Exclusionary practices have always rubbed me the wrong way. Unless you are included, they feel wrong. Highly selective and therefore, biased, and subjective admission processes that determine who can go past the velvet ropes.

Perhaps it is my upbringing as a public school, public life sort of person. I have had a challenging time thinking about myself as a member of a private golf club for example. Which have had a long history of discrimination that some still cling to. Am I saying this because I can’t afford it? Because I wasn’t qualified? Is it a sour grapes thing? I’m sure that’s part of it.

I remember when I was invited to a well-known private dining club had an extremely strict dress code standard which just pissed me off. So I would purposely dress inappropriately, because they would take you into a closet and they would dress you up. None of which matched any of the clothes you had. It was a weirdly humorous thing that I would do. I remember meeting with a very prominent member of the community who sat across from me a we dined in this elegant ornate hall where the waiters were all dressed in tuxedos. And as we started our breakfast, he talked to me and was catching up. Not looking at my clothes. He was just looking at my face and then as his aperture opened up, and he could see more of me he could see that my clothes now I did match but didn’t fit. And we’re incredibly uncoordinated in terms of colors. His face turned into a quizzical set of wrinkles. And he said, “John,  I’m looking at you now. Are you okay? Is everything alright?” I said, “Yeah, I just I forgot about your dress code (lying). And they gave me these clothes.”  I mean I looked so much more ridiculous than the way I came in the door. My dining partner’s head was still turned sideways in catlike way. But I digress.

Exclusive universities, their pretensions as special meritocracies just irk me. As if they are a very precise sorting hat that chooses people because they’re special and deserving. They symbolize the inequity and inequality and the bane of our democracy. Undermining what is truly fair and equal. I can hear the protestations. Can’t private universities and clubs do whatever they want and exclude anybody they want? Not a simple answer.

Private clubs have had a long history of excluding individuals on the basis of a host of “undesirable” factors, this included race, religion and gender just to name a few. Private universities also have excluded students based on a number of demographic factors. Affirmative action was just overturned by the Supreme Court. This too is complex and the systems that have been built are unfair and ineffective. I disagree with this decision overall, but the case at Harvard revealed that not only did Harvard limit Asian admissions in a similar fashion to the limitations of Jewish students 100 years ago but Harvard intentionally developed extensive stereotyping of Asian applicants throughout their entire alumni network that can be argued damaged the reputations and future prospects of all Asians in the workplace.

“Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than all others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records.” The same students who had higher scores and grades than any other student group including whites.

Harvard’s actions and its influence as a generator of corporate CEOs, board members and leaders will hurt the future leadership prospects of Asians by perpetuating stereotypes.

The Supreme Court is making rulings about things that we should have fixed a long time ago. The newest case that will go before the Supreme Court regards legacy admissions.

Legacy admissions is a practice used by most private colleges and universities where applicants who have familial connections to alumni of the institution (usually children or grandchildren of alumni) receive preferential treatment in the admissions process. In other words, legacy applicants are given a substantial advantage over other applicants based on their family ties to the institution.

This advantage is often 10x the admit rate of non-connected students. Almost 75% of private universities have legacy admission policies and practices. Universities report that legacy students average about 12% of total admissions. 2022 survey showed that 36% of admissions at Harvard were legacy based!

As a colleague of mine bragged, “My daughter will be 18^th member of our family to attend _________.”

You combine the side door of legacy admissions with the suppression of low income students and you put the American Dream on its deathbed.

Social mobility is one of the greatest stories and values that we try to uphold in this country. We know that that it is becoming mythology. We know that education is essential, and we like to hold up exceptional individual stories to justify the way we behave.

And at the very top of the pecking order, the super elite institutions have discriminated against the poor and the middle class for generations. These discriminatory practices are so embedded and institutionalized in the way we have built this country.

We have become super elitist. We have become anti poor and anti non-rich. Those are very different things by the way. People who don’t make very much money have always been at the bottom of the socio economic system and have been disregarded, treated with indignity and dismissed. But now, people who will make less than $200,000 and more than $60,000 are also in an extremely difficult bind, because they don’t make enough to qualify them into the elite status and they make too much to get them assistance, support and benefits. The so called “middle class”, is left in the cold.

Harvard and every other college and university is a non-profit. Yep they all are. They get huge subsidies from all levels of government, not the least of which is Title IV funding. Title IV funding plays a crucial role in enabling universities to offer financial aid options and support services to students, making higher education more accessible and affordable for a broader range of individuals. This includes need based scholarship grants (not loans) called Pell grants (50% go to families making less than $20K a year and the balance up to $60K.) Federal subsidized loans, work-study and a host of other substantial programs. These student loans represent up to 90% of private college income!

Don’t have enough time here to discuss the suppression of Pell grant students by the most elite or elite-minded institutions. Low-income students are perceived tp present additional challenges and while most of these highly selective colleges gush over their exceptional stories and students who are first gen or rags to riches narratives, they do not want these students.

Consider for a moment that UC Berkeley has more Pell grant students than the entire Ivy League, CalTech, Washington University, Elon, Tulane, and Washington and Lee combined.

If you want your child or grandchild to expand their horizons avoid this genre of elitism.

“What I conclude from this study is the Ivy League doesn’t have low-income students because it doesn’t want low-income students,” said Susan Dynarski, an economist at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who has reviewed the data and was not involved in the study.

So in the post affirmative action world we live in, a lawsuit has been filed 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.

“all persons are entitled to “the full and equal enjoyment of … any place of public accommodation … without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race….” But this requirement of non-discrimination does not apply to “a private clubs or other establishment not in fact open to the public”.

MIT and the University of California have never had legacy admissions. And many universities have started to ban the process now under pressure from the courts and the court of pubic opinion.

But it is a dominant practice that insures less diversity. And the greatest victim is economic diversity.

In this country socio-economic discrimination is still lawful.

The IRS has withdrawn the non-profit status of a number of southern schools for discriminatory practices.

Legacy admissions and oppression of low-income students are the worst types of affirmative action.

They are intended to maintain the status quo, prevent diversity and preserve white supremacy.

But these practices cannot be subsidized by the federal government or any level of government. Right?

None of these practices should be tax free. Not paying their fair share for the public good. Because if you’re not going to make a resource available to everyone, in a fair way, then you’re not a public serving entity. We can get into laws about private clubs and public accommodation and there’s a lot of precedents for all these things and what universities can do and can’t. Harvard has a $50 billion endowment. They are nonprofits that are not subjected to income taxes or property taxes in most cases. Institutions who gleefully exclude and deride students on one hand and then grab all of the benefits of a non-profit and a publicly serving entity in their other hand.

We cannot be the defacto and vicarious donors of a discriminatory set of institutions. We have to hold ourselves accountable to laws and standards that reflect our values.

Is Harvard or any legacy admission granting university really a nonprofit any more, or a truly a publicly serving entity? Or just a private club?

Legacy admissions is on its last legs. It should be taken down like so many statutes that symbolize divisiveness that hurts all of us.

I guess Harvard can accurately give me lower marks on “positive personality” and “kindness”, just don’t harm the reputations of all of my Asian brothers and sisters who just want to join your club.  

To all the exclusive clubs: Keep doing your thing. Do it in the dark. Do it behind closed doors. But don’t do it with our money.