When Texas A&M University announced earlier this month that it would abolish its preferential admissions policy for relatives of alumni, debate swirled nationwide over the merit of such a move. Some said the new policy was unnecessary, while others said it was not drastic enough.
But whatever the outcome of Texas A&M's decision, Duke administrators say the children of Blue Devils will continue to receive special consideration during the admissions process.
"We've had a very long-standing policy of taking family ties into account in admissions decisions, and there are no plans to change that," said Christoph Guttentag, director of undergraduate admissions. "It's just a plus factor, so it doesn't predetermine the admissions decision. But the University community extends well beyond the people that are currently here; alumni feel very much a part of the University community, and we try to take those ties into account when it is appropriate to do so."
At Texas A&M, the controversy over legacy admissions stemmed from a greater controversy over affirmative action admissions after the U.S. Supreme Court decided last spring that race may be a factor in admissions on a case-by-case basis. Since then, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has filed a bill that would require colleges to disclose the race and economic status of first-year students related to alumni, and Sen. John Edward, D-N.C., has advocated an end to college legacy programs.
"As a broader educational or public policy issue, this is a fairly new subject," Guttentag said. "In the Texas A&M case, a tie was made between legacy admissions and affirmative action. I'm not sure that they should be so closely tied, but I think that the reason some people are paying greater attention to legacy admissions now is that it has to do with a renewed interest in issues of affirmative action."
After Texas A&M decided it would no longer use race as a factor in admissions, the school's legacy admissions policy came under fire. Many argued that the school had abolished one type of affirmative action, while retaining another type.
Like affirmative action, the "other affirmative action"--legacy admissions--gave preference to students for factors beyond academic and personal qualifications, but the latter tended to favor whites over minorities, simply because there were more white alumni than alumni of other races. At Texas A&M, for example, blacks were not among the student body until 1963.
Provost Peter Lange noted that the situations at Duke and Texas A&M are inherently different, as one is a private university and the other is public. Duke, he said, has other ways to increase the diversity of the student body than abolishing legacy admissions preferences.
In fact, Lange said, by establishing alumni loyalty through policies like the legacy admissions policy, the University is able to fund other programs that actually increase diversity.
"Among private universities, the loyalty of alums is very important to a whole range of things we can offer, including the kind of funding that makes Duke a great university and offers substantial amounts of money for financial aid," Lange said. "You can't pull out one thread and ignore other ways of promoting diversity. Need-blind financial aid is one of the biggest ways to achieve this goal."
Guttentag also noted the difference between private and public universities in terms of legacy admissions. He said Duke's policy is fairly typical for private universities.
"Every selective private college and university that I'm aware of takes legacy status into account to some degree," he said. "In selective private universities, admissions have never simply been about academic and personal qualifications. It's always been about the community, and all the different things we're looking for in an entering class."
As a result, selective private college and university admissions have long been more complex and more nuanced than the admissions processes of public universities, Guttentag said.
Even after Texas A&M announced its decision to abolish legacy admissions preferences, some complained that taking this step to diversify the student body was like treating a broken bone with a Band-Aid--the concept, they said, was admirable, but the decision will ultimately have a negligible effect.
Guttentag noted it will be impossible to satisfy all constituents. "The admissions process is not one that can ever be perfect because it's not entirely quantifiable and there's a great deal of weighing different factors," he said. "We certainly can't make everybody happy, but I think we balance all of the various factors that are taken into account appropriately, and the result has been an impressive student body that keeps getting better."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.