Our View: Preserve universities' right to shape student community

Each year, Dickinson College admits about half of the students who apply to the Pennsylvania liberal arts school. But if applicants' parents or siblings graduated from Dickinson, their chance of admission shoots up to 75%. Overall, 12% of Dickinson's incoming freshmen have family connections that give them a leg up over other applicants that has nothing to do with grades or SAT scores.
Universities long have favored legacy admissions as a way to boost support from alumni, who are more likely to stay active and make donations if their children are enrolled. But now the practice is coming under fire. Critics claim legacy preference programs are most likely to give affluent white students a boost. That's particularly unfair, they say, now that minorities increasingly are being excluded from admission preference plans because some colleges are dropping their affirmative action programs.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, says legacies undermine the principle that college admissions should be based on a student's academic accomplishments. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., himself a Harvard legacy, is pushing legislation that would require colleges to disclose how many legacy students they accept.

Critics rightly point out that legacy applicants get at least a degree of special treatment that isn't based on academics. But they aren't unique. To attract students with a range of talents and interests, colleges commonly show preferences for attributes that go beyond academics. Hence, special provisions are made to attract gifted athletes, ensure broad geographic diversity or even maintain a renowned a capella group. While any preference program can be taken too far, such admissions acknowledge that a vibrant college is more than the sum of students' grades and standardized test scores.

By pressuring colleges to drop legacy admissions, the federal government would interfere with the right of universities to manage their own affairs as long as they aren't violating anti-discrimination laws.

Some universities are ending legacy admissions on their own. Texas A&M stopped the practice last month in the face of criticism that it kept legacy preferences even after dropping affirmative action.

Pressuring all universities to follow Texas A&M's example, however, sends the federal government down a slippery slope. Using the same logic, the government could question colleges' freedom to:

Reflect their unique character. The University of Notre Dame's freshman class is 85% Roman Catholic. Federal attempts to dictate admissions policies could infringe on a college's ability to shape its student body.

Control their financing. Many colleges rely on private giving, often from alumni. At Dickinson, alumni provide 25% of its budget, allowing the school to keep tuition to $28,380 and offer aid to families that can't afford the cost. College officials say eliminating legacy admissions would reduce donations and drive up tuition.

Donations aren't the sole reason colleges have legacy policies. Many say students of alumni fortify school traditions and have more active parents. They also say legacy students have stronger academic records on average than other students admitted.

Critics say admissions should be based solely on merit. But that argument assumes an objective standard can assess merit across the nation's wide range of college-bound students. In the subjective world of admissions, pure merit does not exist. Nor should it.

Choosing a diverse student body that contributes to a stimulating campus environment is a freedom worth preserving.

Opposing View: End special privilege
By John Edwards
In America, the kind of family you come from should never determine your destiny.
My parents worked in mills and did not have much money. But because of their hard work and good public schools, I was able to become the first person in my family to go to college. I've lived a life I never dreamed that I'd have.

All children in America should have the same opportunities — wherever they come from or whatever their backgrounds. As Americans, we have a responsibility to break down all of the barriers that stand in the way of that ideal.

One of those barriers is some colleges' practice of rewarding applicants because their parents went there. These "legacy" preferences don't reward kids based on what they've accomplished. They don't encourage diversity in the classroom or address discrimination the way affirmative action does. Legacy preferences reward students who already had the most advantages to begin with.

The more students are admitted because a parent went to a college, the less room is left for kids whose parents never went to college at all. These policies are something out of an aristocracy, not our democracy.

It's true that legacy students often are extremely qualified and add a tremendous amount to their schools. Those kids can be admitted without any preferences, and they should be. Some people say colleges couldn't raise money without legacy preferences, but I don't think that's true.

At the end of the day, this isn't about money. It's about right and wrong. The government shouldn't just step in and ban legacy preferences. Colleges' independence is important. But I think we should encourage schools to do the right thing and get rid of these policies.

As a step in that direction, I would shine a bright light on the practice and require universities to disclose how many students they admit with this special privilege.

Equal opportunity is the birthright of every American. Legacy preferences get in the way. It's time for them to go.

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., is running for the Democratic nomination for president.