Yeah, and one day in California, they came for legacy admissions, and no one spoke out, because, well, it was the right thing to do at a time when beleaguered white males who walk around with victim complexes are working overtime to restrict access to higher education to anyone who doesn’t look like them, it’s morally correct that we also do away with the oldest form of affirmative action, the age old policy that dictates that who you know is more important than what you know, racial preferences. That’s nickels and dimes. The big con are those preferences for alumni or donors. That’s the real injustice in the Golden State. It is now a violation of state law for either a public or private college or university to give an applicant a leg up in the admissions process just because a parent went there or someone hand over a big check to fund a new football stadium. Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law AB 1780 which prohibits legacy and donor preferences in the admissions process that’s going to shake up fancy private institutions of higher learning in California, like Santa Clara University, where in 2022 13.3% of the entering freshman class had family ties. Or the University of Southern California, where 14.4% had a family connection. And Stanford University, where 13.8% had a relative hook them up. The law, which won’t go into effect until September 2025 is the second of its kind, following the lead of Maryland, which earlier this year, also banned legacy admissions in both public and private schools. So what’s behind this trend? A couple of things, actually. First, do you remember the varsity blue scandal from a few years ago? Sure you do. The Justice Department dropped the hammer on parents and college admissions consultants who tried to lie and cheat rich kids way into selective schools. Then came the crackdown on affirmative action, which culminated in the Supreme Court striking down the consideration of race or ethnicity in college and university admissions. You put those two things together, and we were bound to get to a place where people begin to question whether the privileged, the coddled and the entitled are amid all this chaos, using a side door to continue to sneak in to the corridors of power and privilege. Look, I have no beef with legacies, per se. People are going to use whatever advantage they can to improve their chances of getting into highly selective colleges and universities. That’s human nature. Sometimes that means playing a sport or a musical instrument. Other times it could mean hailing from Montana or some other state that is woefully underrepresented in the student body. You see, diversity takes many forms, but there is a question about fairness and moral consistency in all this. Remember the concept of merit? You hear that word, the M word, fired off all the time in the affirmative action debate, or whenever white conservatives are trying to keep people of color away from any opportunity to better themselves, the exclusionists worship at the altar of merit. This is their holy grail. All hail the God of merit. All that is good and pure. Well, how about now? Where’s the merit when it comes to legacy admission? What happened to merit when someone need only donate a library to ensure that their child is admitted to a selective school, while someone else who worked harder and made sacrifices isn’t let in as a dark blue state where there is no real check on the power of one of the political parties. California doesn’t always get it right, but this time, I think it did. Legacy admissions had to go. After all, fair is fair. If we’re going to end one kind of admissions preference, we had better end them all. Otherwise people might conclude that the never ending crusade to keep people of color away from colleges and university campuses isn’t about defending merit at all, but rather about something indefensible, racism.
Newsom has it right, legacy admissions have to go
By Straight Arrow News
The recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to end affirmative action quotas in U.S. university applications and admissions met a mixed reception among the American public, with some celebrating the decision and others dissenting against it. Even among those who welcomed the end of affirmative action, however, many criticized the court for failing to also tackle “legacy admissions,” where universities favor student applicants whose relatives previously attended the school, and other remaining forms of alleged bias in the admissions process which were not addressed by the Supreme Court’s decision.
In response to that criticism, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a law prohibiting the practice of legacy admissions in all California public and private universities. California is now the fifth U.S. state to have passed a law restricting or prohibiting legacy admissions.
Watch the above video as Straight Arrow News contributor Ruben Navarrette reviews the data and arguments against legacy admissions and concludes that those who favor a true meritocracy must oppose legacy admissions.
Be the first to know when Ruben Navarrette publishes a new opinion! Download the Straight Arrow News app and enable push notifications today!
The following is an excerpt from the above video:
The big con are those preferences for alumni or donors. That’s the real injustice in the Golden State. It is now a violation of state law for either a public or private college or university to give an applicant a leg up in the admissions process just because a parent went there or someone handed over a big check to fund a new football stadium. Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law AB 1780, which prohibits legacy and donor preferences in the admissions process.
That’s going to shake up fancy private institutions of higher learning in California like Santa Clara University, where in 2022, 13.3% of the entering freshman class had family ties, or the University of Southern California, where 14.4% had a family connection, and Stanford University, where 13.8% had a relative hook them up.
The law, which won’t go into effect until September 2025, is the second of its kind, following the lead of Maryland, which earlier this year also banned legacy admissions in both public and private schools. So what’s behind this trend? A couple of things, actually.
Yeah, and one day in California, they came for legacy admissions, and no one spoke out, because, well, it was the right thing to do at a time when beleaguered white males who walk around with victim complexes are working overtime to restrict access to higher education to anyone who doesn’t look like them, it’s morally correct that we also do away with the oldest form of affirmative action, the age old policy that dictates that who you know is more important than what you know, racial preferences. That’s nickels and dimes. The big con are those preferences for alumni or donors. That’s the real injustice in the Golden State. It is now a violation of state law for either a public or private college or university to give an applicant a leg up in the admissions process just because a parent went there or someone hand over a big check to fund a new football stadium. Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law AB 1780 which prohibits legacy and donor preferences in the admissions process that’s going to shake up fancy private institutions of higher learning in California, like Santa Clara University, where in 2022 13.3% of the entering freshman class had family ties. Or the University of Southern California, where 14.4% had a family connection. And Stanford University, where 13.8% had a relative hook them up. The law, which won’t go into effect until September 2025 is the second of its kind, following the lead of Maryland, which earlier this year, also banned legacy admissions in both public and private schools. So what’s behind this trend? A couple of things, actually. First, do you remember the varsity blue scandal from a few years ago? Sure you do. The Justice Department dropped the hammer on parents and college admissions consultants who tried to lie and cheat rich kids way into selective schools. Then came the crackdown on affirmative action, which culminated in the Supreme Court striking down the consideration of race or ethnicity in college and university admissions. You put those two things together, and we were bound to get to a place where people begin to question whether the privileged, the coddled and the entitled are amid all this chaos, using a side door to continue to sneak in to the corridors of power and privilege. Look, I have no beef with legacies, per se. People are going to use whatever advantage they can to improve their chances of getting into highly selective colleges and universities. That’s human nature. Sometimes that means playing a sport or a musical instrument. Other times it could mean hailing from Montana or some other state that is woefully underrepresented in the student body. You see, diversity takes many forms, but there is a question about fairness and moral consistency in all this. Remember the concept of merit? You hear that word, the M word, fired off all the time in the affirmative action debate, or whenever white conservatives are trying to keep people of color away from any opportunity to better themselves, the exclusionists worship at the altar of merit. This is their holy grail. All hail the God of merit. All that is good and pure. Well, how about now? Where’s the merit when it comes to legacy admission? What happened to merit when someone need only donate a library to ensure that their child is admitted to a selective school, while someone else who worked harder and made sacrifices isn’t let in as a dark blue state where there is no real check on the power of one of the political parties. California doesn’t always get it right, but this time, I think it did. Legacy admissions had to go. After all, fair is fair. If we’re going to end one kind of admissions preference, we had better end them all. Otherwise people might conclude that the never ending crusade to keep people of color away from colleges and university campuses isn’t about defending merit at all, but rather about something indefensible, racism.
MSNBC’s Scarborough, Brzezinski kiss the ring at Mar-a-Lago
Trump’s plan for mass deportation is a guaranteed disaster
Trump’s unqualified cabinet nominees show it’s all about loyalty
White identity politics scores another win
Trump’s Latino gains were beyond my imagination
Underreported stories from each side
House Republicans launch investigation into CVS Caremark for potential antitrust violations
10 sources | 0% from the left ReutersRFK’s Jr.’s lawyer has asked the FDA to revoke polio vaccine approval: NYT
40 sources | 14% from the right Getty ImagesLatest Stories
Trump says Jan. 6 pardons could come in ‘first 9 minutes’ of 2nd term
Elton John: Legal marijuana one of the ‘greatest mistakes of all time’
Syrian rebels find drug stockpile tying Assad regime to black market trade
Elon Musk wants to turn SpaceX headquarters into new Texas city
Meet the man who wrote the law used to prosecute Diddy and Epstein
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
President Trump needs a free-market Labor Secretary
17 hrs ago Star ParkerTrump’s nominees indicate betrayal of our democracy
18 hrs ago Dr. Rashad RicheyBiden must issue pardons before Patel takes FBI lead
Thursday Jordan ReidDemocrats, GOP must urgently cooperate to block Trump tariffs
Thursday Timothy Carney