If it comes down to it, given the choice between accepting federal funds and continuing to give preference to legacy admissions, I think we all know which one Harvard will pick.
Why not both? Accept federal funds and increase class size by the # of legacy admits. This is the obvious solution if there’s an impasse with the government. Want to accept another legacy student? Then take in one more student on merit. The government has a lot of leverage and I’m surprised they haven’t forced larger class sizes at top universities.
IANAL, but the article doesn't appear to outline a legal theory to support the complaint.
If you regard a private school as a business, then legacy admission is a policy of giving preference to children of previous customers. I would expect that to rate as a civil rights issue only if the business were some kind of monopoly.
I also ANAL, but as far as I can discern I believe the argument is that "race-neutral" admissions are incompatible with giving favorable treatment to a racially biased group, and legacy students are (presently) a racially biased group. It fundamentally is an attempt to force the court to decide whether the mandate of "race neutrality" is anything more than a fig leaf: if you can be "race neutral" while giving preferential treatment to racially biased groups, it is very easy to follow the rule while still producing a racially biased and non-meritocratic system.
Is this a case of the DoJ "working to rule"? That is, finding ways to enforce a... flawed... SCOTUS ruling, so as to spite the elite that managed to get the ruling in question?
I'm using "elite" here in the same sense that HN favorite Peter Turchin uses it, a small segment of the society who concentrate social power in their hands.
