As a young Mexican boy from southwest Chicago, I attended an underfunded, predominantly Latino and Hispanic public high school. I experienced firsthand the disparities between educational institutions.

My high school, Benito Juarez Community Academy, is 98% students of color (more than 94% Hispanic) and ranks in the bottom third of the 664 school districts in Illinois. But just a six-minute drive away is Whitney M. Young Magnet High School, ranked 4th in Illinois, where the racial makeup is much more equal: 30% Caucasian, 25% African American, 25% percent Latino, and around 17% Asian. Jones College Prep, ranked 3rd, is a 10-minute drive from my high school. Again, a third of the students are white. The stark differences in physical conditions and the quality of education between these schools are astronomical.

But let’s dig a little deeper. Even though there is some racial diversity at Jones and Young, the same can not be said about socioeconomic status and post-grade enrollment. For instance, Jones and Young have relatively lower percentages of low-income students, at 38% and 36% respectively, compared to Juarez, where almost 90% of the students come from low-income families.

So what happens to these kids once they graduate high school? The difference in college enrollment rates between these schools only underscores the impact of socioeconomic status on educational advancement. The fact that 91% of graduates from Young and 89% from Jones enroll in college within 16 months, compared to only 52% from Juarez, reflects a disparity in post-secondary opportunities and support.

Kids just a few minutes drive away from where I went to school had almost twice the chance at a college education as me and my peers.

Applying to college seems like a fantasy when you are lacking resources and support. Overcoming a system seemingly designed to hold us back, I believe my hard work, luck, and — crucially — affirmative action played pivotal roles in allowing me to alter the trajectory of my life through education.

I am now about to graduate from Trinity College in Hartford with a degree in public policy and law.

The kids who are graduating this year from Benito Juarez still have grit and hard work on their side, and maybe they will have luck. What they don’t have any more is affirmative action to level the playing field. With the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate affirmative action, we must look for other tools to achieve that level playing field. 

To me it is obvious that legacy admissions should also be reevaluated.

Legacy admissions refer to the preferential treatment of college or university applicants who are relatives of the institution’s alumni. Some individuals argue that legacy-based admissions are crucial as they facilitate donations and maintain positive alumni relations, which in turn can be beneficial for networking and securing substantial funding for the schools. However, according to an estimate by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, alumni contributions account for less than a quarter of total donations.

Supporters also contend that legacy admissions can help maintain traditions and a sense of continuity within the school community. Families with multigenerational ties to an institution may contribute to a rich tapestry of shared experiences and loyalty, enhancing the school’s culture and identity. But by prioritizing familial ties over merit and potential, colleges risk reinforcing socioeconomic disparities and hindering the broadening of perspectives that are essential for fostering a dynamic and innovative academic environment. The perspectives that under-represented students bring should also be part of the rich tapestry.

A Princeton study showed legacy admittees were found to have lower GPAs and higher dropout rates, indicating that the advantage of legacy status does not guarantee academic success. On the other hand, the study found that minority students did not exhibit the same academic difficulties, even when benefiting from admissions preferences. This distinction underscores the need for colleges to reassess the impact and fairness of their admissions policies, ensuring they support academic achievement and diversity without compromising the integrity of the educational process. 

Additionally, a study regarding legacy and athlete preferences at Harvard showcased that many recruited athletes have an exceptionally high admission rate compared to non-athlete applicants. The study notes that the average admission rate for recruited athletes is 86%, indicating that being a recruited athlete significantly increases the chances of admission. The association between athletics and admissions advantages, particularly among affluent white students, suggests that factors like access to private coaching, participation in travel and club teams, and availability of superior equipment might play a role in these advantages. These resources, often more accessible to wealthier families, are contributing to the disparities observed in the admissions process, indicating an indirect form of privilege rather than a direct disadvantage.

The core function of an educational institution is to provide a rigorous and enriching academic environment. Policies that compromise this goal by admitting students less likely to succeed academically undermine the institution’s fundamental purpose. Policies like legacy or athletic admissions both undermine this core purpose and lead to inequity for both students of color and lower income students.  

​​A planned bill to ban legacy admissions in Connecticut failed to pass this session. But I implore all involved — politicians, lawmakers, senators, and congressmen — to continue to consider abolishing the use of legacy admissions across the state.

This pivotal move toward banning such admissions practices is essential for reinstating fairness and equity in our academic institutions’ admissions processes. Legacy admissions, which inherently favor applicants with familial ties to alumni, perpetuate a cycle of inequality and undermine the principles of equal opportunity foundational to educational access and success. By eliminating this practice, Connecticut has the chance to lead by example, as it has in the past: LGBTQ+ rights, eminent domain, and debt collection regulations. 

Growing up in Gage Park, where dreams often feel distant, I’ve lived the harsh realities that many kids in similar circumstances face. My path has shown me that education is a critical escape route from the cycle of poverty. Connecticut’s potential move to abolish legacy admissions resonates deeply with me; it’s about giving kids from neighborhoods like mine a real chance to change their destinies. This isn’t just policy reform; it’s about breaking barriers, offering hope, and affirming that where we come from doesn’t limit where we can go.

It’s our time to ensure that every child has the opportunity to rise, driven by their talent and determination, not their lineage.

Antonio Ortega is a Senior at Trinity College, Majoring in Public Policy and Law with a concentration in Public Health.