Jewish World Review May 27, 2003 / 25 Iyar, 5763

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Preferences, racial and otherwise | The Supreme Court will soon rule in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. However the court decides, the debate over race-based admissions is sure to intensify. And so will the discussion of other kinds of college preferences, particularly the boost many schools give to the children (and grandchildren) of alumni, or "legacies."

The argument against legacy preferences is that they amount to affirmative action for whites, and that if it is unfair to give an applicant a leg up because of race, it is no less unfair to do so because of lineage. Especially when, as Senator John Edwards of North Carolina puts it, "legacy admissions give more to kids who already have more."

I've no personal ax to grind here. Like Edwards, I was the first in my family to attend college and had no alumni connections to grease my way to a prestigious institution. I think legacy preferences tend to reinforce class privilege, and would lose no sleep if they were abolished. (At the state universities of California and Georgia, they already have been).

But I also think they are defensible in ways that racial preferences are not.

For one thing, legacy admissions foster loyalty and enthusiasm for a school, and deepen the desire of alumni and their families to see the school prosper. In a nation with more than 3,500 colleges to choose from, a passion for one particular institution, sustained and transmitted across generations, is an asset a school might well wish to cultivate.

Especially when that passion expresses itself financially. Universities depend on the generosity of alumni; without the billions they donate to their alma maters every year, tuition and fees would skyrocket and financial aid would dwindle. The president of Middlebury College told The New York Times in February that a year at his elite Vermont college would cost $60,000, not $36,000, if it weren't for the gifts of alumni. By stimulating their philanthropy, legacy preferences arguably make higher education more widely available for everyone.

All the same, legacy preferences are slowly disappearing. At Middlebury, legacies were 12 percent of the entering class in 1965; they make up just 5 percent of current freshmen. William F. Buckley writes that at Yale, his alma mater, 29 percent of the 1940 entering class were the children of alumni; in 1971, 14 percent were. The vast majority of legacies are white, but that too is changing. It is only in the past generation that significant numbers of minorities have been graduating from US colleges. But with each passing year, more and more of their children will be applying to college -- as legacies.

George W. Bush's pedigree helped get him into Yale in 1964 despite a comparatively mediocre high school record. It isn't clear that it would do so today.

Competition is shrinking the advantage that legacy status confers. According to William Fitzsimmons, Harvard's dean of admissions, the average SAT score of legacies admitted is just two points lower than the schoolwide average. At Middlebury, legacy freshmen scored 33 points *higher* than their average classmate. Similarly, legacies entering the University of Virginia generally have better grades than the school's in-state students.

By contrast, racial preferences give black and Hispanic applicants a huge advantage over whites and Asians with comparable records. On the University of Michigan's 150-point scale, being a legacy earns four points. Being black earns 20. At elite schools like Michigan and the Ivies, racial preferences are used to surmount not a 2-point deficit in SAT scores, but a deficit of 150 to 200 points. For selective colleges and universities, race is not a modest "plus factor." It is the decisive factor. In too many cases, race determines who gets in -- and who doesn't.

Legacies are not the issue before the Supreme Court, but the justices are not blind to the comparison many have made. If one applicant is rejected because he isn't a minority and another is rejected because he isn't a legacy, Justice Stephen Breyer asked during oral arguments on April 1, "what is the difference?"

Answered the lawyer for the students challenging Michigan's racial preferences: "The difference is the Equal Protection Clause, Your Honor."

And that's the crux of it. The Constitution's 14th Amendment, written in the wake of a terrible civil war, forbids the states -- and thus state-run universities like Michigan -- from discriminating on the basis of race, except where the discrimination is narrowly tailored to serve a "compelling" state interest. Universities are not constitutionally barred from making admission decisions on the basis of wealth or ancestry or athletic ability -- or grades and SAT scores, for that matter. Legacy preferences may be dubious or archaic. But they aren't racial.

Judging people by the color of their skin is a fundamental wrong -- there is no more searing lesson in American history. The Constitution says so. Let us hope the Supreme Court will, too.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

05/23/03: The bottom line for teachers unions
05/12/03: Castro's cheerleaders
05/08/03: In 'enlightened' New England, it hurts to give
05/06/03: Help the living before the dead
04/25/03: The search for the 'smoking gun'
04/21/03: Trading truth for access?
04/14/03: Kerry's abortion litmus test
04/11/03: Meanwhile, in Cuba, the tyranny goes on
04/07/03: Explaining the war to a six-year-old
03/31/03: Empowering a terroristocracy in the name of 'peace'?
03/27/03: America the liberator
03/10/03: Changing the definition of marriage
03/07/03: Liberate Iraq -- even with unclean hands
03/03/03: Why talk radio tilts right
02/21/03: A boost for Saddam
02/10/03: On outing Kerry
02/06/03: The neverending voyage
02/03/03: This hasn't been a 'rush to war'
01/31/03: Killing the terror regimes
01/29/03: How not to win the war
01/24/03: The UN's moral irrelevance
01/22/03: Musings, random and otherwise
01/17/03: The Sharpton hypocrisy
01/13/03: The fig leaf of 'diversity'
01/10/03: Israeli restraint makes terrorism more likely
01/02/03: The double standard on political hate speech
12/30/02: Good for the spirit, good for the body
12/23/02: The college president who owes a greater duty to a fugitive serial killer than the public or to the law
12/20/02: The death penalty by the numbers
12/16/02: Yes, Virginia, there is (still) a liberal media bias
12/03/02: On the brink of regime change --- in Iran
11/27/02: Light's victory over darkness
11/25/02: A 'Republican' lesson from a Democratic convention
11/22/02: The slippery senator
11/18/02: The campus 'diversity' fraud
11/01/02: Saddam's shop of horrors
10/24/02: Musings, random and otherwise
10/17/02: Jimma's ignoble prize
10/14/02: New Jersey's bigot laureate
10/11/02: Today it is libs who are most likely to demand the silencing of speech they disapprove of
10/04/02: Learning English from Day 1
09/30/02: The world will follow us to war
09/27/02: The face of antisemitism
09/20/02: Starving time in Zimbabwe
09/14/02: Against moral confusion / 9-12-2002
09/03/02: With 'eternal friends' like these
08/30/02: Enriching survivors was a costly mistake
08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe