Consultant Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, tweeted that if the Supreme Courtroom “was critical about their ludicrous ‘colorblindness’ claims, they’d have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative motion for the privileged.”
On “The Faulkner Focus,” a Fox Information program, Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina and a presidential candidate, stated, “One of many issues that Harvard might do to make that even higher is to remove any legacy applications the place they’ve preferential remedy for legacy children.”
Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke College economist who has analyzed Harvard information, discovered {that a} typical white legacy applicant’s possibilities of being admitted improve fivefold over a typical, white non-legacy applicant.
Even so, eliminating legacy preferences at Harvard, the research stated, wouldn’t offset the loss in range if race-conscious admissions have been additionally eradicated.
In its choice on race-conscious admissions, some Supreme Courtroom justices criticized legacy admissions. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, in an opinion concurring with the court docket’s majority, took intention at preferences for the kids of donors and alumni, saying: “They’re no assist to candidates who can’t boast of their mother and father’ luck or journeys to the alumni tent all their lives. Whereas race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences undoubtedly profit white and rich candidates essentially the most.”