It’s no secret that the college admissions process is in turmoil. Regardless of political conviction, higher education has become a prime target for those who are disgruntled with both the current state of American society and its projected future. What was once deemed the “great equalizer” is now viewed by many on both sides of the political spectrum as distinctively elitist, further entrenching socioeconomic divides rather than breaking down barriers.
In response to the Supreme Court’s move to upend race-based affirmative action last summer, left-leaning activists have shifted their focus to another oft-criticized facet of the admissions process: legacy preferences.
One political action committee, Democrats for Education Reform, has been part of the charge to strike down legacy admissions. Mary Tamer sits at its helm as the state’s executive director.
In an interview with the Daily, Tamer discussed the group’s efforts to overturn the practice of legacy admissions, which gives preference to graduates’ children.
“We knew that the practice was built on bigotry and racism. We knew it was a practice that has been in existence for a hundred years,” Tamer said. “And frankly, as we look to creating more equitable systems in our education ecosystem, this is such a tangible way that we can help to address what is a very unlevel playing field when it comes to students trying to get into certain colleges.”
Dubbed by many as “affirmative action for the rich,” there is no question as to the type of student that benefits from legacy preferences. Regardless of whether or not their legacy status is considered, legacy admits are already advantaged by virtue of one or both of their parents having attained a college degree. Studies have repeatedly confirmed that those with college-educated parents are significantly more likely to attend and graduate college themselves compared to first-generation students.
Luke Greenberg, a current first-year student planning to co-major in education and economics, is conscious of his privileged status as a legacy admit. Still, he does not support the practice.
“I’m not personally a fan,” Greenberg said. “I think it [uses] someone’s legacy status, which is something that they do not have control over. It’s something that significantly helps students who are already doing quite well, like upper-middle-class students. I think if you’re looking to increase the diversity of the student population, this is one of the first things on the chopping block.”
Still, the debate over legacy admissions is not all cut and dried. Proponents of the practice have argued that it is in fact a net benefit to the diversity of a student body, especially at private universities, which are often more reliant on tuition dollars. Some individuals argue that legacy admits, who are more likely to pay full-fare for their education, can help foot the bill for their peers’ financial aid packages through later donations.
Tamer remains unconvinced. Citing an empirical analysis of the impact of legacy preferences on alumni giving, she argues that there is in fact no meaningful correlation between legacy preferences and institutional investment in financial aid.
“The perception is that [legacy preferences have stayed in place] because of the money,” she said. “But very often, the families whose children are the beneficiaries of legacy preference are not necessarily the families that are having buildings named after them.”
According to JT Duck, Tufts’ dean of admissions, the university is still evaluating its use of legacy preferences in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which overturned race-based affirmative action.
“In light of the Supreme Court ruling, we have been examining admissions policies holistically and in the context of accessibility and we can only complete the work once the current admissions process is completed and the waitlist process ends, which is when we can evaluate our results,” Duck wrote in an email to the Daily. “How the university will treat applicants with family members who have affiliations with Tufts is part of that review, along with the analysis we are doing on the use of standardized testing. Because this work is ongoing, we are unable to comment in detail but we are confident that we will end up with policies that allow the university to live up to our values and commitment to diversity while following the law.”
Regardless of the university’s ultimate findings, it may not have a choice but to end legacy preferences. After being reported favorably by the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Higher Education, Bill S.2687 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Lydia Edwards, proposes an end to legacy preferences for both public and private institutions. If passed, the law would take effect in the 2025–26 admissions cycle.
Edwards’ office did not respond to requests for comment.
Affirming his support for Bill S.2687, Greenberg said “You can’t advertise that you’re a meritocracy and then have a country club behind the scenes. That’s not how things should work.”
Still, the bill’s passage is far from guaranteed.
“The formal [legislative] session ends on July 31,” Tamer said. “We certainly hope that this bill is going to come to a vote prior to the session ending, so we’re doing our due diligence and trying to keep this issue front and center.”
“We are truly thrilled by the level of support that [Bill S.2687] has had on both the House side and the Senate side,” she continued. “We remain extremely hopeful for its chances.”
