Edward Blum's Latest Offensive Against Legacy Admissions
Edward Blum, the conservative activist renowned for spearheading the Supreme Court case that dismantled race-based affirmative action in college admissions, has turned his attention to another longstanding practice in higher education: legacy admissions. In an op-ed published on April 9, 2026, in National Review co-authored with U.S. Senator Todd Young (R-IN), Blum calls for Congress to eliminate legacy and donor preferences at federally funded institutions. The piece, titled "Restore Merit to College Admissions by Ending Legacy Preferences," argues that these policies create an "artificial aristocracy," favoring the wealthy over talented students from modest backgrounds.
This renewed push comes amid ongoing scrutiny of admissions practices following the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, where Blum's organization prevailed. While some universities have voluntarily dropped legacy preferences, elite institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton continue to employ them, prompting Blum to advocate for legislative intervention.
Who Is Edward Blum and Students for Fair Admissions?
Edward Blum founded Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) in 2014 to challenge what he views as discriminatory admissions policies. A non-lawyer with a background in finance and business, Blum has orchestrated over two dozen lawsuits targeting race-conscious practices, voting rights, and now legacy preferences. His most notable victory came in 2023 when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's use of race in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
SFFA operates by recruiting plaintiffs—often Asian American students—who claim discrimination. The group's strategy has shifted focus post-2023 to other "non-merit" factors like legacy status, which Blum argues disproportionately benefits white, affluent applicants, undermining true meritocracy.
Understanding Legacy Admissions: Definition and History
Legacy admissions (also known as alumni preferences) give preferential treatment to applicants with family ties to alumni, typically parents or grandparents. Introduced in the early 20th century at Ivy League schools, the practice aimed to foster loyalty, boost yield rates, and secure donations. Today, it remains common at private elites, where legacies comprise 10-15% of classes despite representing a tiny fraction of applicants.
Unlike holistic review, legacy status often provides a significant "tip" factor, elevating candidates above equally qualified peers. Harvard's internal data revealed legacies had a 33% admit rate versus 5.9% overall for the Class of 2019.
The Stats: How Legacy Preferences Skew Access
Research from Opportunity Insights at Harvard University shows legacies from the top 1% income bracket are admitted at rates 5-6 times higher than non-legacies with similar qualifications. At Ivy-Plus schools, 43% of white admits are legacies, children of donors, or athletes—"ALDC" hooks—compared to 16% of Black admits.
Legacy use has declined: only 24% of four-year colleges consider it in 2025, down from 49% in 2015. However, it persists at elites: Princeton (12% legacies), Yale (11%), Harvard (12-14%). Post-AA, these preferences may exacerbate diversity challenges, as they favor whites (70-80% of legacies).
Opportunity Insights report on Ivy admissions highlights how such policies perpetuate inequality.
Blum and Young's Key Arguments in the Op-Ed
In their piece, Blum and Young cite Jefferson's warnings against aristocracy, arguing legacies contradict meritocracy. They reference thin evidence linking legacies to donations—studies of schools dropping them show no consistent giving drop—and note Harvard's admission during SFFA litigation that proof is lacking.
They propose the MERIT Act: transparency on legacy use for federal aid recipients, phased elimination. Fixed class sizes mean every legacy spot displaces a merit applicant, they contend, calling for alignment of public funds with fairness.
SFFA's Recent Actions: Letters to Elite Universities
In September 2024, SFFA sent preservation letters to Princeton, Duke, and Yale, questioning Class of 2028 demographics (post-AA). Asian admits dropped (Princeton 26% to 24%, Duke 35% to 29%), prompting demands for data. Letters criticized persistent legacy use as inconsistent with SCOTUS merit emphasis.
Universities Responding to Pressure
Post-2023, over 100 schools ended legacy: MIT (2022), Amherst, Wesleyan, Johns Hopkins. Ivies hold firm: Harvard reaffirmed in 2024, citing yield/donations. States like California (2024) banned it statewide. Share dropped, but elites resist, arguing holistic benefits outweigh harms.
Arguments For and Against Legacy Admissions
For: Boosts yield (legacies more likely to enroll), alumni engagement, donations (though disputed), institutional stability.
- Harvard claims 10-15% yield boost.
- Preserves traditions, networks.
Against: Anti-merit, classist (95% legacies attend private high schools), hurts diversity (disproportionately white/rich), fixed seats displace others.
Brookings: Ending it would increase low-income admits by ~1-2pp at elites, small but symbolic.
Legal Landscape and Potential Challenges
No federal ban exists; Equal Protection doesn't clearly prohibit legacies (not race-based). Blum eyes lawsuits claiming Title VI violations at public/funded schools. States like MD, VA considered bans. SCOTUS unlikely soon, but Trump admin's Compact pushes transparency.
Implications for Diversity and Equity Post-AA
Legacy hinders racial/class diversity: IHEP data shows schools with legacy have lower Black/Hispanic enrollment. Post-SCOTUS, it may fill AA void, but critics say it entrenches privilege. Ending could aid merit focus amid enrollment drops.
Stakeholder Perspectives: Colleges, Students, Experts
Colleges: Defend as minor holistic factor. Students: Mixed; legacies grateful, others resentful. Experts: Kahlenberg (quoted in WSJ) allies with Blum for end; others see donation link.
Future Outlook: Reform on Horizon?
With Republican Congress, MERIT Act possible. More schools may drop voluntarily amid pressure. For higher ed careers, shift emphasizes merit, potentially opening faculty/admin roles via fairer talent pipelines. Explore opportunities at AcademicJobs.com higher ed jobs.
Photo by Julia Taubitz on Unsplash
Actionable Insights for Admissions Professionals
1. Review policies for compliance/transparency.
2. Emphasize merit metrics.
3. Prepare for data requests.
4. Consider socioeconomic alternatives.
.jpg&w=128&q=75)
