them fight it out between themselves.
I’am making over $15k a month working online. I kept seeing how some people areable to earn a lot of money online, so I decided to look into it. I had luck tostumble upon something that totally changed my life. After 2 months ofsearching, last month I received a paycheck for $15376 for just working on thelaptop for a few hours weekly. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried itcopy below web…
.
.
Click on the link below…………………… https://Www.Coins71.Com
Everything the left doesn’t like induces a temper tantrum.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
It is not hard to argue that they are a violation of the CRA. They are giving preferential admissions to the descendants of people who went to those schools when they openly discriminated against minority. Clear example of disparate impact, which has already been established as illegal.
Oh shut up.
How many legacy admits to the Ivies (or anywhere) are admitted because some ancestor went there prior to 1960?
Very damned few.
Civil Rights Act needs to be struck down.
It nullifies the entire Bill of Rights
The Ivy League schools do not provide a better education than can be found elsewhere, but they do provide access to children of the rich, whose fathers can help college friends get a leg up after graduation.
If we stop legacy admissions, that benefit will go away and Ivy League will not mean as much, which is almost certainly a good thing.
Though it's none of Washington's business, Harvard found in 2009 that alumni children applying to selective US colleges had mean SAT scores exceeding those of non-legacy applicants by 10 points in English and 6 points in Math.
In 2017, an examination of 15,402 wannabe legs found that 82% of them had better qualifying scores than non-legacy applicants.
I have to agree. These analyses that are presented assume that they are equal groups when that is decidedly not the case. To give another example, the biggest single factor to predict you getting into a major league sports team is if your father was also in a major league team. This isn't due to nepotism, but talent is inherited and culture is passed on.
Families who have a history with a top university value education. There is no reason to think that they would be statistically similar to the wider applicant body.
It's similar to my job. Legacy hires are one of two extremes. There are a few bad eggs who fall out quickly, but the rest are all among our best employees. Not wanting to disappoint your father is a powerful motivator.
my buddy's mother-in-law gets $80 an hour on the internet. she has been without work for 12 months but last month her earnings was $16778 just working at home for a few hours per week.. check out this site............ http://www.dailypro7.com
hi
I don't see how this violates the Civil Rights Act. The CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person being in a protected class. It doesn't prohibit all discrimination. And not being the son or daughter of a donor or alumni is not a protected class. This is an idiotic lawsuit.
+1. I don’t see how it violates CRA.
This part of the claim is curious though, given that the US is around 70% white: “during this same period, 70 percent of admitted students with a donor or legacy preference were white.” This seems to hinder not help the case.
The plaintiffs know their suit is bogus. This is electioneering masquerading as a lawsuit: once dismissed, they will claim, "look at how much SCOTUS hates black and brown people and favors legacies; this is why we need to pack the Court!"
^
The Daughters of the American Revolution are next...
Yes. If the theory behind this lawsuit were endorsed, the DAR would be illegal as it is currently operated.
No.
The CRA defined protected classes by non-class (meaning immutable characteristics) status.
Legacy admissions are classist in nature (they signal status), so they are not prohibited by it or the 14th.
Exactly that. There is no rational argument for legacy admissions being prohibited under the CRA much less the 14th Amendment. I can't believe anyone is taking this seriously.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Soon, the only schools able to discriminate will be those who cater to gullible, nonsense-believing, slack-jawed, bigoted clingers.
A conservative utopia!
And a fourth-tier hayseed farm.
Cry harder, hicklib.
Cry about what? My side kicking the bigoted shit out of slack-jawed, faux libertarian conservatives in the culture war? Being on the right side of history and the winning side at the modern American marketplace of ideas? Watching religion and bigotry continue to diminish as factors in modern America?
You clingers have been losing so long and are so disaffected you can't even imagine what it's like to be part of the modern American mainstream.
Fuck off and die, asshole bigot.
You sound upset, Reverend. Maybe you should consider Pamprin® to deal with your bloating and irritability.
What terrible writing.
You should use Grammarly or something like that.
Grambling State University?
good lord can we just repeal the CRA already?
^
vs
Discuss your bigotry.
Could just say, hey, it's your university, you do what you wanna do, the public will judge you accordingly, and it's nobody else's business.
Not if they want that delicious student loan money. That’s how the feds tell colleges what to do. They attach conditions to the money. A college that doesn’t accept student loans can do whatever it wants.
Similar thing with hospitals. Hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid have to treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Ones that don’t can tell beggars to screw.
Go away pussy. I don’t feel like having you around today.
Yawn. This tangent to the AA debate was cute when Soave brought it up last week, but it is getting old now.
Private schools give rich donors' kids preferential treatment. What. A. Shock. I have no horse in that race, but understand that it has nothing to do with libertarianism.
If anything, I find the continued reporting here to be a bit creepy. It just accepts all the class-warfare framing of issues that marxists have pushed for over 100 years. Libertarians should should not be afraid to acknowledge that rich people have advantages that poorer people do not. Indeed, they should consider that a FEATURE not a bug. People work hard for more money BECAUSE more money buys them more options.
If you are truly concerned about the plight of the under-privileged, you should think very carefully about doing away with these patronage programs. When we were shopping private schools, we found a very common situation: If your kid wasn't going to make it in on merit, the school would suggest that you make a hefty donation, or buy a parking space, or some other nonsense. That money helped many of these schools to give scholarships to around 10% of the students who COULD make it on merit, but didn't have the means. Doing away these programs will negatively affect these scholarship programs.
My thoughts exactly, what this will do is make them increase the cost to cover what they lose and either only rich kids will be able to afford the price or the not rich have to take out loans that we the tax payer are on the hook for so they can afford to go there.
Sotomayor has been getting herself intellectually bitchslapped lately. The responses from Gorsuch and Thomas to her inane opinions have been on fire.
She is an affirmative action hire.
It is quaint that some of you dumbasses actually believe the conservative decision from this Supreme Court are going to last half as long as Roe did.
Getting stomped in the culture war has consequences, and one of them will be watching better Americans make conservatives pay dearly for their latest rally. Which, if this were a football game, would have made the score 63-13 in favor of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.
From my experience, families are more likely to make major donations to schools whose children also attend or attended the school. It makes good business sense to accept legacies.
It's not everyday one reads an article in Reason taking the position that because a practice might be unfair in some tenuous sense to some people, it would therefore be good to make the practice illegal.
Whether there remains a viable distinction between public and private universities, it is certainly the case that public funds are a shrinking part of the operational budget of most state-supported schools. Increasingly, alumni contributions have played a bigger and bigger role, including at prestigious public universities such as UVA where Ms Camp attended. But it would be irrational for such schools to expect private donations without at least some sort of implicit quid pro quo and even less rational for the average alumnus to gladly and repeatedly make such gifts with no thought whatsoever of how doing so might, however marginally, improve the likelihood that his children might attend his alma mater.
All admissions policies, including admissions predicated entirely on test scores and AP curriculum GPAs are unfair to some people. You had an especially hard AP calculus teacher who gave you a B- so you didn't get into Yale? That's unfair!
Legacy preferences strengthen alumni support over time, building greater institutional loyalty than a school is ever likely to find from its state legislature, so perhaps it *is* unfair for some definitions of fairness, but it is unfairness with a rational relationship to the school's long term interests and one that, over time, is likely to have decreasing racial or ethnic impact if admissions policies are not otherwise racially discriminatory. So perhaps "hope for opponents of legacy admissions" is ill-placed in a libertarian advocacy site that putatively understands not all outcomes deemed unfair by some therefore require remedial state action.
If I were Mona, I'd consider cancelling my subscription. *grin*
>>The complaint, filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights
lawyers for civil rights should know nepotism is not a rights matter.
What if they claim to be motivated by superstition-based bigotry, like right-wing litigation factories?
right-wing litigation factories should also know nepotism is not a rights matter
If they were lawyers for civil rights they would but these are just racists dancing in the skinsuit of the civil rights movement.
They are activist with a law degree.
Pretty clear that the CRA is not violated by Harvard’s legacy and donor preference systems. So the suit has zero chance in court.
But it DOES expose Harvard’s hypocrisy. Harvard complains mightily that race quotas are necessary to diversity, yet protects legacy and development admits that cut against diversity.
No surprises: 1) it’s always about money first, and 2) Harvard is just virtue signaling.
Personally I don’t care as Harvard is a private school and should be allowed to do as it pleases. But it can’t violate the 1964 CRA.
Pass the popcorn while we watch Harvard (and others like it) twist in the wind.
No surprises: 1) it’s always about money first, and 2) Harvard is just virtue signaling.
It's worth remembering that this is the same Harvard that in the 1980s, IIRC, in response to criticisms that they vocally supported AA while not practicing it themselves, said something to the effect of "this is not the lunch counter at McDonald's."
They've been working double-time to undo the damage to their image ever since.
“ For example, from 2014 to 2019, the admissions rate for donor-related students was 42 percent and the legacy admissions rate was 33.6 percent, while applicants without these preferences had an admission rate of just 6 percent. In all, 28 percent of the class of 2019 was the child or relative of a Harvard grad. During this same period, 70 percent of admitted students with a donor or legacy preference were white. ”
1. What was the admission rate for colored donor-related students as compared to that for white donor-related students ?
2. Ditto for legacy admissions rates: colored vs/ white.
3. What were the qualifications (SAT, GPA, publications, achievements, etc.) of donor or legacy related applicants as compared to applicants without these connections?
3. What was the number of colored donor or legacy preference applicants as compared to the number of white donor or legacy applicants? If 3 to 7, then admissions were exactly proportional.
Another example of why Princeton should stop admitting people unused to more than three kinds of cutlery.
I'm waiting for the group to also sue "Oral" Roberts University that they aren't able to be admitted there as well.
An “Oral” university sounds rather interesting.
I doubt Oral Roberts University turns many, if any, people away.
People who respect science are not welcome at Oral Roberts.
People who aren't bigots aren't a good fit at Oral Roberts, either.
But it you are a slack-jawed creationism kook who hates gays, Oral Roberts wants you!
Were you pummeled by college boys from Oral Roberts, like you were growing up by the bigger, stronger boys in your hometown?
I thought we talked about you getting some therapy to deal with this instead of lashing out with impotent rage?
It’s a private university with 4,000 students.
It is not hard to argue that they are a violation of the CRA. They are giving preferential admissions to the descendants of people who went to those schools when they openly discriminated against minority. Clear example of disparate impact, which has already been established as illegal.
How many times are you going to post that?
Few legislators achieve election by promising to vote against vulgarity
https://twitter.com/FromKulak/status/1676721548458176516?t=6OWrABIhFZW1fNiuSgw-hA&s=19
Blacks are 13% of the population and male recruits are 80% of all recruits.
For there to be 34 black female cadets (3.4% of 1000) they're being admitted at a rate atleast 30% higher than base rate... and that's if we assume there are no racial differences in the rate of children being qualified for WestPoint (A ridiculous assumption even if we assume the virtues of teens are solely correlated with socioeconomic status)
Reminder that the supreme court exempted service academies and the US military from its affirmative action ruling.
If you are Male, Asian or White the military will very soon be literally the worst possible career you could could ever aspire to, as it will continue to be exempt from any rulings meant to restore basic equality and meritocracy.
Note also these are GRADUATES... and any military man you ever meet will gripe about standards being lowered and male soldiers being forced to carry female soldiers weight...
Look at their physiques: Do they look like they can carry an 80lb pack 15 miles? Being this is the army and "every man a rifleman" and all that.
Do you want your son to join and that to be the stature of their platoon leader?
[Link]
The pearls are "If it wasn't for X, then Y would someday happen." Argumentum ad necromancia. The other places authority in anonymity, as: "Experts have predicted that..." Where my favorite ending is "global warming will kill us all by 2008."
Make it a choice. Allow legacy acceptance or accept federal money. It (legacy restriction) won't happen. Too many Ivy leaguers in government. Or there will be a carve-out for the Ivies.
How many children of the Lord's Elect has Harvard admitted since the termination of its manifestly Calvinist Charter of 1650 in 2018?
"The complaint argues this disadvantages nonwhite applicants and essentially limits the percentage of nonwhite students at the school." I wonder if actual lawyers worded this complaint. It totally lacks any hint of a legal principle. The law - and discussion at the time of passage - make it clear that quotas would not be permitted for use in evaluating compliance with the law. A policy that inadvertently limits the percentage of a particular "race" or skin color does not violate the law. The recent court ruling that favoring a particular racial group in the applications process in order to achieve a particular percentage for each group violates that law. Either way, the complaint is short-sighted! The way to achieve racial balance at the university in legacy admissions in the longer run is for all racial groups to donate to the fund proportionally.
At this point their should be plenty of black or brown legacy admissions. Do these non profit groups suing want to fuck them over too?
Is This the End of the Ivy League Nepo Baby?
Not as long as alumni daddies and granddaddies make big bucks endowments to their Alma maters.
The only privilege is wealth privilege.
You would think that after 50 years of Affirmative Action, there would be plenty of non-White alums who could buy their kid's way into their old schools.
How many of these so-called whites are jewish?
I've made42,000usd so far last year working online.I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.. .. go to this site home tab for more details.
COPY THIS WEBSITE-------------------------->>> http://www.dailypro7.com
Isn't it interesting that the leftists want to get rid of legacy admissions at the precise moment when legacy admissions would start to benefit BIPOC?
YOU FOOLS!
Who cares about 'legacy admissions'? That's a red herring, and you're chasing it.
Harvard should have to follow what they teach their students. White America is discriminatory right ? So why should they get away with being discriminatory?