Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case that many experts believe could transform the practice of affirmative action across the country. Brown, along with the other Ivy League institutions and a few other elite universities, submitted an amicus curiae brief to the court in support of the University of Texas' affirmative action policies. A significant portion of many elite universities consists of recruited athletes, children of alums, minority groups and children of donors. These groups, aside from minority groups, are disproportionately white and from upper socioeconomic classes. We believe that if admission offices at these universities plan to retain preferential admissions for a section of students that is often disproportionately privileged, affirmative action should be given similar treatment.
Children of alums are favored disproportionately in the admission process at many universities. In 2003, a series of Wall Street Journal articles highlighted legacy admissions. At the time, legacy students made up to 10-15 percent of the overall student body of Ivy League schools. At Harvard, where the overall acceptance rate was 11 percent at the time, 40 percent of legacy students were admitted. Similarly, the Penn admitted 41 percent of legacy students, as opposed to 21 percent of the overall applicant pool. In 2003, Gary Orfield, a professor of education and social policy at Harvard, stated, "If the Supreme Court were to end affirmative action, colleges would be under tremendous pressure to reconsider whether they give preference to alumni children, of whom the vast majority are white and privileged." The policy of allowing a parent's alma mater to influence his or her child's chances of admission is merely a different type of affirmative action and one that should be called into question if the legislation is changed.
There is a similarly biased practice in place for athletes. Ivy League universities each admit roughly 200 athletes per year under a special admissions process. Just last year, former president Ruth Simmons noted that it is "necessary to ensure that all students with special talents who are admitted to Brown, including athletes, meet the 'representativeness' standard." Accordingly, she recommended that "Brown can and should reduce its number of athletic recruitment slots ... to appropriately rebalance academic goals and athletic interests." This year, there will be 20 fewer recruitment slots. Undoubtedly, athletic recruits commit large amounts of time in high school and in college to their sport, and they contribute to an athletic culture that has played an important role in university history. Brown fields many sports teams for programs that may not exist at most public high schools. Many varsity teams, such as squash and water polo, are composed mainly of students from elite private high schools, prompting considerations about how balanced the admissions process is for students from less economically privileged backgrounds.
Alum preferences, athletic recruiting and affirmative action have all provoked controversy on campus and nationwide. However, only the last group preferences students who are not disproportionately white or wealthy, and it is also the program that has been most disputed. Elite institutions have maintained that all of these preferences are needed to create diverse and well-balanced student bodies. This may be the case - but that is a debate for a different day. The truth is that it is grossly unfair to only remove one form of preference and keep the others. If we are reconsidering preferential admissions, it is only just to consider all of them.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
