{shortcode-fc6ab01b3ee99978699e6924ad5e4be77febe3fd}

If we’ve learned anything over the past few months, it’s that Harvard is skeptical of change.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling ending affirmative action, Harvard has faced renewed demands to mitigate the effect of the Court’s ruling on racial representation by ending its controversial practice of legacy admissions.

Let’s make one thing clear. Harvard is unlikely to end it on its own. While campus organizing, education, and public pressure all aim to end Harvard’s use of legacy admissions, it is unlikely that a university so reliant on alumni support will succumb to these tactics. Just six years ago, a Harvard committee on admissions found that eliminating legacy preferences could lead to decreased support from alumni (crucially, I would assume, donations) — a consequence the school seems unwilling to risk.

Other states, however, reveal there may be other means to end legacy admissions. Just look at California. Last month, Gov. Gavin C. Newsom (D-Calif.) signed a bill banning public and private universities from considering alumni or donor relations when admitting students into their incoming class.

Notably, the bill is weak — it has virtually no enforcement mechanism. Schools violating the law will be listed on California’s Department of Justice website, but will not be fined.

But although California’s legislation is currently toothless, the bill highlights a unique opportunity for advocates to get involved with a tangible initiative that might actually reform the college admissions system.

Rather than call on Harvard to make internal changes to their admissions, the most feasible path is asking legislators to mandate private universities in Massachusetts end legacy admissions — or at least provide incentives for them to do so.

Banning legacy admissions is a bipartisan issue. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle tend to oppose the anti-meritocratic consideration of parental education when making admissions decisions.

Government regulation of college admissions is nothing new.

In 1997, when a federal court banned affirmative action in Texas, state legislators enacted the “Top 10 Percent Plan.” A race-neutral alternative to traditional affirmative action, the plan guarantees the top 10 percent of students in every graduating class of in-state high schools a spot at the states’ public universities. As a result, Black and Hispanic students enrollment at state colleges increased.

The work of activists in Texas provides a valuable lesson for those who wish to see a more diverse campus: Stop the repetitive cycle of asking university officials to listen, and go to those in true positions of authority. By meeting with legislators, there is a clear path forward to promote diverse student bodies and confront the issue of legacy admissions.

Too often, we forget that the Harvard Corporation does not answer to public opinion. But legislators do! If constituents and public figures call, en masse, on the Massachusetts legislature to take action on legacy admissions, they quite conceivably will.

At the end of the day, ending legacy admissions will not make Harvard — or any other university for that matter — a sudden champion of equity. At Amherst, a university that eliminated legacy admissions starting in 2022, this year’s incoming class saw an eight and four percentage point fall in the share of Black and Hispanic students, respectively.

Ultimately, while important, colleges must go above and beyond just ending legacy admissions to truly ensure their incoming classes are diverse in a post-affirmative action world.

To see tangible change in the admissions process at Harvard, it is time to switch our focus to individuals who will actively listen to our concerns.

It is time to use our education in being citizen-leaders for some good: We must call our legislators.

M. Austen Wyche ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Winthrop House.