Michelle Ampofo, Contributing Photographer

The United States Department of Education opened an investigation earlier today into donor and legacy admissions preferences at Harvard University, following a federal complaint that a Boston-based civil rights group filed with the department just days after the landmark Supreme Court decision repealing race-conscious admissions.

An organization called Lawyers for Civil Rights filed the complaint on behalf of three Black and Latine advocacy groups, alleging that Harvard’s donor and legacy admissions preferences violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by disproportionately favoring white applicants. According to studies cited in the complaint, rates of admission are nearly seven times higher for donor-related applicants than for non-donor-related applicants and nearly six times higher for legacies than for non-legacies. Almost 70 percent of the pool of donor-related and legacy Harvard applicants are white.

Per a letter from the Department to LCR, the investigation will focus on whether Harvard “discriminates on the basis of race by using donor and legacy preferences in its undergraduate admissions process,” the Boston Globe reported Tuesday. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits organizations that receive federal money — such as universities — from discriminating on the basis of race. The original complaint says that if Harvard wishes to continue receiving federal funds, it ought to cease legacy-preferential admissions. 

At Yale, legacy students make up approximately 12 percent of the class of 2026, 14 percent of the class of 2025 and 8 percent of the class of 2024. Several Yale student groups began advocating for the abolishment of legacy preference even prior to the Court’s decision against affirmative action, as marked by the passage of two Yale College Council resolutions in as many years. Calls among students to end legacy admissions have become more widespread in the three weeks since the decision.

“We are struck by the irony of continued consideration of an arbitrary privilege in the face of new restrictions in ensuring diversity on college campuses,” the YCC wrote in an open letter to University President Peter Salovey, Yale College Dean Pericles Lewis and Dean of Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid Jeremiah Quinlan shortly after the affirmative action ruling. 

The Council added that while University officials have expressed strong moral opposition to the Court’s decision in public statements, the school must back its words with “decisive action.”

Earlier this week, Connecticut liberal arts college Wesleyan University announced that the school will no longer practice legacy admissions. Wesleyan admitted 15.7 percent of applicants to the class of 2027, of which 4 percent had a parent who went to Wesleyan according to the class profile. The University of Minnesota Twin Cities made the same change.

In this move, the two schools join a growing list of selective schools which have dropped legacy admissions in recent years, including Johns Hopkins University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon University and Amherst College. 

“In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action, we believe it important to formally end admission preference for ‘legacy applicants,’” Wesleyan President Michael Roth wrote in a blog post. “We still value the ongoing relationships that come from multi-generational Wesleyan attendance, but there will be no ‘bump’ in the selection process.”

The formal beginning of the investigation comes just after research in the National Bureau of Economic Research this week confirmed that legacy applicants are most advantaged in the process of seeking admission to selective schools, especially wealthy ones. 

People on both sides of the affirmative action debate have expressed strong opposition to legacy preference. Groups like LCR and the YCC are among those who fiercely supported affirmative action and believe that the repeal of legacy admissions is now even more important since affirmative action no longer stands.

On the other hand, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions — the group that challenged Harvard’s use of affirmative action before the Supreme Court and won — told the News a year and a half ago that SFFA opposes legacy preference in admissions. The founder, Edward Blum, said the practice “inhibit[s] and diminish[es] the opportunities of applicants from modest socioeconomic backgrounds.”

Harvard spokesperson Jonathan L. Swain wrote in a statement to the Harvard Crimson that the school is conducting an internal review of its admissions processes.

“Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision,” Swain wrote to the Crimson, “we are in the process of reviewing aspects of our admissions policies to assure compliance with the law and to carry forward Harvard’s longstanding commitment to welcoming students of extraordinary talent and promise who come from a wide range of backgrounds, perspectives, and life experiences.”

Despite schools like Wesleyan making the shift away from legacy preference, schools in the Ivy League have either dug in their heels or remained silent on the subject. 

Last week, the Dartmouth College spokesperson told the Boston Globe that the school will continue to offer legacy applicants a leg up in the admissions process. Though they have released several public statements in response to the affirmative action repeal, Yale administrators have not offered insight on where the University stands on legacy preference in light of the affirmative action ruling. 

However, last February, Quinlan submitted written testimony to the Connecticut General Assembly against a bill that would have ended legacy admissions in the state. He argued that while universities could voluntarily stop employing legacy preference, a state bill making it a requirement would pave the way for “other intrusions on academic freedom.”

“Even without [legacy] preference, students with more resources will still have an advantage in college admissions, just as they have an advantage in securing a good job and in many other aspects of daily life,” Quinlan wrote. “Instead, the state should support schools in their efforts to identify, recruit, and graduate low-income and first-generation students.”

Quinlan also previously told the News that legacy students contribute to the diversity of the student body. 

This is a developing story that the News will continue to follow.