In 2022, Lily-Rose Depp, daughter of famous actor Johnny Depp and actress Vanessa Paradis, told Elle, “If somebody’s mom or dad is a doctor, and then the kid becomes a doctor, you’re not going to be like, ‘Well, you’re only a doctor because your parent is a doctor.’ It’s like ‘No, I went to medical school and trained.’”

While Depp’s commentary on accusations of nepotism led to her swift cancellation, along with a plethora of thinkpieces and interviews surrounding nepotism in Hollywood and celebrity circles, Depp did shine a brighter light on how the phenomenon plays a role in academic circles. For those not aware of the term, nepotism refers to the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives, friends, or associates, especially in the sense of giving jobs or opportunities. 

Unbeknownst to Depp, within medical schools, as well as the larger sphere of higher education, nepotism thrives. A 2020 Wall Street Journal report found that 56% of the nation’s top 250 institutions considered legacy in their admissions process. In 2019, a Guardian article found that the Harvard acceptance rate for legacy students was about 33%, while the overall acceptance rate was just under 6%. 

This isn’t simply limited to Ivy Leagues or colleges of their caliber. In 2017, Naviance, after gathering data on legacy applicants to 64 colleges, estimated that on average, the admissions rate for legacies was around 31% higher than the official admissions rates for all applicants.

While many of these students certainly worked hard to maintain their place in top colleges, it is undeniable that they were given a leg up. Nepotism within academia allows richer, more well-established families to have more opportunities in careers, as well as connections. As these families make donations or contributions to elite college’s funds, they become interconnected within academic, celebrity, and political circles. 

These connections may sound like conspiracy, but throughout higher education and beyond, American colleges and universities prove it time and again. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court presents a perfect case study for how nepotism functions within both academic and political circles. Kavanaugh, a son of a prosecutor, as well as the grandchild and son of two Yale alumni, was undoubtedly given a step up in his path through Yale Law, even if he worked his way there. Kavanaugh later clerked for “feeder” and disgraced judge Alex Kozinski, and after Kozinski’s history of sexual assault came into the public eye, Kavanaugh remained unscathed and was soon nominated as a SCOTUS Justice. 

Aligned with him was Yale Law professor Amy Chua, now more often known for her bestselling–and quite controversial–book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Chua endorsed Kavanaugh’s nomination to the SCOTUS ranks, and her daughter, Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld, soon accepted an appellate court clerkship from Kavanaugh. And clerking right along with Chua-Rubenfield was Clayton Kozinski, son of Alex Kozinski, one of only four Kavanaugh clerks who did not write for the Yale Law Journal. 

It isn’t difficult to see the trade of favors within these circles. These connections become inherently unfair, a contradiction incompatible with higher education’s so-called meritocracy. This isn’t simply a matter of fairness, either. A SCOTUS clerkship comes with not only prestige, but also a hefty bonus for incoming lawyers in most firms. A 2018 essay by Mridul M. Panditrao for the Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research found that nepotism plays a role in medical literature, too–specifically, which studies are published and which are not. 

Nepotism creates a self-sustained cycle, in which richer families, legacy students, and those with strong connections to power are allowed to create a future for themselves in which they benefit, placing a ceiling on poorer students. 

“[Legacy admission] really points to larger systemic conversations that are happening in society right now about privilege, about access, about how does one group in society get ahead over another,” said Angel B. Pérez, Vice-President for Enrollment and Student Success at Trinity College in Connecticut. “I think, really, it started to point out some issues that, particularly, the American public is feeling.”

It certainly doesn’t help that the nepotism favoring legacy students has a tendency to seldom center Jewish students, people of color, or immigrants. Admission preference to legacy applicants has a long, fraught history, in which colleges in the 1920’s used legacy admissions as a backdoor to limit Jewish, minority, and immigrant students. 

Even now, legacy admissions limit minorities. According to an October 2022 Forbes article, at Notre Dame, 21% of freshmen in the 2020 entering class were legacies, and 4% were Black. Similarly, at Harvard, the percentage of the entering class that were legacies doubled those that were Black. Forbes also found similar ratios at Stanford University, the University of North Carolina, and Cornell. 

However, lawmakers on both federal and state levels are beginning to approach nepotism and legacy admissions with a more critical eye. California, for example, passed a law in 2019 demanding that colleges remain transparent regarding legacy admission policy. In Colorado, legacy admission is barred from public colleges and universities. New York and Connecticut have both considered bills barring legacy admissions from both public and private universities as well. 

On a federal level, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, as well as Democratic U.S. Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York, have introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, which would prohibit most colleges from preferring legacy students or the children of donors.

“This is a time to do some self-reflection at our institutions and be honest,” Youlonda Copeland-Morgan, Vice-Provost for Enrollment Management at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, “The fact is, in America, where you go to college matters. It opens doors. There are privileges for being in the best college.”