Since I am a senior in high school, the biggest thing on my mind is the college admission process. As much as I try to prepare and make sure that my application is all-together, there is so much that it out of my control. My peers and I are constantly worrying if we are good enough, if there is more that we could have done, and what could possibly give us an edge above the competition.

With the recent Michigan case on affirmative action case going to the supreme court, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, I have began to think a lot about what it is that gets people into college. Is it race? It is gender? Could it be affluence?

As a black female, whenever I have any accomplishment or do anything of significance, I am bombarded with people assuming it is only because of affirmative action. People assume the only way that I could ever accomplish anything is because I am black and because I am a female.

All of that considered, you might think that I would be left with a very bitter taste of affirmative action, but I am not. I stand by what affirmative action wishes to do and will not let a few sour-apple thoughts distort my opinion of something pretty important.

Affirmative action works to combat 450-plus years of advantages that were faced by non-whites and non-males in the United States. Yes, it would be great for the world and all its practices to be colorblind (in terms of race). But in order for the present and future to be colorblind the past must have also been colorblind. And it was not.

Do not get me wrong; things are a lot better for many people today than they were 50 years ago. But things are still not where they should be. There is still progress that needs to be made.

The case going to the Supreme Court makes me think of all the time, energy, and resources that people are spending to end affirmative action. Yet, they neglect something else that has a bigger, more negative, impact on the college admission process; legacy preference.

In short, legacy preference is an advantage given by an institution to an applicant based on a familial relation to alumni of that school. This practice has been around since the end of World War I as a response to the influx of immigrants in the U.S.

What is more alarming to me than the foundation of legacy preference is the dramatic affect that it has on college admissions. According to The Economist, Ivy League schools use legacy preference in admitting 10-30 percent of entering classes. Even taking the low estimate of 10 percent is absolutely ludicrous to me.

I find it appalling that people should get an advantage for something that a relative did. That people would get an advantage just because they were born into privilege.

Yes, America is this wonderful capitalistic society of opportunity. But it is a lot easier to hold onto wealth and privilege and opportunity that was passed down by your parents than to try and create it yourself.

I see this personally in my family. My great-grandmother was a sharecropper from South Carolina who worked tirelessly to move her family up north to Pennsylvania. Along with many other children, she gave birth to my grandmother who raised my father on her own and worked multiple jobs. She eventually went to school to become a social worker, giving back to the community. My father and mother met at college, got married, and moved out to the Main Line to raise their family.

That is where you see me today. Sitting here in the safety and privilege of the Main Line and going to wonderful Main Line schools. I have more than my great-grandmother ever thought was possible for her decedents. I am more than grateful, but I also understand that things were not just handed to my parents or to me.

The applicants and students who benefit the most from legacy preference already have other advantages; they already have privilege. Unlike with affirmative action, they are not historically or presently disadvantaged or disenfranchised.

There are myths that it “fosters community” and that legacy preference is necessary for the financial future of the university. But in 2008, Caltech raised almost as much money as M.I.T. did through alumni donations (71 and 77 million respectively). However, Caltech does not use legacy preference and has a smaller alumni pool.

Sure, colleges and universities are allowed to use legacy preference when looking at applicants. But I would like to think that college admission has more to do than with who will make the college the most money. I would like to think that a great education is not just for the elite.

I say all of this to say that with all that is wrong with legacy admission, I do not want to hear about affirmative action until legacy preference is gone. I do not want people ridiculed and chastised for affirmative action until people start getting ridiculed and chastised for legacy preference. Until that day happens, the conversation really needs to move from affirmative action and onto legacy, the true evil here.

Read the response to this article, undermining affirmative action.