A protester holds up a sign noting the high number of legacy admissions at Harvard University during a July 1, 2023 demonstration at the Cambridge, Massachusetts school.
Lawsuit Targets Harvard Legacy Admissions That Privilege Wealthy, Largely White Alumni
"Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process," the main litigant's director asserted.
In the wake of last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions, a coalition of civil rights groups on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging Harvard University's preferential treatment of applicants related to alumni and donors—a policy the litigants say "severely damages and harms" prospective students of color.
The lawsuit—filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) on behalf of Chica Project, African Community Economic Development of New England, and Greater Boston Latino Network—claims that Harvard's donor and legacy admissions preferences violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and asks the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to "take all measures necessary to
enforce Title VI and ensure Harvard's compliance with the statute and applicable regulations."
"Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?"
The complaint notes that Harvard applicants related to donors were nearly seven times more likely to be accepted compared to other applicants during the years 2014-19, while legacy applicants were nearly six times likelier to be accepted. Roughly 17% of graduating Harvard students in 2019 had one or both parents who attended the school, while 28% had parents or other relatives who were alumni.
"There's no birthright to Harvard. As the Supreme Court recently noted, 'eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,'" LCR executive director Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal said in a statement.
"There should be no way to identify who your parents are in the college application process. Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?" he added. "Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."
According to the suit:
Each year, Harvard College grants special preference in its admissions process to hundreds of mostly white students—not because of anything they have accomplished, but rather solely because of who their relatives are. Applicants whose relatives are wealthy donors to Harvard, or whose parents are Harvard alumni, are flagged at the outset of Harvard's admissions process and are granted special solicitude and extra "tips" throughout. The students who receive these special preferences... are significantly more likely to be accepted than other applicants, and constitute up to 15% of Harvard's admitted students.
The students who receive this preferential treatment—based solely on familial ties—are overwhelmingly white. Nearly 70% of donor-related applicants are white, and nearly 70% of legacy applicants are also white.
At the same time that donor and legacy preferences disproportionately advantage white applicants, they systematically disadvantage students of color, including Black, Latinx, and Asian Americans.
The LCR lawsuit comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a pair of cases that affirmative action admissions programs at two universities are unconstitutional. Dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court's right-wing supermajority of "entrenching inequality in education."
"Harvard's practice of giving a leg-up to the children of wealthy donors and alumni—who have done nothing to deserve it—must end."
Last year, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, which would bar colleges and universities from giving preferential treatment to children of alumni and donors.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In the wake of last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions, a coalition of civil rights groups on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging Harvard University's preferential treatment of applicants related to alumni and donors—a policy the litigants say "severely damages and harms" prospective students of color.
The lawsuit—filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) on behalf of Chica Project, African Community Economic Development of New England, and Greater Boston Latino Network—claims that Harvard's donor and legacy admissions preferences violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and asks the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to "take all measures necessary to
enforce Title VI and ensure Harvard's compliance with the statute and applicable regulations."
"Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?"
The complaint notes that Harvard applicants related to donors were nearly seven times more likely to be accepted compared to other applicants during the years 2014-19, while legacy applicants were nearly six times likelier to be accepted. Roughly 17% of graduating Harvard students in 2019 had one or both parents who attended the school, while 28% had parents or other relatives who were alumni.
"There's no birthright to Harvard. As the Supreme Court recently noted, 'eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,'" LCR executive director Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal said in a statement.
"There should be no way to identify who your parents are in the college application process. Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?" he added. "Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."
According to the suit:
Each year, Harvard College grants special preference in its admissions process to hundreds of mostly white students—not because of anything they have accomplished, but rather solely because of who their relatives are. Applicants whose relatives are wealthy donors to Harvard, or whose parents are Harvard alumni, are flagged at the outset of Harvard's admissions process and are granted special solicitude and extra "tips" throughout. The students who receive these special preferences... are significantly more likely to be accepted than other applicants, and constitute up to 15% of Harvard's admitted students.
The students who receive this preferential treatment—based solely on familial ties—are overwhelmingly white. Nearly 70% of donor-related applicants are white, and nearly 70% of legacy applicants are also white.
At the same time that donor and legacy preferences disproportionately advantage white applicants, they systematically disadvantage students of color, including Black, Latinx, and Asian Americans.
The LCR lawsuit comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a pair of cases that affirmative action admissions programs at two universities are unconstitutional. Dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court's right-wing supermajority of "entrenching inequality in education."
"Harvard's practice of giving a leg-up to the children of wealthy donors and alumni—who have done nothing to deserve it—must end."
Last year, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, which would bar colleges and universities from giving preferential treatment to children of alumni and donors.
- Harm Will Come From This Right-Wing Attack on Affirmative Action ›
- Affirmative Action Strikedown Is Supreme Court’s Latest Attack on Civil Rights ›
- Progressives Vow Higher Ed, Court Reforms After 'Devastating' Affirmative Action Ruling ›
- Opinion | Affirmative Action Lives on for White Athletes, Legacy Admits | Common Dreams ›
- Progressive Senators Urge Education Department to End Legacy, Donor Preferences in College Admissions ›
In the wake of last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions, a coalition of civil rights groups on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging Harvard University's preferential treatment of applicants related to alumni and donors—a policy the litigants say "severely damages and harms" prospective students of color.
The lawsuit—filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) on behalf of Chica Project, African Community Economic Development of New England, and Greater Boston Latino Network—claims that Harvard's donor and legacy admissions preferences violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and asks the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to "take all measures necessary to
enforce Title VI and ensure Harvard's compliance with the statute and applicable regulations."
"Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?"
The complaint notes that Harvard applicants related to donors were nearly seven times more likely to be accepted compared to other applicants during the years 2014-19, while legacy applicants were nearly six times likelier to be accepted. Roughly 17% of graduating Harvard students in 2019 had one or both parents who attended the school, while 28% had parents or other relatives who were alumni.
"There's no birthright to Harvard. As the Supreme Court recently noted, 'eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,'" LCR executive director Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal said in a statement.
"There should be no way to identify who your parents are in the college application process. Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?" he added. "Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."
According to the suit:
Each year, Harvard College grants special preference in its admissions process to hundreds of mostly white students—not because of anything they have accomplished, but rather solely because of who their relatives are. Applicants whose relatives are wealthy donors to Harvard, or whose parents are Harvard alumni, are flagged at the outset of Harvard's admissions process and are granted special solicitude and extra "tips" throughout. The students who receive these special preferences... are significantly more likely to be accepted than other applicants, and constitute up to 15% of Harvard's admitted students.
The students who receive this preferential treatment—based solely on familial ties—are overwhelmingly white. Nearly 70% of donor-related applicants are white, and nearly 70% of legacy applicants are also white.
At the same time that donor and legacy preferences disproportionately advantage white applicants, they systematically disadvantage students of color, including Black, Latinx, and Asian Americans.
The LCR lawsuit comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a pair of cases that affirmative action admissions programs at two universities are unconstitutional. Dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court's right-wing supermajority of "entrenching inequality in education."
"Harvard's practice of giving a leg-up to the children of wealthy donors and alumni—who have done nothing to deserve it—must end."
Last year, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, which would bar colleges and universities from giving preferential treatment to children of alumni and donors.
- Harm Will Come From This Right-Wing Attack on Affirmative Action ›
- Affirmative Action Strikedown Is Supreme Court’s Latest Attack on Civil Rights ›
- Progressives Vow Higher Ed, Court Reforms After 'Devastating' Affirmative Action Ruling ›
- Opinion | Affirmative Action Lives on for White Athletes, Legacy Admits | Common Dreams ›
- Progressive Senators Urge Education Department to End Legacy, Donor Preferences in College Admissions ›