In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court last week ruled that race, in and of itself, could not be used as a consideration in college admission decisions.

The court left untouched other forms of discrimination in college admissions – considerations that have been in place far longer than affirmative action and are much more deeply entrenched.

Not surprisingly, these forms of discrimination – not even hidden but advertised and celebrated by their institutions – overwhelmingly favor men over women, white people over Black people and other ethnic minorities, the rich over the poor.

If academic achievement as measured by grades and test scores were the only admission criteria, women would outnumber men at college by a wider margin than they do presently. One estimate from an elite liberal arts college suggests that its student body would be 60%-65% female if only grades and test scores were considered. Despite this clear academic advantage of female applicants, the student body at this school is only about half female. This gap is made up by choosing less academically qualified men over more qualified women – that is, affirmative action for men. Schools don’t advertise this discrepancy, but neither do they hide it, extolling the virtue of sex balance at coed institutions. If only academic achievement were considered in admissions, men of all backgrounds and ethnicities would have a much harder time getting into the colleges of their choice.

Many colleges and universities give special consideration to children and other relatives of alumni. To be sure, being a legacy candidate does not guarantee admission, but it can compensate for deficits in other parts of the application. One 2011 study showed that legacy candidates were over three times more likely to be admitted relative to nonlegacy candidates. A Duke University study using Harvard data for a recent court case showed the average white legacy candidate has a five-fold increase in the probability of admission compared to nonlegacy white candidates.

Like race and sex, where one’s parents and relatives attended college is an accident of birth with no relation to one’s own ability. Of course, parents’ education can influence where one goes to high school and the amount of expensive tutoring and test preparation one receives. But such advantages only highlight the academic vacuousness of legacy admissions insofar as it often aids those applicants who need it the least. Remember that the practice of legacy admissions began in the 1920s for the express purpose of limiting the number of Jewish, Catholic, minority and immigrant applicants, whose parents rarely graduated from the elite institutions. Eliminating legacy considerations would reduce the chances of admission of many white students.

A century after it began, the practice of legacy admissions is beginning to decline. Several colleges and universities have ended legacy admissions voluntarily. A 2020 Wall Street Journal survey of 250 top institutions revealed that the percentage using legacy as an admission criterion had dropped to 56%. Yet among the most selective institutions, Harvard and Yale reportedly continue to cling to the practice.

Colleges also consider both the philanthropic “capacity” of applicants’ families. Applicants from wealthier families are admitted over more qualified, but poorer applicants. That is, affirmative action for the wealthy. Furthermore, as white households hold nearly 90% of the wealth in America, philanthropy considerations also overwhelmingly benefit white families. Eliminating philanthropy considerations will harm the prospects of wealthy white students.

The point is this: simply “stop(ping) discrimination on the basis of race” takes more than getting rid of racial considerations in admission decisions. Using sex, legacy and philanthropy as “pluses” in admissions amounts to affirmative action for men, whites and the wealthy.

After over 100 years of direct exclusion from top institutions, and the continuation of practices that overwhelming favor the wealthy, whites and men, it is disingenuous to suggest that minorities should bear the burden of “stopping discrimination.” Stopping discrimination should mean eliminating all nonacademic preferences that favor one group over another, not just the ones that favor minorities.