Harvard University's "systemic nepotism" has been an open secret for a very long time. As Salon's Nicole Karlis reported in 2019, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 43% of white Harvard students admitted were legacy students, children of staff, on the dean's interest list—meaning their parents or relatives have donated to Harvard—or were recruited athletes. Aside from admits in the four categories, which the study's authors refer to as ALDCs, only 57% of white student admits were meritocratic-based decisions.
But now, as the New York Times reported on July 3, Harvard's admissions policies, which have been referred to as "affirmative action for the rich," are being challenged for favoring children of alumni. As journalist Stephanie Stall wrote, a legal activist group has now demanded the federal government put an end to what they allege are discriminatory practices that allow legacy students to be treated with priority over more qualified students who didn't have family members who attended the university.
This complaint comes just days after a conservative group, Students for Fair Admissions, won a Supreme Court case that ultimately determined race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful — a decision that NAACP leaders say will reinforce systemic racism. Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal is the executive director for Lawyers for Civil Rights, which is handling the legacy admissions case against Harvard. In a statement to the Times, he said: "Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations? Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."
