Merit? It's not so simple

A new gripe circulating the Bush-bashing circuit is the seeming moral inconsistency between his opposition to racial preferences in the University of Michigan affirmative action case and the legacy preference that facilitated his Yale admission. Bush is labeled a hypocrite for renouncing one non-merit based advantage while benefiting from another. \nAs usual, opponents distort Bush's position to promote their agenda. \nThe U.S. brief in Grutter (www.findlaw.com) said that Bush's position is not that schools cannot consider non-merit based factors. Instead, the brief argues that Michigan's system is 1) unconstitutional because it isn't the fairest practical means to achieve diversity and 2) it results in a racial quota by reserving seats for minorities. The brief doesn't argue, as some conservatives have, that race cannot be an admissions factor.\nIf that doesn't clear the hypocrisy tag, consider the differences between the preferences. Understanding what "legacy" means is a start. Although universities' precise definitions differ, legacy preferences generally bestow an admissions "plus" to alumni's descendants. Michigan, for example, provides 20 points for "underrepresented minorities," and one to four points for "alumni legacy." (www.umich.edu). \nLegacy preferences are consistent with the "American Dream" as understood by centuries of immigrants. The dream is not merely an aspiration for a better life for oneself, but one's children as well. The legacy preference is an enabler of this aspiration -- available to the children of all alumni, irrespective of race. Unlike race, which has no link to merit, legacy has a merit connection. It rewards those parents who studied hard enough to gain admittance and graduate by conferring a small advantage to their children, who, I would expect, would generally inherit the same work ethic that made their parents' success possible. \nA legitimate counter-point to legacy preferences is that historically some minorities were denied equal access to higher education. Such access is no longer legally denied, but for purposes of argument, let's give the counter-position prevailing weight and forecast the consequences for a university that eliminates legacy preferences. \nSince legacy preferences are not constitutionally constrained, schools would remain free to consider legacy status. Strike legacy, and alumni children would face a slightly tougher route to admission. It is reasonable to predict that an alumni donor would not donate as much to a school his or her child does not attend. Meanwhile, at schools that keep legacy policies, donations wouldn't similarly decline. All else equal, the legacy school would have a financial advantage with which to pay higher teacher salaries, fund scholarships and attract superior students. \nMore key distinctions:\n1. Unlike legacy, racial preferences are a constitutional anomaly. The Supreme Court has reasoned that it's legal to discriminate based upon race if the justification is "compelling" and the method is "narrowly tailored." However, in Bakke, only one of nine justices found the "diversity" justification generally advanced by university presidents "compelling" enough to trump the equal protection clause.\n2. Potential beneficiaries of racial preferences are generally physically identifiable, while legacy beneficiaries are not. Students might wonder, "Would John have gained admission without the racial preference?" This system-created atmosphere results in the truly unfair societal diminishment of the accomplishments of those minorities who gained admission by virtue of their hard work and unique talents without need of the additional racial "plus." \n3. Unlike legacy, race has been an intensely debated issue throughout U.S. history, and racial preferences continue to engender bitterness and resentment. Fair or not, I've yet to hear a single grumble from someone who feels they would've been granted admission "if not for that darn legacy plus!" \nAs history and reality demonstrate, regardless of whether you believe Bush is "right" on race, equating legacy with race is as astute as prejudging viewpoint based on skin color.