It is time to end admissions preferences for those who have the privilege to be born to a University degree-holding parent.
According to Dean of Admissions Gregory Roberts, out-of-state legacy students receive an application advantage in that the Office of Admissions reads them under the same criteria as Virginia applicants. Admission for out-of-state applicants is much more difficult than it is for Virginia applicants; hence, although legacy is a single factor among many in admissions, legacy preferences at the University are significant and effectively deny opportunity to out-of-state applicants who are not lucky enough to be born to parents who graduated from the University.
It is especially unacceptable for a school that prides itself on the liberal philosophies of Thomas Jefferson to have a legacy admissions policy. The Jeffersonian ideal of the “natural aristocracy” rooted in “virtue and talents” lies in direct opposition to the University’s practice of conferring privileges upon legacy applicants.
Furthermore, legacy preferences in public school admissions create hereditary privileges that some interpret as unlawful per the Constitution’s Title of Nobility Clause. Constitutional law expert Carlton F.W. Larson writes in the Washington University Law Review that nobility is not limited to the English noble class of dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons. The meaning of nobility varies throughout the world and is undefined in the Constitution; however, fundamental to the Nobility Clause, Larson contends, is “a prohibition of hereditary privileges with respect to institution of the state” and “a prohibition on special privileges with respect to the state.”
If we accept these as the fundamental principles of the Nobility Clause, then we cannot continue to allow public universities to consider legacy status in admissions. In addition to perpetuating the anti-Jeffersonian “artificial aristocracy,” predicated on “wealth and birth,” legacy preferences at the University are unconstitutional.
Proponents of legacy preferences in admissions argue that a need for financial support through alumni donations necessitates a legacy admissions policy. The Office of Admissions denies that this is the case at the University. “We don’t have anything to do with fundraising,” Roberts said in a phone interview.
Others assert that legacy students create a lasting sense of community. “It’s important to recognize family history and commitment to the University,” said Roberts. This argument is untenable. Colleges such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology do not give preference to any legacy students. And at virtually all European universities, legacy preferences are nonexistent and are viewed as nepotistic. Strong communities exist at schools that do not give privileges to legacy applicants.
Roberts also noted that the amount of legacy students at the University “still constitutes a small number” despite legacy preferences in admissions. According to Roberts, this number hovers around 15 percent. If one of the goals of the Office of Admissions is to create a sense of community at the University, then it’s odd to give preference to legacies who comprise a minority of the student population. There are other ways of creating a sense of community at the University without engaging in practices that obstruct equity in the admissions process.
Legacy students will always comprise a significant proportion of students at the University. “I believe that legacy applicants are among the strongest in our pool,” said Roberts. Indeed, legacy status is linked to other variables associated with success such as parental education and family income. However, this does not justify an admissions policy that gives preference to students who have the privilege of being born to alumni. The University’s legacy admissions policy, unconstitutional and inequitable, is the grandfather clause of the application process and it must end.
Nazar Aljassar is a Viewpoint columnist for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 16 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 21 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
