Harvard's legacy admission standards are facing a renewed challenge in the wake of SCOTUS gutting affirmative action

• Activists are taking aim at Harvard's preference for legacy applicants in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling.
• A federal civil rights complaint alleges Harvard is breaking the law with its current preferences.

A civil rights group is taking aim at Harvard's preferences for legacy students, illustrating the coming fights after the Supreme Court effectively gutted affirmative action.

The complaint filed with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, argues that the Ivy League school is disproportionately favoring white students by offering them a leg up in the competitive admissions process if familial ties to Harvard either through past graduates or a relation to a wealthy donor.

"At the same time that Donor and Legacy Preferences disproportionately advantage white applicants, they systematically disadvantage students of color, including Black, Latinx, and Asian Americans," the complaint filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights states.

Legacy and other admissions preferences are facing renewed scrutiny in the wake of Chief Justice John Roberts' ruling that struck down the ability of universities to use race among an array of factors when considering an applicant's admission. Legacy preferences in particular have been found to overwhelmingly favor white applicants. Critics have deemed the current situation "affirmative action for white people."

A study of Harvard's internal data found that nearly 70% donor-related applicants are white, roughly the same rate applies to legacy-related applicants as well. Universities closely protect admissions data, but Harvard was forced to turn its over due to a lawsuit that eventually became the landmark Supreme Court case. Internal

The complaint also cites a study that found from 2014-2019 "donor-related applicants were nearly 7 times more likely to be admitted compared to non-donor-related applicants." While "legacy applicants were nearly 6 times more likely to be admitted compared to nonlegacy applicants."

The lawyers group filed the complaint on behalf of The Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England (ACEDONE), and the Greater Boston Latino Network. The community groups argue that such an overwhelming benefit violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because they carry a disproportionate impact on applicants' of color.

"Because Harvard only admits a certain number of students each year, a spot given to a legacy or donor-related applicant is a spot that becomes unavailable to an applicant who meets the admissions criteria based purely on his or her own merit," the complaint states.

A spokesperson for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Rakesh Khurana, the dean of Harvard College, previously defended the standards before the Supreme Court's landmark 6-3 ruling last week that struck down race-conscious admissions programs used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

"Harvard hopes that its alumni will remain engaged with the college for the rest of their lives, and this consideration [legacy preferences] is one way that it encourages them to do so," Khurana testified before the case eventually reached the high court.

Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the 6-3 conservative majority found that colleges had for far too long used race as a consideration among an array of factors when it came to admissions standards.

"Many universities have for too long...concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin," he wrote. "Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

The civil rights complaint comes after Education Secretary Miguel Cardona urged colleges to take a hard look at legacy preferences they might offer.

"In the wake of this ruling, they could further tip the scales against students who already have the cards stacked against them," Cardona said in a statement to The Associated Press.