2. Yes: The guilt would be unnecessary. So legacy not a “nice thing” anymore; in fact, it’s a “bad thing.”

So, overall, is legacy a “nice thing?” One could argue that since IQ is pretty heritable among affluent families and Harvard alumni raise kids to work hard and value education, maybe the majority of legacies would have gotten in without the preference. So it’s a “bad thing.” Or, one could argue that even if this was true, the benefit to the minority “undeserving” of a Harvard education largely outweighs the modest guilt felt by the majority, if it is a majority anyways. So it’s a “nice thing” overall. But then one could say that the “undeserving” probably would have gone to a good school anyway (since legacy here is only a “tie-breaker”), so it’s not that big of a benefit to get accepted here. So they don’t outweigh the “bad thing.” And it goes on and on…

So which is it?

With the admissions process as opaque as it is, your guess is as good as mine. It’s a game of hypotheticals.

But we do know a few things. The facts and figures show that eliminating legacy could be a productive first step in correcting the awful socioeconomic disparity at Harvard, without decreasing alumni donations. And we know that we don’t know exactly how “nice of a thing” this “nice thing” really is.

So, maybe it’s time for the legacy to go. In addition to a first step towards more diversity at Harvard, it may be the first step to a less opaque and less deeply insecure admissions process.

But that’s just the opinion of a privileged piece of sh*t.

Dashiell F. Young-Saver ’16, a Crimson editorial writer, is an English concentrator in Winthrop House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.