I had no idea it was a notorious case. If I did, after 13 years that memory has faded. Do a search for "legacy admissions", like https://hn.algolia.com/?q=lega

I had no idea it was a notorious case. If I did, after 13 years that memory has faded. Do a search for "legacy admissions", like https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions and see how rarely people mention Bush. I've heard much more about minorities at prestigious colleges are viewed as being there as the result of affirmative action, while legacy students ... aren't. Or how those schools offer scholarships for athletes in water polo, tennis, sailing, rowing, and other sports which more accessible to affluent white kids. Hence the question "How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?" > thus dropping their obligations Except the question was, why isn't that practice illegal? Responding with something like "because it's legal" isn't that insightful. > somehow violates Title IX I wasn't making that argument. If it were that easy, it would be done long ago. I was pointing out that the fed can also use the power of the purse to change things, even if the courts say separation of powers prevents a direct law. > it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale What benefited Bush more, legacy admission or rampant sexism that prevented half the population from being able to apply? In any case, "Although the women did not win their case, they achieved their objectives: Yale instituted a grievance procedure and a court held that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination. ... As a result of Alexander v. Yale most U.S. universities instituted grievance procedures for sexual harassment." Lost the battle and won the war.