Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

End Legacy Admissions, Ensure More Fair College Acceptance in New York


Heading to college (photo: Edwin J. Torres/Mayoral Photography Office)


Last year, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases that could fundamentally change how colleges offer admissions to historically disenfranchised students. A group called Students for Fair Admissions filed suit against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, challenging the use of race as one measure of a prospective student’s application for admission. The group argued that any consideration of race, even if non-dispositive, is unconstitutional. Most legal experts predict that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is likely to agree. 

Ensuring that historically marginalized students can receive the same opportunities as privileged students is incredibly important. Just 27% of Black and 20% of Hispanic adults living in New York City have a bachelor’s degree, compared to 45% of Asian and 64% of white residents.

While the Students for Fair Admissions cases are grabbing lots of headlines, there are actually more pernicious admissions practices that make it more difficult to ensure every student has equal access and opportunity to pursue higher education. The real culprits of fair college admissions are practices such as legacy preference and binding early-decision admissions that effectively work as a form of affirmative action for privileged students, who are allowed to take spots at selective colleges from equally (or more) qualified students of color and first-generation college applicants. 

For years colleges have given the family of alumni an advantage when they apply for admission, which they claim fosters a sense of “community and tradition” on campus, or that it helps raise money for their endowments. In truth, legacy preferences just favor wealthy, more privileged, and predominantly white families that have lived in the United States for generations and benefited from past exclusionary and discriminatory policies. 

More than 70 colleges in New York provide a legacy preference. Worse yet, more than a third of our public universities consider an alumni relation relevant in admissions. Almost none of New York’s colleges publish data on how many legacies they enroll each year. The data we have, however, shows the disturbing extent to which legacy preferences undermine racial diversity at New York colleges.

Nearly a quarter of New York residents are immigrants and almost one-fifth are native-born citizens with at least one immigrant parent. This anachronistic policy of “legacy preference” shuts the door on many of these potential applicants, who may be the first in their family to go to college.

Likewise, early-decision admissions, which allow students to apply early to one school and commit to attending if accepted, is an equally, if not more exclusionary, practice. Forty-five New York colleges and universities offer an early decision option. Applying early-decision requires know-how and money, which may be why students attending private high schools are more than three times as likely than public school students to apply early decision. A student applying early is at a competitive advantage relative to other applicants because colleges and universities set aside a significant number of seats for early applicants, and those students who apply must be financially prepared to enroll if accepted without being able to consider financial aid offers.

What this means is that students without wealth and strong college counseling — students who disproportionately are Black, Hispanic, low-income, and/or first-generation — are likely to be at a disadvantage for early decision programs. You don’t need any more proof than this: applicants from the wealthiest ZIP codes in the United States were twice as likely to apply early decision than all other applicants. 

Legacy preferences and early-decision admissions policies are by their very definition exclusionary practices that harm students without access to privilege and wealth. That’s why we introduced the Fair College Admissions Act, which would prohibit the use of legacy preference and early-decision in all colleges in New York, public and private. Schools that continue to use these exclusionary practices would be assessed a penalty equal to 10% of their tuition revenue, which would then be used to bolster the state’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP), which provides financial assistance to students of lesser financial means. 

This idea should not be radical. In 2021, Colorado became the first state to ban legacy preferences in college admissions. And in recent years more than 100 public and private schools have voluntarily done the same, including Amherst College, California Institute of Technology, Pomona College, and Johns Hopkins University. Unsurprisingly, the sky did not fall and these institutions continue to thrive. 

Given the Supreme Court’s expected decision in the Students for Fair Admissions cases, New York and the higher education institutions that call this state home can take bold action to dismantle the systems and traditions that bar underprivileged students from pursuing educational opportunity by enacting the Fair College Admissions Act and living the values of equitable inclusion that makes our diverse state so great. 

***
State Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Latrice Walker each represents parts of Brooklyn. On Twitter @Sen_Gounardes & @TheRealLatriceW.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Jordan Neely, the Social Safety Net, and Blaming the Victim


Gov. Hochul talks mental health care (photo: Don Pollard/Governor's Office)


The often competing interests of public safety and compassion toward individuals experiencing homelessness again collided violently in New York City. Jordan Neely, 30, a Black, homeless man, was fatally subdued on the subway recently by a young white former Marine named Daniel Penny. 

Some consider Mr. Penny a hero; others refer to him as a racist vigilante who put Mr. Neely into a chokehold until death. Many reference Mr. Neely’s history of arrests, erratic behavior, and reports of autism and substance use.

I see yet another example of a phenomenon called “blaming the victim.”

My experience as a disability advocate assisting chronically homeless individuals in New York State leaves me wondering why the homeless services system manages to emerge relatively unscathed whenever high profile incidents like this occur.  

If a municipal authority, social services official, or nonprofit organization makes a statement about such an incident, it is usually prefaced with “He didn’t” or “She wouldn’t” or “They refused.” We have been conditioned to believe that homeless individuals are “services resistant.” Yet in my work with this challenging population, I have rarely met anyone who didn’t want a clean, safe home.

It is beyond time to examine key factors that relate to our ongoing crisis.

Approximately one third of the homeless population is disabled with cognitive impairments, psychiatric disorders, traumatic brain injuries, and often related substance use disorders. Nearly every disabled individual whom I’ve assisted had been kicked out of shelters for “noncompliance” with extensive rules with which they could not comply. For example, a nearly blind man with a brain injury was required to sign many pages of rules without assistance or eyeglasses to stay in a shelter.

Mr. Neely reportedly experienced a psychiatric disorder, autism, and a substance use disorder. He was at high risk of death on the streets and was on the “Top 50” list of people outreach workers viewed as most in need of assistance. He had been brought to hospitals voluntarily and involuntarily. 

We are relying upon an antiquated shelter system. Many shelters require residents to leave during the day, while others can be so unpleasant that residents prefer to leave. This forces libraries, gas stations, transportation systems, churches, and parks to accommodate their needs, thereby exacerbating their challenges and the homeless visibility issues that concern neighbors, commuters, and tourists. 

Lacking a permanent address, homeless individuals who encounter problems with the law often don’t receive notices of court dates. Then, when arrest warrants are issued, they avoid shelters and soup kitchens where warrants may be served. 

Mr. Neely reportedly had been arrested over 40 times. Numerous arrests for misdemeanor offenses may have been unavoidable, like public urination and trespassing. A warrant was issued for Mr. Neely’s arrest in February; notably, he referred to being hungry, thirsty, and tired on the subway prior to his death and indicated that jail may be a place he could get his basic needs met.

Some individuals whom I’ve assisted were treated with astonishing cruelty by homeless services personnel unqualified to work with psychiatric and neurocognitive disorders. This is a significant reason why people exit services.

There are immediate steps that we can take to improve conditions.  

Register all disabled homeless individuals in New York State for Medicaid. This will offer access to physicians and rehabilitation specialists who can provide expert diagnoses, so we no longer need to rely upon the opinions of homeless services personnel, outreach workers, and police.

Identify those at highest risk of death; house them and all individuals on the “Top 50” list in single-room accommodations. They should receive medical and legal services coordinated by a disability advocate who accompanies each person to all appointments.  This is how I assisted all of my people into permanent housing. It works. 

Develop a strong appeals process to reduce evictions from shelter.

Provide places for people to go - daytime drop-in locations equipped with computers, WiFi, TVs, beverages, and snacks, where people can also nap safely.

Stop blaming the disabled victims of a flawed homeless services system.

Vehemently denounce violence against homeless individuals.

Help is on the way.

Ten years ago, President Obama launched The BRAIN Initiative (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies). This project is generating fascinating insights into new treatment options for brain-related disorders. Recently, President Biden launched The White House Report on Mental Health Research Priorities, a federal initiative to study mental health issues intensively. These resources can guide us as we continue to navigate the challenges that psychiatric and neurocognitive disorders present, including within the homeless population. 

In the meantime, let us utilize those evidence-based practices that we know do work to help those experiencing homelessness. Sweeps, criminalization, court orders, and policing are not solutions. New York has led the nation in continuously affirming a right to shelter. We must continue our leadership by spearheading a path toward the compassionate and humane provision of permanent, appropriate, supportive housing for all in need.

***
Dr. Mary McLaughlin, PhD, is an advocate and researcher focused on disability and homelessness.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

New York State Failed to Deliver on Housing — New York City Must Step Up


Mayor Adams talks housing (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)


Once upon a time - also known as January 10 - Governor Kathy Hochul presented her vision for New York State. The centerpiece of her agenda was her New York Housing Compact, the most aggressive and ambitious plan to tackle the housing crisis in recent memory. The compact had flaws — tenant protections and affordability benchmarks were largely absent in the proposal. But the plan to mandate municipalities increase their housing supply and a target goal of building 800,000 units in a decade were right on track. They are appropriate positions to meet the needs of solving our housing crisis head-on.

But four months later, the compact is still only a proposal, as both houses of the State Legislature refused to come to agreement on its key components during state budget negotiations. The only real push in recent memory to address New York’s housing shortage has at best been stalled, and any major efforts from Albany to address the housing crisis will likely not happen until next year, and that is no guarantee.

But this does not mean nothing can be done to solve our housing crisis this year. Just because state government was unwilling to address the housing crisis does not mean New York City Hall has to sit idly by and concede defeat. With the state's inability to deliver solutions, now is the time for New York City to step up and act on its initiatives to address our crippling housing shortage and rising rents. Fortunately, there are positive signs from city leaders and a handful of proposals in the offing.

Hochul’s goal to produce 800,000 units of new housing statewide in the next decade might be on pause, but Mayor Eric Adams’ benchmark of 500,000 new units of housing in New York City in that time is still alive. The mayor’s effort is in part reliant on state action that is not yet happening, but there is still a good deal the city can control.

It is a high bar to clear, as it would be the highest rate of housing production since the 1920s — but with the supply shortage in the city, a bar of that caliber is necessary. In December, the Adams administration outlined this vision in his Get Stuff Built plan, with over a hundred proposals designed to speed up and streamline housing construction. These proposals — from expediting the pre-certification process for rezoning applications  to adjusting the environmental review process and standards — are necessary to get more housing in the pipeline and to make new housing production feasible.

With his Get Stuff Built plan, the City of Yes: Housing Opportunity zoning text amendment in development, and more, Mayor Adams has meaningful housing initiatives in his arsenal. Given the state taking a back seat on housing, these plans are needed more than ever. Adams should move aggressively to push these proposals, as well as initiating additional neighborhood rezonings — something that he has been rather quiet on in his tenure.

Mayor Adams is not the only one to pitch aggressive proposals, and he should take up willing partners. Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine has identified more than 170 sites across Manhattan to redevelop for housing as well as 9 sites for rezoning to accommodate more housing stock, which he says would result in 73,000 new units of housing. His plan was so popular that instead of the backlash he may have expected, Levine received suggestions from residents pointing to additional locations they thought new housing should rise. 

Levine has provided a framework for every borough president to address housing shortages in their borough, and while none has yet to perform the same type of study, several others have professed their commitment to housing growth and are taking steps toward making it happen.

Even a couple of community boards have jumped on the trend of standing for more housing — an encouraging sign, considering the track record of community boards being hostile towards new development. Manhattan Community Board 4 released a proposal that would inject tens of thousands of new housing units. And Manhattan Community Board 2, which had previously opposed the SoHo rezoning, implied that it wants to see an increase in the size of 388 Hudson Street, a 100% affordable housing development in the West Village.

For progressive legislators, one of the sticking points of the governor’s Housing Compact was its lack of tenant protections. Fortunately, a handful of tenant provisions are floating around City Hall, and already enacted measures are ripe for reinforcement.

The Fair Chance For Housing Act is currently before the City Council; it would bar landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants with criminal background checks, giving many more people, especially people of color, a better chance at good and stable housing. There are also existing programs, like Right to Counsel, experiencing chronic funding issues. Without the proper funding for Right to Counsel, eviction cases and vulnerable tenants slip through the cracks. Patching those holes could provide many vulnerable tenants fair representation in court and the opportunity to stay in their homes. 

While the State Legislature might be content with the status quo, the conversation around housing is changing in the city, and the seeds for meaningful improvement already exist. More aggressive action is needed, but there are several proposals that form a good start. Now is the time that ideas, proposals, and goals to alleviate the housing crisis must be turned into action.

But there is little by way of tangible legislation where it is needed. Despite many city leaders endorsing the Housing Compact, not much pressure has been applied to implement local solutions. Mayor Adams must quickly move his housing plans into action and show the public the results along the way, continuing to build support for advancing solutions. The City Council should also move to protect current and prospective tenants, implement the fair housing framework recently released by Speaker Adrienne Adams and Council members, and ensure that the next city budget includes essential funding for housing in many avenues, from affordable housing subsidies to tenant vouchers to staffing at key agencies.

It is important to remember that all the solutions the city could pass will not be enough. The lack of tenant protections is a fair critique, but Hochul’s Housing Compact offered a chance at real progress. Albany has the power to make sweeping changes to make it far easier for municipalities to solve the housing crisis.

That includes the broader planks of Hochul’s plan to require housing growth everywhere, especially around mass transit hubs, but also important specific policies like eliminating the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) cap on residential development in the city and legalizing accessory dwelling units. The lack of these policies will continue to hamper our ability to add much-needed supply to our housing stock.

The spotlight was shone brightest on the suburbs and vocal resistance to the plan, but New York City’s zoning landscape would have seen major changes too. While Hochul has said she will continue to fight for a housing plan in the future, advocates must continue to push for holistic changes at the state level. But it would be a tremendous disservice to vulnerable tenants and prospective residents if the city continues to wait for Albany to flip the switch.

Rents are still rising and flirting with records, the Rent Guidelines Board is considering significant increases on rent-stabilized apartments, more people cannot afford their rent comfortably, and housing construction is slowing. Even if City Hall is acting with one hand tied behind its back, our leaders need to do everything they can to keep people in their homes and get new homes built. The one hand the city does have accessible can still make meaningful changes to reverse these trends.

City leaders endorsing the Housing Compact is a good sign, but they cannot simply pass the buck to Albany or throw up their hands about the lack of state-led progress. As the old saying goes, If you want something done right, do it yourself.

***
Austin Celestin is a rising senior at New York University studying Urban Design and Journalism.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years