President Bush started it, sad to say. In a speech last month, President Bush gave aid and comfort to one of the worst new movements in education--the attack on legacy admissions. Probably at the urging of some shallowly clever speechwriter who thought it gave the president political cover, Bush condemned legacy admissions, equating them with affirmative action. He admitted, ruefully, that he'd probably benefited from them at Yale. But he called on universities to stop giving preferential admission to children of alumni--as part of his call to end racial prefernces.

Now The New York Times has picked up the ball and is running with it. In today's Op-Ed section, Prof. Jerome Karabel of Pyongyang State University--oops, I meant "of U. of California Berkeley"--advocates federal legislation to help curb legacy admissions.

I'd like to make the case in defense of legacy admissions. Unlike Mr. Bush, I didn't benefit from them; I was the first member of my family ever to attend college (though I hope I won't be the last!). I was admitted to Yale in 1982 from a high school which had never sent anyone there; in fact, I may have benefited from the desire to admit students from unlikely backgrounds. But it never bothered me that some of my fellow students might have had a leg up because their dads went to Yale.

And here's why: As I looked around at the gorgeous buildings where we were privileged to live and study, and looked at the generous financial aid package provided me, I knew that these buildings and those grants were largely funded by alumni donations. Some of the exquisite Gothic and Georgian buildings were named for alumni who gave money. Indeed, the school itself is named for Elihu Yale, who gave the college a pile of books and some cash in the 17th century.

Now why do people give money to their alma maters? Some no doubt out of gratitude, and the generosity of their hearts. But such people have more obvious charities deserving their attention--for instance, Save the Children, the Missionaries of Charity, and Oxfam. Considering human motivations, you have to accept the fact that many people give money to their old schools because they quietly hope it will help their kids get in. And sometimes, no doubt, it does. Often it doesn't. Schools won't tarnish their reputation as meritocracies by accepting complete idiots, just because of generous parents. At least, the better schools won't. The schools we recommend in "Choosing the Right College" certainly don't.

But wealthy alums who think that their generosity MIGHT benefit their beloved heirs have some reason to give. What would happen if they stopped giving?

A massive cut in private giving to universities would cause a national educational crisis. It would be seen as a threat to America's security and competitiveness. And we all know who would step right up to solve the problem: The U.S. federal government. Whatever private initiative, and academic freedom, still exists on campuses would be further constrained by elaborate federal regulations. If you don't believe me, go visit Fordham University sometime, a Jesuit school, and look for crucifixes in the classrooms. You won't find any. The school took them down years ago, supposedly out of fear that they would imperil their federal funding. Or look at the case of the Divinity student who was denied government financial aid because she was studying religion.
Whenever the heavy hand of the state presses down on private colleges, you can expect mediocrity, political interference, multicultural indoctrination, and a stifling conformity of views.

By attacking legacy admissions, this is precisely what the academic Left is hoping to achieve. I wish that President Bush would stop helping them along.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Big Brother,

Before reading your post, I was against legacy admissions. I must say you've changed my opinion on the issue with a single post. Anyone who knows me well would be amazed.

As long as legacy admissions don't prevent quality applicants without the family connections from getting in, what is the problem? These students certainly benefit greatly from the contributions of wealthy alumni. If that keeps the government out, so much the better.

My personal position would be to favor allowing legacy admissions while opposing race-based admissions, because the justification for the former is rational and the justifications for the latter are all bogus smoke screens for racial reparations.

However, as a matter of public policy, and in a court of law, the proponents of race-based admissions will claim that, just as legacy admissions serve the self-interest of the university, so do race-based admissions, because of the wonderful benefits of "diversity" in the student body. I do not see how you can prove, to the satisfaction of a judge, that only legacy admissions serve the rational self-interest of the college.

As an aside, it is great to see John Zmirak's writings here. Your contributions to Front Page Magazine were among their best, a while ago. Now I just have to find time to read Wilhelm Ropke, per your recommendations.

Colleges and universities should only admit legacies. Well, perhaps to fill out the ranks, a few green applicants should be considered.

I believe that these posts have missed the point: what is the purpose of higher education? I believe that legacy admissions clearly diminishes the quality of students at any institution. Just as many universities claim to admit students on a "need-blind basis" (admittance precedes financial needs), I contend that almost none admit on a more selfish "need-blind basis", wherein the fiscal needs of the university precede questions of admission. I will group legacy admissions with admissions based on celebrity status and racial quotas as well. I think that the moment other factors such as race, funding, diversity become criteria for gaining entrance to an institution, how can we expect the university to cultivate an environment of the highest learning and excellence? Fundamentally, I disagree with universities conforming to government standards for funding (i.e., Fordham), but to make a decision to allow, even promote, legacy admissions, running from an apparent evil (gov't funding and restrictions), we can quickly lose sight of the true good that is fundamental to a university: LEARNING!

University donors: give in gratitude or give to the stock market. If you choose to participate in this academic graft, I pray that you do not succeed in denigrating the academic excellence that still exists in our great country.