Students debate legacy admissons

Both sides’ arguments focused on the purpose served by preferential treatment for legacy applicants and whether these goals could be achieved other ways, as well as whether it would be beneficial or harmful to continue the practice.

The “bonus that is given to the children or grandchildren of Princeton alumni” during the application process, Rauch said, does not further the admission office’s goal of accepting the “best class possible” that will contribute most to the University. Rauch is also a member of The Daily Princetonian’s editorial board.

The aim of increasing diversity on campus is hampered by legacy preference, Rauch said, because children of alumni “overwhelmingly stem from the same demographic group[s].” Their opponents countered that while legacies in 1960 may have been overwhelmingly white, that is not the case today. Princeton’s campus, Durkin said, boasts one of the largest percentages of students identifying as members of minority groups.

“So no, we’re not just letting in one tiny sliver of American society through this legacy [policy],” Sheltzer said. “Legacy preferences does not in any way equate to ... racial preferences.” Sheltzer is a former ‘Prince’ columnist.

“[The] next generation of legacy admits will bring a significant amount of diversity [to campus],” he added. Sheltzer also said that “to abolish legacy admissions would be to turn an alumni’s child into just another [application] in the pile.” Alumni would not be happy about this, he said, “and our annual giving would clearly reflect that.”

Rauch and Shih countered that the University has other means of accruing alumni donations, including asking alumni to donate buildings. Additionally, Shih said, alumni value Princeton for their experience at the University, and they won’t “only donate money if they think their kids are going to get in.” The traditions and culture of Princeton, they added, won’t disappear with the elimination of preferential treatment for legacy applicants.

Rauch argued that “a vibrant community of people who know each other and love their experience at Princeton” will remain, regardless.

In the end, the panel of judges chose Shih and Rauch as the winners based on their eloquence and the overall quality of their argument. The eight-member panel included former USG president Rob Biederman ’08, Whig-Clio trustee Tom Byrne ’76, Princeton Township Mayor Phillis Marchand and former University president Harold Shapiro GS ’64.

Created by the Class of 1876, the competition recognizes four debaters from among about 40 applicants. The winners receive cash awards taken from an endowment established for the prize, with members of this year’s top team each receiving about $3,000, said Aaron Spolin ’08, president of the Woodrow Wilson Honorary Debate Panel. “Around $2,000” is presented to each member of the losing team, he added.

An additional $1,000 is awarded to the best speaker, and members of the winning team receive a notation on their permanent transcripts indicating they are winners of the 1876 Prize Debate.