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.
Legacy admission is a policy that is a true cancer. A rot. As a society, either you have a class system or you have a merit-based system.
If a prospective student could never ever get into a university naturally via their own work (sometimes with embarrassing test scores and no ability to write a basic essay) then you end up putting out people who will enter prominent positions in the workforce and government who literally never cared from the start.
It's guaranteed to fundamentally degrade basic national competence in business and politics.
I used to be more open-minded on this debate, but meeting legacy graduates in the workforce really left me stunned. Almost without exception. It's not the fault of the graduate, they took their best opportunity. Some even tried their best.