(ThyBlackMan.com) Interim University of Southern California President Beong-Soo Kim was matter of fact when he made clear that USC would continue its policy of legacy admissions. Kim said that “It seemed perverse to us that, in considering two equally qualified applicants, that we couldn’t consider that one of them had a relative who had attended USC and really, really wanted to come here as their first choice.”
Soo Kim didn’t seem fazed by the fact that USC was openly breaking the law. California banned the use of legacy admission starting in September 2025. As with any lawbreakers, there are supposed penalties for the violators. But even after USC openly announced that it would continue the practice, the California Department of Justice which is responsible for enforcing the ban was mute.
The only immediate action it took was to place USC in its database of violators. The Department did not say whether that weak, unsatisfactory, non-punitive measure was a prelude to any further stiff action against USC. The betting odds are that it isn’t.
Now let’s go back to Soo Kim’s retort as to why USC would continue legacy admissions. He added “It almost felt as if we would be disadvantaging the student, who wanted to fully convey why USC was their first choice and why it was so important for them to come here, if they were admitted.”
“Disadvantaging the student.” This is beyond incredible. He in effect is applying the condition of disadvantage to mostly white students who come from upper income, and in many cases well-connected, wealthy homes whose parents are USC alum parents. They have all the social and economic advantages. To put it mildly, this is a shameless perversion of what it means to be disadvantaged, and a slap at those who are truly disadvantaged. They are poor, lower income Blacks and Hispanic students from grossly underserved inner city schools. They do not have a scintilla of the inherent advantages that students from wealthy, connected homes have.
This is the real reason why legacy admissions are still in place at USC and countless other universities. They bring in hefty revenue and foster greater political and business support for these universities. This is especially crucial to them at a time that the Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on DEI at colleges and universities complete with massive cuts or threats of cuts to their funding. USC feels the chill and has laid off hundreds of employees and announced an indefinite hiring freeze.
The California legacy admissions ban, passed in 2024, as Assembly Bill 1780, compels universities to report legacy status, donor status, race, county of residence, income brackets and athletic status of newly enrolled students, as well as a comparison of the admission rate of students who are provided a legacy or donor preference to those that do not. If they don’t comply, they are placed, as is the case with USC, in a database of violators. Again, that’s where it seemingly ends.
USC exploited that grace period before the ban officially went into effect by admitting its current crop of legacy students. It is unclear, probably deliberately, whether USC would continue to violate the ban with future admissions.
The trigger that finally moved California legislators and a handful of legislatures in other states to ban legacy admissions was the SCOTUS decision in 2024 that in effect banned race from being used as a criterion by colleges and universities for admissions.
The explicit goal during those years was to increase the number of students of color at universities. That provoked the fierce and prolonged long fight by ultra-right, conservatives and the GOP to scrap what it fallaciously deemed racial preferences and affirmative action programs at colleges and universities. The rightist majority SCOTUS acted on that demand.
But it inadvertently created an opening for opponents of legacy admissions. If race was banned as an alleged preferential advantage for minorities, then that same ban should extend to preferential advantage for mostly white students from wealthy university alum homes that legacy admissions obviously benefited.
Democratic Assemblymember Phil Ting who authored the California’s legacy admissions ban bill made that point, “The fact that universities now cannot look at race as a factor in admissions really underscores the need to make sure that universities shouldn’t be taking into account wealth or alumni status, traditions that really close off admissions for a whole host of students.”
Unfortunately, that’ exactly what legacy admissions do. And even more troubling is the harsh reality that its what they are intended to do. Wealth and status have always been central to the running of colleges. And administrators are ever conscious of that.
So, when USC interim President Soo Kim defends supposed “disadvantaged” students whose parents are wealthy USC alums he is only acknowledging that reality.
Nonetheless, the other harsh reality for USC is that it is breaking the law. That’s where the Department of Justice must step in and make it clear to USC they are not above the law.
Written By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
One can find more info about Mr. Hutchinson over at the following site; TheHutchinson Report.
Also feel free to connect with him through twitter; http://twitter.com/earlhutchins
He is also an associate editor of New America Media. His forthcoming book is From King to Obama: Witness to a Turbulent History (Middle Passage Press).
