The idea that "discriminating" on the basis of being the child of an alumnus is the same, or in any relevant way similar, to discriminating on the basis of race is preposterous on its face. As Chief Justice Roberts retorted to Seth Waxman in response to Waxman's claim that Harvard's racial discrimination was no worse than discriminating among applicants to admit oboe players, "We didn't fight the Civil War about oboe players."
All of these school are recipients of public funding. Why should opponents of legacy admissions and similar preferences need a Constitutional prong rather than a policy-based statute? As it is, non-connected taxpayers are paying for the privilege of getting screwed by these colleges and universities.
The idea that "discriminating" on the basis of being the child of an alumnus is the same, or in any relevant way similar, to discriminating on the basis of race is preposterous on its face. As Chief Justice Roberts retorted to Seth Waxman in response to Waxman's claim that Harvard's racial discrimination was no worse than discriminating among applicants to admit oboe players, "We didn't fight the Civil War about oboe players."
All of these school are recipients of public funding. Why should opponents of legacy admissions and similar preferences need a Constitutional prong rather than a policy-based statute? As it is, non-connected taxpayers are paying for the privilege of getting screwed by these colleges and universities.
A statute would certainly suffice. But there is none, and thus no basis for a DOJ investigation of legacy admissions.