As an out-of-state student with no legacy status, to me the legacy clause supports elitist notions often perpetuated in higher education. UNC is a public institution and must constitutionally uphold equal opportunity and protection for all applicants. A legacy clause negates ideals of meritocracy upon which our nation and institution claim to be built.
In this month’s issue of the Carolina Alumni Review, UNC’s director of admissions Steve Farmer explained that many admitted legacy students were highly qualified applicants who “come from families where education matters, where they’ve done well in school … and done all the other things we ask all candidates to do.”
Farmer hints at an important point which I believe the University, at least in its mission, understands: being raised in a household with college-educated parents provides an inherent advantage.
Not only does a college degree increase lifetime earning potential by $300,000, it also offers the children of those degree holders more social and economic resources.
Legacy, then, gives students of alumni a leg up for having college-educated parents and an edge in the admissions process, at least when compared to an otherwise identical candidate. By creating generational access to Carolina for an elite minority, a legacy policy perpetuates a system that rewards financial and social leverage with opportunity.
A legacy policy suggests that UNC is a place where the children of alumni should perpetuate their parents’ nostalgic images of the University. That shouldn’t be the case. In an institution whose mission is to use taxpayer money to enhance access to education and foster the success of each rising generation, a legacy clause doesn’t advance that mission.
As Beth McNichol, ’95, wrote in the Carolina Alumni Review, “I wouldn’t mind if my daughters got a leg up in the admission process because of me. And deep down, I’m not convinced that they should.”
Nor am I.
