Ari Melber, July 11, 2003

The Supreme Court has settled the legal challenge to affirmative action, and some reformers are still calling for improved, class-based admissions preferences. But universities already use such preferences, just mostly for upper class students.

In fact, lower admissions standards for donors, legacies and well-connected families account for more seats than affirmative action.

As a student-recruiter for the University of Michigan's admissions office last year, I saw legacies receive automatic points, big donors had extra access to university officials, and prominent applicants awarded extra points at the "provost's discretion." These students were dubbed "Nepos," since they benefited from glaring institutional nepotism.

There are many more Nepos at private universities, which are more dependent on private funding. Nepos are typically accepted at triple the rate of other applicants, despite studies by the U.S. Department of Education that indicate they are usually less qualified. A 1990 Harvard investigation found that if the children of alumni were admitted at the same rate as other applicants, the number of freshmen "would have dropped by close to 200 – a figure that exceeds the total number of [underrepresented minorities] enrolled in the entire class."

Meanwhile, universities with aggressive fundraising goals simply set aside another 100 spots for "development admits." Duke has quadrupled such spots over the past decade, and it now leads the nation in non-alumni donations.

Critics of affirmative action usually decry students who are admitted with low grades or test scores – unless they are white. Writing for the Court, Justice O’Connor cited such white students by observing, "The Law School frequently accepts nonminority applicants with grades and test scores lower than [rejected minorities]."

Some of those "nonminorities" stand out for nonacademic achievements, but others are selected for their parents’ donations. Even Justice Thomas’ dissent acknowledged that the admissions process is "poisoned" by several constitutional "exceptions to ‘merit,’" including elite preferences for Nepos.

The Supreme Court ruling does not settle the debate over admissions preferences, but instead pushes it firmly back into the political sphere. By establishing the legality of both racial and elite preferences, the Court has finally created an opportunity to honestly debate the substance of both preferences.

Before the June ruling, affirmative action opponents talked a lot about merit, but most did not complain when it was trumped by elite preferences. They claimed this inconsistency was simply a function of a legal critique turning on race, not contemporary concepts of fairness (or a personal fixation on race). But if they now intend to advance "merit and fairness" in the political realm, they should logically begin by challenging elite preferences, based on their magnitude alone. However, groups that continue to attack racial preferences while giving elite preferences a free pass will reveal their mission is racial, not meritocratic.

However, advocates of affirmative action also appear inconsistent. When I was at Michigan, many supporters fell into the perverse position of defending boosts for Nepos, citing them only to highlight the inequity in admissions. Supporters feared that if the advantages for the advantaged were cut, the equalizing rationale of affirmative action would be undercut.

That strategy failed, because it is almost impossible to sell a policy by comparing it to something that is very unpopular. (A recent Newsweek poll found 74% of Americans oppose alumni tips, and donors do even worse.) The logic was also contradictory, since a preference for underrepresented groups has the opposite goal and effect of preferences for rich, over-represented families.

Can conservatives now advance merit by taking a stand against nepotism? Will liberals let go of their interest in maintaining a patently unfair admissions system? With more seats at stake than were ever affected by racial preferences, silence on either side should be deafening. Everyone who has weighed in on affirmative action ought to take a firm position on elite preferences.

It is past time for colleges to stop giving dynasties an extra boost. Admitting privileged students for donations undermines the objective and legitimacy of admissions programs. By systemically favoring Nepos, universities reinforce historical inequities and perpetuate families that already come from top schools or old money. Most of those families are white, and their children are admitted instead of regular applicants, which harms the students who have the hardest time making it to college. Many of the parents of today’s applicants were excluded from certain colleges due to poverty or race, and it is a cruel irony that some of their children experience a similar discrimination by proxy.

Of course, taking on the Nepos means taking on their elite parents. They are tougher targets than underrepresented groups.

Alumni give private universities over a quarter of total donations, and no one wants to upset prominent families. Major donors are crucial to school endowments, in addition to many of the think tanks and foundations across the spectrum that have supported the lawyers, writers and pundits for both sides of the affirmative action debate. University administrators consistently and publicly argue that they cannot afford the donor retaliation that would come from cuts in elite preferences.

In the 1960s, many Southern business owners opposed integration on economic grounds. Separate from the merits, they pragmatically argued that an integrated diner would simply lose too many customers. People change with the times, however, and money follows values.

The commitment of American elites to higher education transcends self-interest, especially when the public has reached consensus on where to draw the line. A few brave universities like MIT and the University of California have already cut most elite preferences, and lived to tell about it. A new generation of alumni should advocate fairness and opportunity over privilege, in the hopes that all of our children will compete and prosper on a fairer playing field than the one that we were given.

I was proud to attend my parents’ Alma mater, though I will never know if Nepo points made the difference in my acceptance at the University of Michigan. It is my hope that my children will not even have to wonder.

Ari Melber is a former student-recruiter and graduate of the University of Michigan.

Copyright © 2003 Ari Melber