Economic Battle Grounds
While the battle ground over access to higher education was seated in the Supreme court ruling on Affirmative Action, the real issue may be one of access and economics. The shot fired around the world was the Supreme Court’s decision to end any discussion of race in college acceptance consideration. This decision could be hurtful to non Asian, low income racial minorities. African Americans and Hispanics are the least represented in the highest ranked Universities and Colleges.
Statistically proven, a College degree goes far in creating opportunities and pathways to over coming economic impoverishment. Here are the median lifetime earnings of full-time workers by level of education:
- less than high school – $1.2 million
- high school diploma – $1.6 million
- some college, but no degree – $1.9 million, equal to about $47,500 annually
- associate’s degree – $2 million, or about $50,000 per year
- bachelor’s degree – $2.8 million, the equivalent of $70,000 annually
- master’s degree – $3.2 million, or $80,000 annually
- doctoral degree – $4 million, equal to $100,000 per year
- professional degree – $4.7 million, or an average of $117,500 annually.
Distribution
These numbers are also skewed when observing the annual pay along racial lines:
- Among high school graduates, white workers earn a median of $1.7 million. Compared to $1.4 million for Asian, Black, and Latino workers.
- White workers with an associates’ degree earn a median of $2.1 million. Compared to $2 million for Asian workers. $1.9 million for Latino workers. And $1.7 million for Black workers.
- At the bachelor’s degree level, white and Asian workers each earn a median of $2.9 million. Compared to $2.3 million for Black and Latino workers.
- At the master’s degree level, Asian workers earn $4 million. Compared to $3.2 million for White workers, $3 million for Latino workers. And $2.7 million for Black workers.
The Fall Out From the Supreme Court Decision
When the Supreme Court gutted affirmative action, it may have inadvertently created an opening to spotlight another controversial college admissions program. Which has been in use for about a century now: legacy admissions, aka “affirmative action for the wealthy.”
It’s been a common practice since the 1920s, with higher education institutions initially using it as a way to limit Jewish applicants and eventually Black students too. Legacy students made up 36 percent of the class of 2022, according to a Harvard Crimson survey. And documents from the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College case revealed that nearly 70 percent of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white.
Oren Sellstrom, litigation director at Lawyers for Civil Rights, has been eyeing legacy admissions for some time. He believes that now is the moment to challenge it. He filed a complaint with the Department of Education over Harvard’s practice of legacy admissions. Citing widespread violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of the Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England, and the Greater Boston Latino Network.
“Our complaint stands on very firm legal footing. The issues that we’ve presented are clear both from a fairness perspective and from a legal perspective. Obviously, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on affirmative action. It is even more critical to remove unfair and undeserved barriers that stand in the way of equal opportunity for students of color. Our complaint is based on long-standing federal anti-discrimination law that makes clear that if there are barriers that have a disproportionate impact on students of color, they need to be dismantled, unless the institution can provide an adequate justification for them.”
In the case of Harvard, it’s clear that donor and legacy preferences have a significantly disproportionately harmful impact on applicants of color, and there is no educational necessity for them. Harvard is not the only institution practicing legacy admissions—one report estimates that 787 colleges and universities reported using legacy preference in 2020.
“Our hope is that once the Department of Education has investigated Harvard, that it will also turn its eye and turn the power of the federal government on to all other institutions of higher learning that receive federal funding, and that also have these unfair and undeserved preferences. Many colleges and institutions at this point have done away with legacy preferences and donor preferences or have never used them in the first place. Particularly over the past eight to 10 years, we have seen significant movement away from those unfair and undeserved preferences.”
College Attendance is Dropping in Large Numbers.
