geoff Bennett: In the coming
weeks, the U.S. Supreme court is
expected to issue its ruling on
the use of race in college
admissions and many court
watchers expect the court to
further limit or ban the use of
race outright.
The case is focusing attention
once again on other admissions
practices that may need to
change, including legacy
applicants, the children of
alumni who often have preference
and who are overwhelmingly white
and from affluent families.
Evan mandery of the John Jay
college of criminal justice has
studied this closely and wrote a
book about it titled, "Poison
ivy: How elite colleges divide
us." He joins me now for our
series, "Rethinking college."
Thank you for.
Why did colleges start giving --
thank you for being with us, why
did colleges start useing legacy
admissions?
>> Legacy preference origin
aided as an anti-semitic policy,
it was way too exclude Jews.
There is no ethical explanation.
Geoff Bennett: How do legacy
admissions work as a
fund-raising tool?
>> There is no evidence
whatsoever that legacy
preference bolsters fundraising
and more obvious case is M.I.T.
Which is never practiced legacy
or donor preference.
It has an been dominant $5
billion and a couple of
sociological studies have found
no relationship between legacy
and alumni generosity.
One would expect there to be
one.
Geoff Bennett: When you say
there is no ethical
justification, explain?
>> Access is supposed to be
equitable, legacy is just a
wording for accidents at birth.
That is not what education is
supposed to be.
Geoff Bennett: From the
affirmative action case we have
mentioned, Harvard
university data showed between
2010 and 2015 the
acceptance rate was five point
seven times higher than the
acceptance rate for non-legacy
applicants.
What does that suggest about the
role of wealth and access in the
admissions process?
>> The wealth and affluence is a
significant protector of success
in the college admissions
process, you can relate to the
schools with the highest
endowments.
The schools that could most
afford to be equitable.
The legacy bump is about six
times, it is higher for donors
and the children of faculty and
staff and the good athletes, 16
times multiplier.
It is overwhelmingly people only
wash division I college football
and basketball, they think there
is sniffing lack representation
but all of the sports at these
colleges favor whites.
Geoff Bennett: Many have eased
off legacy preferences, how have
they done and what has it meant
for enrollment?
>> No discernible impact on
enrollment whatsoever.
Two things with, who we let in
and the stories that we tell
about people who we let in.
Legacy is legitimating affluent
people's admission.
What is worth about it is a
creates the myth -- worse about
it is it perpetuates his idea
and invites the best and the
brightest when it is actually
bringing in the rich and the
richest.
>> Some are defending the
practice and they sent an
institution that was made in the
family, the duke family, how
does that translate into the way
that we behave?
The idea you would ban legacy
admissions or any particular
factor as a consideration is
troublesome, there are a lot of
people who will hear that and
think that makes sense.
What is your argument against
it?
>> Is a painful argument to
listen to from a college
president.
Those are the types of arguments
that plantation owners used to
defend slavery.
It is not because it is the way
we have always done it that it
is an ethical defense of
continuing an indefensible
practice.
Geoff Bennett: Why cannot
private institutions use
admission systems they deem
appropriate to arrive at a class
that reflects the diversity of
backgrounds and worldviews?
>> That is a great question but
I will say they can do whatever
they want.
The question is whether they are
going to be entitled to non-
profit status.
Colleges receive tax benefits
which sociologists estimate to
be $20 billion a year.
If they are going to get your
contribution to your Alma mater
is tax-exempt, their earnings on
the tax-exempt at all of these
colleges get preferential
treatment in real state and
state taxes.
If they're going to do that they
need to act in the public
interest.
If what they want to do is act
as for-profit colleges they
should say that is what their
business is and they would be
able to do whatever they want so
long as it does not violate the
constitution.
Geoff Bennett: He is a professor
with the John Jay college of
criminal justice.
>> Thank you.