S-5116-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Todd Young (R-IN)
What it does
This bill would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require accrediting agencies to assess whether colleges and universities have stopped giving preferential treatment in admissions to applicants based on their relationship to alumni ("legacy" preferences) or donors. Preferential treatment is defined narrowly as decisions where the alumni or donor relationship is the "determinative factor." The bill also directs the Secretary of Education to explore the feasibility of collecting data on legacy and donor admissions through the National Student Clearinghouse, and requires biennial compliance reports to Congress.
Who benefits
First-generation college applicants who compete against legacy and donor-connected applicants without those advantages. Applicants from lower- and middle-income families who lack alumni or donor ties to selective institutions. Racial and ethnic minority applicants who are statistically underrepresented in legacy pools at many selective schools. Applicants from rural or under-resourced communities with fewer family connections to elite institutions. Accrediting agencies that receive clearer statutory guidance on admissions standards. Researchers and policymakers who would gain better data on admissions practices if the feasibility study leads to data collection.
Who is hurt
Alumni of selective colleges and universities whose children currently benefit from legacy preferences. Major donors to institutions who currently receive admissions consideration for family members. Selective private institutions that rely on legacy and donor admissions as a tool for alumni engagement and fundraising. Development offices at colleges that use admissions preferences to incentivize large gifts. Institutions that argue accreditation standards should not extend to specific admissions criteria. Potentially, institutions in states where legacy preferences are embedded in institutional culture or donor agreements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that legacy and donor preferences systematically advantage already-privileged applicants — studies of elite universities have found that legacy applicants are admitted at rates 45% higher than non-legacy applicants with comparable credentials, and that legacy pools are disproportionately white and wealthy. They contend that using federal accreditation standards — the gateway to federal student aid eligibility — is a well-established and legally sound mechanism for conditioning institutional behavior, consistent with the Spending Clause framework upheld in South Dakota v. Dole. The bill's bipartisan sponsorship reflects broad agreement that these preferences undermine the principle that college access should be based on individual merit and achievement.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that accreditation standards have traditionally focused on educational quality, not specific admissions criteria, and that extending them to dictate who institutions may favor in admissions represents a significant federal intrusion into institutional autonomy traditionally reserved to states and private entities under the Tenth Amendment. They contend that legacy and donor preferences, while controversial, serve legitimate institutional purposes — including funding scholarships that benefit lower-income students — and that eliminating them could reduce philanthropic giving and harm the very students the bill aims to help. Critics also note the bill's narrow definition of "determinative factor" may be difficult to enforce in practice, since institutions rarely document a single deciding factor in holistic admissions processes.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority here rests on the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), which permits attaching conditions to federal funds — including accreditation requirements that gate access to federal student aid. Under South Dakota v. Dole (1987), such conditions are valid if they are unambiguous, related to the federal interest, and do not cross the line from incentive to coercion. Because the bill operates through accreditation standards rather than a direct mandate, it is structured to stay within Dole's framework, though institutions may argue the condition is insufficiently related to educational quality to satisfy Dole's germaneness requirement.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (Department of Education) gains authority to monitor and report on institutional compliance through accrediting agencies, while Congress retains oversight through biennial reports; accrediting agencies serve as an intermediary check, and institutions retain the ability to challenge accreditation decisions through administrative and judicial review.
Historical precedent
In 2023, Johns Hopkins University, Amherst College, and MIT voluntarily eliminated legacy preferences following public pressure and the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision; no prior federal legislation has used accreditation standards to mandate the elimination of legacy or donor admissions preferences.