On Friday, the first members of the Class of 2011 will receive virtual thick envelopes in their inboxes; a few of these applicants—“legacies”—know today that their chances are a bit higher than their peers’.

The application to Harvard College is not a short one, and that is for a good reason: There is no shortage of factors that the admissions committee examines in determining who gets in. Most important are indicators of a student’s academic success and potential. In addition, the admissions committee considers the many ways in which a student’s experiences, backgrounds, and skills will allow that student to contribute to the Harvard community. And so-called legacy applicants—that is, students with a close relative who attended Harvard—continue to receive a small boost in the admissions process. Despite its many benefits, this practice of “legacy preference” is on its face unfair, and we hope the admissions committee disregards applicants’ legacy status when they admit the Class of 2012.

Various proponents of legacy preference have offered several reasons for continuing to give legacies a boost. For example, a critical mass of legacies on campus might help to generate a larger sense of Harvard spirit and tradition on campus, through their own emotional connections to the University and their familial connections to alumni.

More importantly, proponents of legacy preference claim that the practice also helps to engage alumni with the University beyond their Harvard years; knowing that their sons and daughters stand a better chance of admission to their alma mater, alumni are more generous with their money, and possibly more significantly, their time. To be sure, these are important contributions that ultimately benefit the Harvard community, but to what extent and at what cost?

Harvard alumni are proud and involved for many reasons; that their children may be admitted preferentially is only one of them. Many others, presumably, will be inspired to give back to a university with values in which they believe, that meant something to them personally, and that still, if their children are qualified regardless of their surname, could become part of a family tradition. Harvard should actively seek, even more than it already does, to help its alumni connect to current students, but it should not do so by compromising its core values.

It will be difficult and potentially costly for Harvard to take the moral high ground with respect to legacy preference. But it is clear where the moral high ground is. Unlike academic indicators, athletic prowess, artistic talent, diversity of background, and the myriad other factors that go into making an admissions decision, a student’s legacy status contributes little, if anything, to the College community.

However small the boost to legacies is—and all indications are that it is considerably small—Harvard’s concession that it is a factor at all is significant. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 has told The Crimson that a student’s legacy status is merely a “tip factor” in deciding whether or not to admit a student. Legacies tend to be some of Harvard’s most qualified applicants, and most will likely still gain admission under a policy that does not consider their parents’ Harvard diplomas. We do not expect a renunciation of legacy preference to significantly change the makeup of the next year’s incoming class; rather, it is the public renunciation itself that is an important statement.

Harvard, more than any other university, is positioned to take a principled stance, one grounded in the essential value of fairness, when it comes to its admissions policies. More often than not, Harvard is rewarded—in its reputation, finances, and otherwise—for being a leader in higher education. Its history has been one of an evolving meritocracy, and ridding itself of legacy preference will be another bold step in that direction. There will surely be short-term feelings of alienation by some members of the alumni community, but over the long run, we are convinced that alumni will give back to Harvard and will love Harvard more as an institution that acts on principle.