WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush said Friday he opposes the use of a family history at colleges or universities as a factor in determining admission.
Bush stated his position [sic] to what’s known as “legacy” in response to a question during a Washington forum for minority journalists called Unity 2004.
He was asked, “Colleges should get rid of legacy?”
Bush responded, “Well I think so, yes. I think it ought to be based upon merit.”
…
Prominent civil rights leaders have also called for an end to the legacy practice, as have some Democrats — including vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.
From the same article:
While Bush clearly stated his opposition to quotas, he also suggested that he was not opposed to affirmative action.
But he didn’t explain what the distinction was.
“I support college affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school,” Bush said as the audience laughed.
No explanation given for why they were laughing.
{ 25 comments }
Tony 08.09.04 at 3:57 pm
Universities can support affirmative action without quotas by encouraging qualified minorities to apply. In this case, minorities who apply would be judged by the same standards as everyone else.
Quotas, on the other hand, tend to result in racism (i.e., race is used as a determining factor). If intelligence and race aren’t related, why would quotas be necessary? Why not have quotas for Asians as well as blacks or hispanics? Answer: they’re not necessary.
For once, Bush and I agree on something.
praktike 08.09.04 at 4:19 pm
nothing compares to the tribal sovereignty clip. you have to listen to it.
Christian Claiborn 08.09.04 at 4:36 pm
Tony, I’m happy to agree with you that intelligence and race are unrelated. But a disparity in intelligence between the races is very rarely given as a justification for quotas, so the argument you’re making is a bit of a non-starter.
Another Damned Medievalist 08.09.04 at 4:40 pm
Um … Tony, what do you mean by the same standards? SAT scores, grades, and recommendations? Cool — then kinds at second rate schools who test well will have an edge, because there tends to be more grade inflation there. It’s a bit naive to think that any admissions policy has one set of standards. There are legacies like Bush (for all the bad, legacies can often translate into school loyalty and big donations — which end up benefitting all the students); athletes who, if they had to meet the same academic standards, would probably lower the level of collegiate sports — not a bad thing to me, but many folks would be upset if colleges didn’t train our pro athletes; adding to a more ethnically diverse student body, which is actually important to many schools; creating a more ‘student background’ diverse student population — especially important for most public schools, since they are funded with taxpayer monies.
It’s either no exceptions or some. If it’s some, race is as good a factor as any. And since the biggest complainers about affirmative action are upper middle class white kids with decent, but not stellar grades*, AA makes more sense for them in some parts of the country. For example, if your local U is in an area with a huge number of highly-motivated Asian American students, and there’s no AA, those middle-class white kids won’t be getting a diversity break. It could happen — the demographics in the US are rapidly changing.
But say you don’t like race as a factor. How about hard work? Shouldn’t a kid from a non-college background, say, urban ghetto or barefoot rural, who manages to get good grades, but maybe not stellar, holds down a job in high school not for luxuries but to help support the family, stays out of trouble, etc., be given a chance? Aren’t those the kind of qualities that also spell success in both society and college? I would argue that those kids have as good or better a chance of college success than the kids who have gotten straight A’s, done volunteer work, extracurricular music and sports, etc. My own experience is that the students aware of how hard they or their parents have worked to make it possible to get an education tend to take it much more seriously.
Another Damned Medievalist 08.09.04 at 4:44 pm
*and Ward Connerly
Chris D 08.09.04 at 5:23 pm
The audience laughed because the panelists asked Bush a couple times in a row if he supported affirmative action, and he responded right back to them with, “I support colleges affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school…” and I think the audience was just laughing at his politician-speak.
But I thought college legacy was a non-issue anyway. Are there really any self-respecting colleges out there who still take legacies because they’re legacies? I’ve heard of high profile cases where mondo donors had private meetings with college presidents and got their kids readmitted after failing out or something, but the vast majority of legacies are just regular joes like me.
And I am a legacy, but I can tell you that it had no role in my admissions to college, except planting in me a lifelong emotional connection to a school that ultimately inspired me to apply there.
moriveth 08.09.04 at 5:41 pm
Are there really any self-respecting colleges out there who still take legacies because they’re legacies?
No more than colleges take a particular student entirely because of her race. But it’s still a big advantage to be a legacy (or non-Asian minority) applying to Harvard or Princeton or wherever.
Legacy admissions, like affirmative action, result in students getting in who would otherwise would not without that additional “plus” (permitted in the case of race by the SCOTUS). P.S. Apologies for pointing out the obvious.
djw 08.09.04 at 5:43 pm
Chris D, I don’t have what you might call systematic knowledge about this, but I think it’s pretty common to give some points for legacy status in an admissions scheme. The UM scheme that went to the Supreme Court on AA included 5 points for legacy status on a scale of, IIRC, just over 100 points. It used to be a big part of the admissions at Texas A & M, but they just eliminated it. Still, I think it’s probably more common than you realize, not as an automatic shoo-in, but as a bump.
Praktike, details please. Where can I find?
djw 08.09.04 at 5:47 pm
Never mind, found it.
steve 08.09.04 at 6:12 pm
Harvard and other Ivy league schools still give preference to legacies. A certain number of slots are reserved each year for children of wealthy alumni who would not otherwise qualify.
It was revealed in the 90’s that the admit group with the lowest grades and SAT scores was not the athletes but rather the legacies.
Joe O 08.09.04 at 6:27 pm
Most schools give extra points for legacies. I would be surprised if Chris D’s school didn’t.
It is not uncommon for legacies to not know about the extra admission help. It is not in the student’s or the school’s interest to have employers consider legacies to be less qualified than other potential employees.
There are a lot of weird issues that make school admission less than the meritocratic ideal. I went to Johns Hopkins and apparently they have a relatively fixed number of financial aid packages. A first tier of students is accepted irregardless of the parent’s ability to pay. The second tier of acceptances is only sent to students whose parents have enough money to pay the full ride. This is probably common for selective schools that don’t have the endowment of an ivy league school.
Anjali 08.09.04 at 8:00 pm
Moriveth comments: “Legacy admissions, like affirmative action, result in students getting in who would otherwise would not without that additional “plus†(permitted in the case of race by the SCOTUS). P.S. Apologies for pointing out the obvious.”
Well, that’s an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Legacy refers to an extra “plus” for students whose parents attended this institution. This extra “plus” is in ADDITION to the “plus” that they already have — which in most cases includes their social status, privilege as a white person (as most legacy cases are), and wealth and education from their family).
Affirmative action on the other hand, refers to either a “plus” if you look at it that way, or a “reparation” for all the generations of crap that we gave to black slaves and their descendents. I would argue that most of these students would have gotten in without that “plus” had their families in this generation and in generations past had access to all the things that white people have access to, and access to the other factors I mentioned above.
Matt Weiner 08.09.04 at 8:02 pm
It is not uncommon for legacies to not know about the extra admission help.
Sometimes because the admissions office actively creates false impressions about its policies. When I was applying to college (’87-’88) the people that the Harvard admissions office sent around said that legacy status could be used as a tie-breaker. While I was there a discrimination lawsuit forced the release of the admissions records, which AFAICT private colleges usually keep top-secret. As I remember, it turned out that legacies were admitted from a separate pool, and the admissions from that pool were much higher (43 percent to 16 percent in the class of 1993).
I just dug up this paragraph from a 9/18/91 Boston Globe story:
Yet even those stark numbers paled before still more unseemly testimony to how much weight the “legacy” label gives an otherwise flimsy file. This evidence consisted of the bald-faced comments scrawled by Harvard admissions officers on the folders of various legacy applicants. “Lineage is main thing,” went one evaluation; judged another: “Without lineage, there would be little case. With it, we will keep looking.” Other scribblings gave a still more eyebrow-raising glimpse of a controversial practice in action: “Double lineage but lots of problems”; “Double lineage who chose the right parents”; “lineage tips it, i guess.” One official even wrote: “Classical case that would be hard to explain to dad.” In each of these cases the applicant was admitted.
So it does sound as though some schools admit people entirely because they’re legacies. And Harvard is known for its self-respect.
harry 08.09.04 at 8:38 pm
Didn’t Brown just make a hihg profile announcement that it was scrapping legacies?
I thought everyone knew about legacies. Certainly, all my colleagues who went to Harvard etc, and have kids, know plenty about them. Affirmative action for the already-advantaged. If Bush opposes them he should adopt a ‘name-and-shame’ policy. Otherwise it’s just words.
rea 08.09.04 at 9:31 pm
Tony, there have been no quotas in US affirmative action programs since the mid-70’s, when the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in the Bakke decision. The present day issue is concerns the extent to which race can be taken into account as a factor, through means other than quotas.
bull 08.09.04 at 9:49 pm
Kind of a smarmy link to a smarmy article.
Do you really not understand the difference between quotas in particular and affirmative action generally? Obviously, affirmative action could take the form of quotas (that is, if not unconstitutional), but it could also take many other forms.
All I can think is they were laughing because they have a reflexive dislike of W and believe him stupid, and so before thinking they smirked and sneered at his obvious ignorance when it was they, not him, who was ignorant.
bull 08.09.04 at 10:09 pm
btw, the grammar in my last sentence in my post above is appalling. I’m horrified. I’ve already kicked myself several times and may very well cry myself to sleep tonight.
Steve 08.10.04 at 1:12 am
quote Harvard and other Ivy league schools still give preference to legacies. A certain number of slots are reserved each year for children of wealthy alumni who would not otherwise qualify.
It was revealed in the 90’s that the admit group with the lowest grades and SAT scores was not the athletes but rather the legacies. end quote
That’s right, of the four groups in admissions, minorities are the second highest, not the lowest.
The belief is that if you get rid of legacy admissions, you will open up slots for more students, including more minorities who are better qualified than the white kids in the legacy slots.
Is that true? I’m not sure.
But …
What is interesting is that moving to “top 10%” has resulted in a lot of kids not getting in, but the kids who do get in in Texas seem to work harder.
And the hidden class bias which often came up in quota style admissions seems to be going away.
So, for the poster who said:
quote
But say you don’t like race as a factor. How about hard work? Shouldn’t a kid from a non-college background, say, urban ghetto or barefoot rural, who manages to get good grades, but maybe not stellar, holds down a job in high school not for luxuries but to help support the family, stays out of trouble, etc., be given a chance? Aren’t those the kind of qualities that also spell success in both society and college? I would argue that those kids have as good or better a chance of college success than the kids who have gotten straight A’s, done volunteer work, extracurricular music and sports, etc. My own experience is that the students aware of how hard they or their parents have worked to make it possible to get an education tend to take it much more seriously.
Seems to be right.
More experimentation, federalism, not top down mandates, will tell us alot. I’m not sure that some states should not be allowed to have quotas just to allow comparison with those who don’t.
Thomas 08.10.04 at 6:05 am
Where in the quoted piece did Bush accept a Democratic talking point?
The Democrats oppose reliance on merit, believing the concept fanciful or racist, or both. They don’t want to throw over legacies, or do away with race-based preferences in admissions. They’re perfectly comfortable with those systems.
rea, why is it that the journalists at the event and covering it for CNN seem confused about the difference between quotas and affirmative action? Why is it that they felt they must press Bush to supply the distinction? Isn’t it as obvious to them as it is to you?
Matt Weiner 08.10.04 at 8:28 pm
The Democrats oppose reliance on merit, believing the concept fanciful or racist, or both.
Thomas, that is unusually rank bullshit, even for you.
Matt Weiner 08.10.04 at 8:28 pm
The Democrats oppose reliance on merit, believing the concept fanciful or racist, or both.
Thomas, that is unusually rank bullshit, even for you.
Thomas 08.11.04 at 12:37 am
Matt, you spend your days in a place where the word “merit” always appears with the scare quotes, don’t you?
Matt Weiner 08.11.04 at 6:09 pm
No.
I mean, Thomas, what are you talking about? This is objectively a Democratic talking point–the article mentions that Democrats, including Edwards, are talking about it. And I just don’t understand your most recent remark. You really do seem to spend your days in a world of your own devising.
Another Damned Medievalist 08.11.04 at 6:49 pm
I’m a Democrat and believe strongly in meritocracy. I just happen to define merit in many ways. So in my definition of merit, neither W nor Condi Rice would be at the top of a meritocracy.
Thomas 08.11.04 at 9:27 pm
Matt: It seems to me that Edward’s argument is a classic tu quoque. The point is to say that those awful Republicans aren’t really in favor of merit–they’re in favor of helping themselves, as legacies to ivy league schools,etc. Edward’s argument, then, isn’t an argument in favor of merit; it’s an argument that merit isn’t how we normally do things, so race preferences aren’t an exception.
As for my previous comment, I was thinking of this line from Bowen and Bok’s famous work: “”Deciding which students have the most ‘merit’ depends on what one is trying to achieve.” That’s the approach I see so often in academic circles–but apparently that’s not how people think in Wisconsin, and I’m thankful for that.
Comments on this entry are closed.