Spike Lee’s visit has promoted discourse on race and especially in relation to affirmative action. Mr. Jones wrote, in a Letter to the Editor last spring, the most persuasive defense for affirmative action yet printed in The Phillipian. In his Letter to the Editor, he points out the issue of legacy. He derides the “nepotistic old-boy connections” that he claims make affirmative action necessary, referencing George W. Bush ’68. Others besides Mr. Jones have pointed out to me that legacies counter the equality and meritocracy that I support. Legatees undoubtedly have a leg up when applying to prep schools and colleges. According to Lynn O’Shaughnessy, author of “The College Solution,” the latest Princeton legacy admission rate was 40 percent compared to 13.1 percent of all applicants, and the Middlebury College legacy rate was 48 percent versus 18 percent for all applicants as of 2008. However, studies show that affirmative action advantages given to blacks and Hispanics surpass the advantage given to legacies. Asians, conversely, have a disadvantage. That skin color could help or hurt a college applicant is unfair in the same way that hereditary privilege could help a college applicant. As an advocate of meritocracy, I feel I must criticize the replacement of one type of inequality for another, even if one’s purpose is to counter the other. That being said, I see the argument for the institution. Students with legacies—and similarly, students with notable fortunes—bring with them a promise of sizeable checks. It would not be illogical to conclude that schools think twice about rejecting the son or daughter of a generous alumnus. Prep schools and universities rely upon alumni support. Such schools are both an educational institute and a financial entity. And the continuation of the former depends on the stability of the latter. Critics of preferential treatment for legacies call it no less than bribery. Practically speaking, however, legacy money is part of what is supporting our remarkable need-blind financial aid program. As a proponent of meritocracy, I cringe when wealth plays a factor in admission. But I understand that in this case, the ends do justify the means. We come closer to equality by losing a little. Injustice is fueling justice. The benefits that this particular inequality brings—financial stability and sensational renovations—far outweigh the faults—having an occasional dumb legatee. I hope to sound more practical than utilitarian. Also, the vast majority of students with legacies do deserve to be at the school. Alumni have reared their children with the same morals and values that their alma mater bestowed upon them. And for the few who don’t deserve to be at the school, we have the comfort that they will be gone in at most four years, while their family’s building will last far longer. Though I lack figures, I do not believe schools are usually financially dependent on admitting legacy students preferentially, but there is no doubt that such a practice is always financially beneficial. In addition, stronger endowments create stronger communities. I reject the idealist stance. I have heard we are sacrificing our school’s mission by accepting legacies. But I believe a school’s integrity is unmarred because such a policy is providing a monetary cushion for the same mission to continue in the future as best as possible. Continuing the current legacy policy is in the interest of the long-term good of schools that employ it. Though preferential treatment, whether racially or financially, is undemocratic, we must consider all the good that such a small sacrifice can bring. Andrew Mitchell is a two-year Upper from Ridgefield, CT.
