This article represents one side of a conversation between two HPR writers on the topic of Harvard’s legacy admissions. See here for the other side.
The esteemed Yale political scientist Robert Dahl, writing in 1971, considered two characteristics fundamental to democratic governance: the ability of citizens to influence the outcome of elections, and the ability of citizens to run in them. It should be clear to all that a system in which the franchise is limited based on arbitrary characteristics, like the family a citizen is born into, is not democratic. The same is true in terms of participation: a system of government in which filial ties matter in terms of access to participating at the highest levels of government is distinctly undemocratic.
Unfortunately, the United States of America has a poor track record in this regard. Indeed, America has long had a culture of nepotism at the highest levels of society: political dynasties like the Adams, Tafts, Harrisons, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushs, and Clintons dot the annals of our history. To be sure, many of these individuals were highly qualified, but it must be noted that even if all of them were, being descended from those who held power previously gave a tangible boost to their careers. And if legacy gives a boost to some and not others, then the opportunity for participation at the highest levels is not equal for all.
One effect of legacy admissions policies at the university is to subtly perpetuate the harmful notion that who an individual is related to should explicitly influence how that person may participate in society. When a student’s admission to university explicitly reflects, even if only in part, the conduct and status of their parents before them, the university demonstrates and extends the importance of family ties. When filial ties are a recognized advantage for participation in government and business they form a barrier, perhaps not insurmountable but certainly significant, for those who lack such ties. When Harvard continues legacy admissions, the admissions staff gives a wink and a nod to ever greater forms of exclusivity. Harvard sends a message by example to its students, many of whom will become leaders in business and government, that nepotism is a regular part of American life, thereby entrenching those very ideals which undermine a true democracy.
Harvard is a private institution. In such a capacity it is under no direct obligation to operate democratically in any way. However, as an institution of learning, Harvard certainly has an obligation to its students not to instill its students with notions that are directly and tangibly harmful to society and inimical to democracy. Furthermore Harvard, as a cultural institution and participant in American society is morally obliged to abolish customs which teach, by example, lessons which are fundamentally debilitating to American democracy. Harvard has immense cultural and intellectual influence on higher education given its prominence and prestige. Even if the abolition of legacy admissions will not abolish the effects of the circumstances of an individual’s birth on his or her life, we ought to at least take a symbolic step in the right direction rather than continuing to reinforce a system more suited to ancient modes of government and society than a modern democracy.