Legacies Not Immoral

HARVARD'S admissions policy is not perfectly democratic, but the staff position ignores that there may be nothing wrong with that.

Among diversity that includes innercity beekeepers, football-playing philosophy concentrators and children of Vietnamese refugees, there should be room for respect for tradition--as long as those alumni children that Harvard admits are as qualified as other applicants. The staff position does not prove that legacies are less qualified; it only asserts that unfair preference is given.

If legacy applicants are indeed just as qualified as other applicants, Harvard might actually have a moral obligation to admit them. It is not necessarily a sign of elitism to give preference to members of families that have done so much to build the University, both monetarily and (more importantly) intellectually and culturally.

Furthermore, if there is any heritage that Harvard wishes to hold onto, legacy applicants most likely have a claim to being a living part of the University's institutional memory. Harvard's monetary arguments may be exaggerated, but that does not mean preference for legacies is immoral.