States get bolder about banning legacy admissions. What does that mean for equity?

Should college applicants get preferential treatment if they are related to wealthy alumni or donors?

States are increasingly saying “No,” with California being the fifth and largest to do so, on Sept. 30. Public schools in that state had dropped the practice decades earlier. The new law bars it at private, nonprofit colleges and universities.

The Golden State joins Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, and Colorado, all of which have done away with legacy admissions at either all schools or at public institutions. Massachusetts and other states are considering similar action – and members of Congress have also embraced the idea. For some institutions, it could mean the loss of a consistent revenue source, and, some argue, an important part of school culture and community. But opponents say the recent laws go a long way to support equal access to education.

“This is terrific news,” says James Murphy, director of career pathways and post-secondary policy at the nonprofit Education Reform Now. “Not only because it’s California and that’s a big and influential state, but also because it’s only the second state to abandon legacies in private universities.”

What’s driving states to ban legacy admissions?

The push to ban legacy admissions became more public after the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that did away with affirmative action, deeming it unconstitutional to consider race in admissions. In that decision, the high court also commented on other practices. Legacy admissions “while race-neutral on their face,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in his concurring opinion, ”undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most.”

State bans are fairly recent. Colorado was the first to bar legacy admissions, at public schools, in 2021. Earlier this year, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore made his state the first to include private, nonprofit colleges and universities – as well as their public counterparts – in a ban. This year, Illinois and Virginia also passed laws banning legacy admissions at public institutions.

After the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision, advocacy groups filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education asking for an investigation into legacy admissions at schools like Harvard. The University of Pennsylvania is currently being investigated after a separate complaint. A 2019 study showed that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were legacies, athletes, or children of parents or relatives who donated to the university. It also showed that 70% of the school’s legacy students were white.

“As the organization that filed the federal civil rights complaint against Harvard University for its discriminatory legacy and donor preferences, we applaud California’s move. And we ask: Why is Massachusetts lagging behind on this critical civil rights issue?” said Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director at Lawyers for Civil Rights Boston, in a statement after California’s decision. Mr. Espinoza-Madrigal called legacy admission an unfair and undeserved preference that is harmful to applicants of color.

Along with members of Congress, the U.S. Department of Education and President Joe Biden have called out the practice, with Mr. Biden saying that it expands “privilege instead of opportunity.” Two-thirds of Americans say legacy should not be considered in college admissions, up from 68% in 2019, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey.

Last week, Brown University’s student paper, The Brown Daily Herald, released the results of a poll in which nearly 60% of student respondents said they somewhat or strongly opposed legacy admissions. The Ivy League school is considering whether it will continue the practice. Of the students who enrolled in the Class of 2027, for example, 8% are legacies, according to Brown.

Some 460 private, nonprofit, four-year institutions reported that they do consider legacy admissions in a survey released last year by the National Center for Education Statistics. If it does do away with the practice, Brown will join the selective schools who don’t use it, including Johns Hopkins University, Amherst College, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The California law will affect schools such as Stanford University, the University of Southern California, and Santa Clara University, all places where legacy admissions have accounted for double-digit percentages of admitted students.

“In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work. The California Dream shouldn’t be accessible to just a lucky few, which is why we’re opening the door to higher education wide enough for everyone, fairly,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

The new legislation will not take effect until next September. Starting in 2026, all private schools in the state must submit an annual report to show that they are following the law. Schools that violate the law will appear on a published list by the California Department of Justice, and they will also have to disclose the overall number and certain information about legacy students who were admitted.

Private schools get federal and state dollars for research, financial aid, and tax exemptions – which means the state and federal governments can ask them to comply with laws. So far, the University of Southern California has said it will follow the law. Stanford has said that it will continue to review its admissions policies.

What colleges say about legacy admissions

Elite schools, including Harvard, have argued that the practice helps build community, and that it is part of their fundraising process. A committee at Brown looking at admissions practices wrote in a report released in February that is is considering “whether it is fair to end legacy preferences at the moment when the applicant pool is beginning to reflect the more diverse population of Brown alumni and alumnae, many of whom attended the University at a time when it was less inclusive and welcoming.”

But the group’s report also noted that “removing legacy preferences could lead to somewhat more diversity in the group of admitted students.”

“That’s the bottom line,” says Stanford Law School Professor Ralph Richard Banks. “[Legacy admissions] are unfair in the sense that you’re giving one student an advantage over another because of who their parent is. That’s not the way things work in the United States of America, but it’s also the case that the universities have developed a business model that relies on that sort of preference. That’s what drives the fundraising.”

Mr. Banks says he doesn’t know if legacy admissions bans will curtail a significant portion of those donations, but that the schools don’t want to find out.

“It’s important to say that it is possible that these institutions might lose some donations,” says Mr. Murphy from Education Reform Now. But he adds, “Most people that give donations to colleges give very small amounts, and if a college can only get money from their alumni by essentially setting up a quid pro quo, ‘You send us money, we’ll help your kid out,’ that’s a pretty bad sign for how that college has built community.”

Universities have spent money to defend their positions by lobbying behind closed doors, Mr. Banks says. The California law, for example, initially called for schools to be fined if they violated the law, which saw backlash from lawmakers and schools. But when that language was taken out, it received bipartisan approval. He thinks that will be the case with schools nationally.

Even so, some are still hoping the tides have turned.

“I firmly believe that in like 5 – maybe 10 – years, people are going to be like, ’Oh my God. Can you believe that colleges used to have legacy preferences?’” says Mr. Murphy. He adds that though the practice is nowhere near as heinous, he equates legacy admissions to people having segregated pools in the country. “That’s embarrassing that anybody ever thought that that was OK.”