As President Donald Trump champions a new era of fairness in college admissions, emphasizing merit and test scores while opposing race-based considerations, critics are questioning his silence on legacy admissions. This practice, which grants preferential treatment to children of alumni and donors, is seen by many as a significant instance of a “rigged” system that Trump frequently denounces.
The Paradox of Trump’s Admissions Stance
Trump has actively sought to remove any consideration of race in college admissions, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision against affirmative action. His administration has pursued settlements with universities like Brown and Columbia to ensure data sharing on admissions practices and has called on colleges nationwide to prove they do not consider race. However, he has conspicuously avoided addressing legacy preferences, a policy that provides an advantage based on family ties and wealth.
Richard Kahlenberg, a researcher at the Progressive Policy Institute, described legacy preferences as a “more flagrant way in which the system is rigged,” highlighting the open practice of “hereditary privilege.” While some Republicans, like Senator Todd Young, applaud the administration’s focus on eliminating racial considerations, they also advocate for ending all preferences based on “arbitrary circumstances of ancestry.”
Legacy Admissions Under Scrutiny
Often referred to as “affirmative action for the rich,” legacy admissions continue to be a common practice at selective colleges, despite growing bipartisan opposition. States like Virginia, Colorado, and California have enacted measures to ban legacy preferences at public institutions. According to 2023 disclosures, approximately 500 universities consider legacy status, including over half of the nation’s 100 most selective schools. Stanford University, for instance, opted to forgo state financial aid rather than end its legacy admissions policy.
Trump’s recent executive actions require universities to provide more data on applicants and accepted students, aiming to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling and promote “merit-based” admissions. However, these actions, along with Justice Department memos clarifying illegal discrimination, do not mention legacy admissions. Lawyers for Civil Rights has filed a complaint alleging that Harvard’s use of donor and alumni preferences constitutes illegal racial discrimination, disproportionately benefiting white students.
Differing Views on Preferences and Merit
Universities often defend legacy admissions by citing their role in building community and encouraging donations. Some argue that as campuses diversify, these preferences increasingly benefit nonwhite students. President Biden has also urged colleges to reconsider legacy preferences, suggesting they expand privilege rather than opportunity. Georgetown University, after reviewing its policy, decided to retain legacy preferences, noting a similar demographic makeup among legacy applicants compared to the general applicant pool.
Public opinion generally views legacy and donor preferences unfavorably, with few Americans believing they should play a significant role in admissions. While universities must disclose whether they consider legacy status, the extent to which it influences admissions decisions remains largely opaque. Trump’s emphasis on meritocracy in admissions, critics argue, could inadvertently send a message that minority students are presumed less capable, potentially intimidating colleges into limiting diversity to avoid government scrutiny.
What are your thoughts on legacy admissions in college? Should they be abolished? Share your views in the comments below!