Harvard Sued. Should Merit Apply to Rich Brats, Too?

by Pa Rock

Citizen Journalist

 

This week in a final push of hateful legislation from the bench, the United States Supreme Court struck down the long-standing practice of "affirmative action" in the college admissions' process.  Colleges and universities will no longer be able to insure racial diversity on their campuses through using race as the ultimate determining factor in who gets into their degree programs and who does not.  "Merit" is the new admissions' buzzword, and it seems destined to become a screen that will eliminate many minority students from being admitted to the two hundred or so top colleges and universities, the schools from which most of our nation's political and business leadership ultimately emerge.

Merit, huh?

The argument was that students who were not the strongest academically were given preferential treatment based on the disadvantages that they suffered while growing up:  things like being stuck in poorer, underfunded schools and lacking the advantages of things like travel, parents who were often in the household and at home, community supports, and even not having to dodge bullets on their way to school each day.  In some cases their grades and test scores were not the equal of those of Buffy and Trevor who did grow up with all of the advantages that their parents' money could buy.

But that's over, thanks to a ruling by the US Supreme Court.    Now the students whom God intended to be on the admissions list, will be.  They will be marching into the Ivy League schools and other prominent bastions of exceptional higher education based on merit, and not the color of their skin.  Well, actually many of them will be entering based on merit, but there will still be some "undeserving" miscreants slipping into those same exclusive schools based on things other than merit.

The current group of "undeserving" students who are currently receiving so much press with regard to college admissions are the ones commonly referred to as "legacy" enrollees.  Legacies are students that the major schools admit based on the fact that there parents or grandparents also went to school there - and often contribute extra cash to the schools for new buildings and things of that sort.  Legacies are the children of people who take care of the special needs of the schools, and, as a result, the schools take care of those privileged children.

One of the more famous legacies is George W. Bush, a young man who was a "C" student in high school and went on to become a "C' student at Yale after being admitted as a legacy.  Being a legacy student has nothing to do with merit.

The US Supreme Court currently has nine members.  Chief Justice John Roberts attended law school at Harvard, as did Justices Kagan Gorsuch, and Jackson.  Justice Clarence Thomas attended law school at Yale, as did Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the outlier of the group, attended law school at Notre Dame, a school whose tolerance is often questioned and one which went on to become her employer.

The current US Supreme Court is made up of graduates of the nation's most prestigious law schools.  They did not get their degrees from state university systems which grind out the preponderance of America's practicing lawyers.  The justices come from the rarified air of a very few elite schools - schools which will now be more difficult for disadvantaged youth to get into.    But, the doors will remain open to the less deserving "legacy" spawn of America's more privileged classes.

Merit!

The Court's ruling on "affirmative action" did not mention the other end of the spectrum, those without "merit" but who were smart enough to have been born into families with plenty of means.  The George W. Bush's of the world.

Yesterday a complaint was filed with the US Department of Education by a coalition of groups representing racial minorities alleging that Harvard University was in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act based on its policies related to legacy admissions, admissions which are as much as 70% white.  The complaint stated that Harvard should therefore be denied federal funding.  That move to take federal money out of Harvard's budget unless the school eliminates the practice of catering to the families of its graduates and wealthy donors should get the whole matter of legacies before the courts and ultimately let the US Supreme Court tell America what those Harvard-and-Yale-educated plutocrats think about "merit" when it steps on the toes of the children of their colleagues, friends, and neighbors.

Does merit apply to everyone, or is it just a handy screen to keep "those people" in their place?  Enquiring minds want to know!