NEW YORK Nov. 15 (DPI) — Readers were close to split — three ways — on a question posed by The New York Times web site this week on whether universities should have so-called “legacy admissions”: small-scale preferential treatment for the offspring of alumni.

About a third of responding readers disapproved of the practice, another third accepted it grudgingly as a fact of financial life (alumni are core donors to most schools), while yet another third said they had no problem with it, that the policy fostered stronger ties and roots for a school.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/13/why-do-top-schools-still-take-legacy-applicants

Overall readers saw plenty to find hypocritical in the entire discussion:

(#96) “I laughed when I read this in the Times. Not because I support legacy admissions, because I don’t. I think they are indeed affirmative action for the rich or those that think they are of some special social status.

“I laughed because the Times hypocritically calls this into question, and yet utilizes affirmative action on other pages of its publication. Take, for example, the “Weddings and Celebrations” section of the newspaper. When was the last time you read in the New York Times about a couple getting married whose parents were auto mechanics or truck drivers or had an ethnic surname and whose reception was held at the local Knights of Columbus hall? The “Weddings and Celebrations” section is all about pretentiousness and perceived class superiority, because that’s the audience the Times is trying to appeal to.

“Wedding announcements featured in the Times overwhelmingly are skewed to favor those who are rich, alumni of an Ivy League or otherwise “exclusive” school, are members of some kind of country club, and whose parents hold some kind of allegedly lofty position in society …”

(#97) “It is amusing to me that The Times is even examining this question — how did your reporter “AG Sulzberger” get his job? Do you genuinely think that a guy with a BA from University of Denver would somehow arrive at the head of your Op-Ed page if he wasn’t the son of the late great Abe Rosenthal?
Your organization, like all organizations, for profit and otherwise, is entitled to admit and promote as you see fit. I certainly don’t have a problem with it — it’s your risk, your credibility, your reputation, your brand, etc etc. The admissions offices of major universities face the same risks — they certainly are entitled to admit who they want based on their own preferences, and they do. For the sake of community and tradition and identity, I think legacy admissions are perfectly OK — they certainly are no more offensive than the other subjective factors they’ve been using the last 40 years.”

(#91) “Here’s a true story that I share with no editorializing, but just because it is amusing. Back in the 1970s I had a friend and colleague who was a proud Yalie. Every male in his family had gone to Yale beginning with one who was in the second class ever to graduate.

Yale rejected his twin sons’ applications. He showed me the letter saying it was because they had decided to make more room for disadvantaged applicants and were reducing legacy acceptances.

About a week later he received an appeal for donations from the alumni association. He responded by cutting a penny half and making two donations, each in honor of one of his sons and with copies of the rejection letter included.”

(#9) “I am a million miles away from being a beneficiary of wealthy parents but I will defend with my last breath their preferential treatment at their universities. They made good use of their education and it is reasonable to assume their offspring will. People of similar backgrounds, prefer their own kind and why not? Don’t you?? I am a steadfast opponent of this fascist forced diversity and inclusion. It has wormed itself too far in America. There is no proven advantage in a groups’ diminishing its’ core group. Most large universities have plenty of free programs to bring in the poor and deprived.”

“Give the well off kids some slack…many of their relatives made this country and paid their share. I have worked for poor men and rich men. Know what? The rich men paid me better.”