I feel obligated to begin with a disclaimer: I do not know what it feels like to be black, Latino or Latina, Native American or Asian. I do not know what it feels like to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. I do not to know what it feels like to be a woman. I do not know what it feels like to be financially underprivileged. For all my life, I have been a straight, white, middle-class male.
Being a part of a group that is often considered representative of “privilege” does not constrain my capacity for sympathy. Yet, while I have not suffered from the same oppression as have other students throughout their lives, my perspective can still provide me with a commitment to justice.
It is in this light that I first viewed the “Freedom Budget,” a list of demands from a diverse group of concerned students. While the budget includes a number of commendable proposals with the noble objective of ending sexism, racism, classism, homophobia and ableism, it also contains two oversights in its admissions demands.
The first lapse is the proposal to “increase enrollment of Black, Latin@ and Native students to at least 10 percent each.” While the quota for the latter group may be high in proportion to the percentage of Native Americans in the national population, the overarching idea of setting quotas purely on racial grounds warrants scrutiny. If, for instance, Dartmouth established quotas using the criteria of race alone, where would that leave socioeconomic status? A purely racial quota could benefit those who are most insulated from racism and oppression — the wealthiest members of these minority groups. Much like wealthy white students, these students have access to the best schools, resources and environments. They have an admissions advantage relative to the poorer members of each group. In the end, a quota could harm those who need the most protection from oppression. A greater emphasis on both socioeconomic status and race could create more diversity on campus than would these single-minded proposals.
But the most glaring oversight is omitting the legacy component of the application process. If these groups were truly concerned about opening up opportunity to the disadvantaged, they would make a legacy overhaul a prime component of its program.
Giving legacy applicants preferential treatment impedes greater opportunity and is highly relevant to concerns of race and class. Legacies constitute a small but significant minority, comprising 14 percent of the last four incoming classes. They receive great advantages. A former Dartmouth admissions officer said to Business Insider, “Legacies do get a bump. We’re taught to be sensitive of if their father or mother went to Dartmouth. Legacies are admitted at twice the rate of other students.” According to a 2011 Harvard University study, parent legacies are 45.1 percent more likely to get into highly selective universities, while a Princeton University study found that legacy status was equal to a 160-point swing on a 1600-point SAT scale.
Of course some legacies deserve admission. However, these applicants need advantages the least. Research suggests the strongest correlation between income level and academic achievement of the earners’ children. Children of Dartmouth graduates generally benefit from high levels of economic security and, by association, perform well in school. They should not need a boost.
According to Jerome Karabel of the University of California at Berkeley, the favored legacy status was originally a ploy to keep Jews and other minorities out of the Ivy League in the early 20th century. Today it helps attract alumni donations. But those who truly love the College would give regardless of special treatment. “Paying it forward” for the advantages received from a Dartmouth education should be enough of a reward for most alumni.
Both a purely racial quota and failing to eliminate preferential treatment for legacies are antithetical to the core principles behind today’s conception of affirmative action, which values diversity because it broadens young people’s horizons. These two flaws in the “Freedom Budget” limit its ability to deliver diversity and widen opportunity at Dartmouth.
