Would you support this state law?

[slickpoppa]

If the following referendum were on the ballot of your state's next election, would you vote for it:

"Any private or state educational institution shall be forbidden from favoring an applicant for admission based on his or her legacy status or the wealth of his or her parents or guardians."

I probably could have worded it better if I thought about it more, but let's not get nitty about the exact wording or other concerns such as what penalties or remedies would apply. And let's limit the discussion to state laws in order to avoid federalism concerns.

[JackWhite]

I certainly wouldn't favor this applying to private institutions. They are private, so they should set their own standards, even though I am not a fan of legacy admissions for anybody.

[lehighguy]

No on implementation grounds. Yes on principle.

[SheetWise]

Not private. If you don't like it, start another.

[Jedster]

So far, the responses actually provide the underpinnings for a good argument in favor of affirmative action.

Same as the other posters. Yes to public, no to private.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn't favor this applying to private institutions. They are private, so they should set their own standards, even though I am not a fan of legacy admissions for anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so how about instead of outright prohibiting legacy admissions, the state conditions private institutions' tax-exempt status on their usage of legacy admissions?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so how about instead of outright prohibiting legacy admissions, the state conditions private institutions' tax-exempt status on their usage of legacy admissions?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the state just stay out of it entirely?

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so how about instead of outright prohibiting legacy admissions, the state conditions private institutions' tax-exempt status on their usage of legacy admissions?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the state just stay out of it entirely?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they are giving those institutions a benefit (tax exempt status) that they do not give to others. Why shouldn't they be able to condition that benefit?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so how about instead of outright prohibiting legacy admissions, the state conditions private institutions' tax-exempt status on their usage of legacy admissions?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the state just stay out of it entirely?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they are giving those institutions a benefit (tax exempt status) that they do not give to others. Why shouldn't they be able to condition that benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Legacies" get preferred admission because their parents give the school a bunch of money. That money benefits other students in the form of better facilities and scholarships for some who may not have been able to go there without that money. All I can see here is benefits.

And if somebody wants to donate a ton of money to State U. with the (wink-wink) condition that his slacker kid gets admitted, I'm all for that too.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so how about instead of outright prohibiting legacy admissions, the state conditions private institutions' tax-exempt status on their usage of legacy admissions?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the state just stay out of it entirely?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they are giving those institutions a benefit (tax exempt status) that they do not give to others. Why shouldn't they be able to condition that benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Legacies" get preferred admission because their parents give the school a bunch of money. That money benefits other students in the form of better facilities and scholarships for some who may not have been able to go there without that money. All I can see here is benefits.

And if somebody wants to donate a ton of money to State U. with the (wink-wink) condition that his slacker kid gets admitted, I'm all for that too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree, but not because the school is private; rather it's because of the rationale which you describe. Some dolts think that just because an institution is private it should be able to do whatever it wants. Well, if it sucks on the public teat, I'm sorry, but it also needs to submit itself to the public good. In addition, if legacies are going to be given preferential treatment if their parents are big donors, then the school needs to have an affirmative action policy that helps kids get in whose parents are not wealthy and there needs to be financial aid for those less wealthy kids who do get in and can't afford to go. The policy should be focused on economic status, not other attributes.

[MMMMMM]

[" Okay, so how about instead of outright prohibiting legacy admissions, the state conditions private institutions' tax-exempt status on their usage of legacy admissions?"

" How about the state just stay out of it entirely?"

"Because they are giving those institutions a benefit (tax exempt status) that they do not give to others. Why shouldn't they be able to condition that benefit?"

They do condition that benefit already. Adding ever more conditions is not the answer.

[BadBoyBenny]

So the really rich get in with their legacy status, and the really poor get in with affirmative action and the middle class gets screwed.

[ QUOTE ]
So the really rich get in with their legacy status, and the really poor get in with affirmative action and the middle class gets screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the way our country works... haven't you learned that yet?

[lehighguy]

Rich less qualified kids pay for poorer more qualified kids to go to college. If the rich kid was rejected then the parent wouldn't donate to the school and I wouldn't be able to go either.

It's not that bad of a system. I was able to go to a rediculously expensive private school for very little and most of it was paid for by other peoples donations.

[lastchance]

I'm going to college this year, and my parents come from Taiwan.

Pure self-interest.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
How about the state just stay out of it entirely?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea. No more tax exempt status (for anything).

Once they give them the tax exemption then of course the state can and should implement public policy consistent with the demands of their constituents.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about the state just stay out of it entirely?

[/ QUOTE ]



Good idea. No more tax exempt status (for anything).

Once they give them the tax exemption then of course the state can and should implement public policy consistent with the demands of their constituents.

[/ QUOTE ]


I believe you are looking at this slightly skewed fashion in two ways:

1) You appear to be presuming that the default value should be "taxed" rather than "not taxed." I don't presume the default value should be "taxed"; rather, there need be damn good reasons why they ought to be taxed in the first place, if they are to be.

2) That is what is being done now anyway, isn't it? Also, there is a lot to be said for keeping things as simple as possible--so retaining some manner of bias towards NOT adding ever more conditions as requirementss for tax-exempt status (or for anything), is generally good and practical.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
You appear to be presuming that the default value should be "taxed" rather than "not taxed." I don't presume the default value should be "taxed"; rather, there need be damn good reasons why they ought to be taxed in the first place, if they are to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm NO. The default value for purposes of this discussion is the status quo. On principle the default value is that all entities are treated equally.

Once the govt steps in decides to treat one entity differently (why it should do so is beyond me) presumably it does so for some public purpose. This then opens up the doorway for public purpose to be defined at the whim of the government.

So, if a church. university, school, etc accepts the special treatment of tax exempt status, it has given the govt has the right to meddle in its affairs. Of course the church or other organization can refuse to accept the tax exemption and then do whatever they like.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if a church. university, school, etc accepts the special treatment of tax exempt status, it has given the govt has the right to meddle in its affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, wouldn't taxing such an institution be meddling in its affairs? Sounds like it gets to meddle whether that institution likes it or not.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, wouldn't taxing such an institution be meddling in its affairs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure where you are coming from on this.

If you mean that taxing any institution is meddling in its affairs, then it is really not germane to my point (as I specifically said that the default position should be that all entities are best treated alike).

[ QUOTE ]
(I specifically said that the default position should be that all entities are best treated alike).

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a single school being taxed? If not, then the default "alike position" is that govts don't tax schools. And thus, they shouldn't have to impose conditions on that since that is the across the board policy, not a special favor.