If SCOTUS thinks it’s discriminatory to select for race then it also stands to reason that it’s discriminatory to select for legacy. In both cases the applicant has as much control over the status as the other.
I fully expect the defense to be, “Well, we can’t discriminate based on the applicant’s race, sex, religion, etc… but the constitution doesn’t say anything about discrimination based on legacy status.”
The issue is that it was discriminatory on the basis of race, which is explicitly protected in the Constitution. The educational history of your parents is not, nor does the Constitution contain a generic anti-discrimination section.
This case is apparently attempting to argue that legacy admissions is de facto discrimination in favor of white applicants, which I struggle to imagine they’ll be successful with, particularly with this Court.
If SCOTUS thinks it’s discriminatory to select for race then it also stands to reason that it’s discriminatory to select for legacy. In both cases the applicant has as much control over the status as the other.
I fully expect the defense to be, “Well, we can’t discriminate based on the applicant’s race, sex, religion, etc… but the constitution doesn’t say anything about discrimination based on legacy status.”
The issue is that it was discriminatory on the basis of race, which is explicitly protected in the Constitution. The educational history of your parents is not, nor does the Constitution contain a generic anti-discrimination section.
This case is apparently attempting to argue that legacy admissions is de facto discrimination in favor of white applicants, which I struggle to imagine they’ll be successful with, particularly with this Court.