The Philosophical Roots of Merit How California’s Ban on Legacy Admissions Reflects Ancient Debates on Justice – Plato’s Republic and Merit Based Selection in Ancient Greece 400 BC

Plato’s “Republic” presents a blueprint for an ideal state, arguing that leadership should reside with those most qualified by intellect and character, the philosopher-kings. This concept of meritocracy was a clear departure from the prevalent practices in ancient Greece, where social standing often dictated positions of power. The work critiques the idea of inherited authority, emphasizing that rulers should be selected based on ability rather than lineage, a principle that echoes in more recent discussions about how fairness is achieved. The debates around access, specifically in California’s abolishment of legacy college admissions, demonstrates that similar core tensions continue to resonate. This highlights the long-standing societal struggle to align equity and merit within critical institutions, a problem that extends back to the time of Plato and the ancient Greek philosophical debates.

Plato’s “Republic” advances a theory where leadership ought to be the domain of the exceptionally knowledgeable – “philosopher-kings” – not those simply born into privilege. This emphasis on capability and understanding, particularly of abstract ideas like “the good,” presents an early framework for meritocracy. The Athenian approach of choosing leaders partly by lottery suggests a tension in ancient Greece between egalitarian principles where any citizen might lead versus a system based on specific abilities, as promoted by Plato. Plato’s criticism of democracy in “Republic” centers on the idea that most people simply lack the specialized understanding needed to make complex decisions. The work introduces ideas such as the “noble lie” which is a concept designed to promote social harmony, which makes us question the lengths and ethical boundaries societies will go to uphold certain structures. The ancients in Greece and their philosophers, such as Plato saw education as fundamental to building an ethical community. The concept of “arete”, or excellence, was highly valued beyond athletics to also include morals and intellectual capabilities in Ancient Greek thought that informed later iterations of merit. Plato’s Cave allegory also highlights the idea that most people are not knowledgeable, but that knowledge and abilities should be the main factor when selecting those who will lead, which is opposite to the many critiques we hear of today regarding elitism within systems of merit. It is noteworthy that the initial definition of “aristocracy” in ancient Greece referred to rule by the best, rather than by birth, suggesting that meritocracy was a factor even within their hierarchical systems. The philosophical questions they engaged with then, are relevant to what we debate now when we question affirmative action and legacy policies, as we are still debating what merit means and who gains. However, despite advocating for merit as a core principle, Plato’s ideal society was defined by strict class divisions, underscoring potential issues with implementing merit-based selection, particularly around whether true equality or justice could ever be achieved.

The Philosophical Roots of Merit How California’s Ban on Legacy Admissions Reflects Ancient Debates on Justice – Medieval Universities Breaking From Aristocratic Traditions 1200 AD

Medieval universities, taking shape around 1200 AD, initiated a fundamental change in education by challenging the established aristocratic norms. Places like Bologna and Paris shifted the focus to intellectual aptitude over inherited status, creating a space where knowledge began to act as an agent for social advancement. This trend sparked deeper philosophical discussions around fairness and equality as the idea of a “universitas” pushed for shared learning and increased access to education. The impact of these universities can still be felt today, notably in contemporary discussions regarding who gains access to education and the merit-based values that support such access, like California’s elimination of legacy preferences, a move designed to take down barriers that arise from privilege and encourage a more just learning environment. This continuing discussion reflects the age-old tension between the concept of merit, what constitutes social fairness, and the power of education to shape our societies.

By the 12th century, medieval universities were forming, and these institutions began diverging from long held aristocratic traditions. Their approach challenged the idea that education was solely for the elite. This shift marked an emerging meritocracy, with institutions opening their doors to individuals irrespective of social status. Universities such as Bologna, established earlier around 1088, operated on a novel model giving students agency over their studies, which stands in contrast with the patronage driven models that were typical before. The “universitas” concept was a collective of students and teachers, moving away from individual privileges of aristocratic learning, embracing an idea where learning was a communal experience with merit being the guiding light.

The scholastic method used within these new universities valued debate, and logic which challenged conventional and widely accepted ideologies. This created intellectual space for new and transformative ideas. The medieval curricula relied on the works of Aristotle which had come from the Islamic world. These newly reintroduced texts led to novel syntheses of old greek philosophy combined with Christian theological beliefs. Even though these universities were progressive, some criticisms still applied regarding access for the less privileged, highlighting how tricky and difficult implementation and equitable inclusion can be. The emergence of the “master-apprentice” method of mentorship facilitated knowledge transfer across class lines which was critical at this time, effectively ending the notion that knowledge and higher intellectual power resided solely within aristocracy. Latin allowed cross regional and societal access, promoting the collaboration of scholars, developing a new collective intellectual culture. These debates within these universities had long term consequences by setting up many fundamental frameworks regarding citizens, ethics, and responsibilities as they would be later be applied to social structures. These themes are still relevant today regarding equitable access in modern education.

The Philosophical Roots of Merit How California’s Ban on Legacy Admissions Reflects Ancient Debates on Justice – John Locke’s Natural Rights Theory Impact on Educational Access

John Locke’s Natural Rights Theory emphasizes that individuals possess innate rights, including access to education, that are necessary to realize their personal freedoms and cultivate rational thought. Locke championed an education focused on both moral development and practical skills, with the goal of producing responsible and contributing members of society. His theories directly fuel present debates regarding fairness in educational access, a theme sharply illustrated by California’s decision to ban legacy admissions—a move designed to dismantle preferential treatment stemming from family background. Locke’s framework suggests that merit, not social standing, ought to determine educational chances. This resonates deeply in the ongoing societal fight for a more just distribution of opportunities within educational systems. The core of Locke’s philosophy promotes the idea that all individuals deserve a fair shot at achieving their educational goals, promoting a more balanced society overall.

Locke’s concept of natural rights views education as fundamental, arguing that inherent human rights—to life, liberty, and property—necessarily include the opportunity to gain knowledge. His philosophy laid the groundwork for educational reforms designed to broaden access to education, challenging the historical idea that learning was reserved for a select few. These principles supported democratic ideals by ensuring that all citizens could receive training and tools needed to participate actively and effectively in society.

Locke’s argument that the human mind begins as a “blank slate” directly challenged the notion that people were defined by their birth or lineage, which had been a common assumption prior. This idea emphasized individual experiences shaping intellect rather than inherited aristocratic traits. Such a viewpoint became a critical tenet for a merit-based view in education, emphasizing that personal capabilities gained through study can help anyone overcome their past. This is important in assessing the merits and drawbacks in the debate around affirmative action and other measures implemented to address social inequality.

The Enlightenment period, a time deeply affected by Locke’s thought, saw public education systems expand dramatically in many Western countries. This growth marks a significant movement away from the traditional limitations of medieval systems, which largely benefitted elites. Public education sought to deliver fair and equal opportunities, which is crucial to the idea of meritocracy. However, the implementation of these systems faced challenges, some ongoing, relating to inequalities which were based on social class or racial discrimination and this reminds us that even though intentions of creating these system was for the greater good, their effects were not equal for all.

Locke’s emphasis on personal rights fueled the movement for equal opportunities in education, and supported marginalized groups in their fight against societal restrictions that limited educational advancement based on socioeconomics. His philosophical viewpoint provided justification for community interventions designed to eliminate barriers against education based on one’s background. This also raises issues on individual responsibility versus that of society.

Locke’s idea that “consent of the governed” parallels participatory approaches in education, promoting the involvement of parents and community members in governance, thus challenging authoritarian norms in educational institutions. The push for decentralized governance is relevant in how we choose to design education systems today. His focus on experiential learning and critical thinking is mirrored in modern educational methods which prioritize learner participation, creating flexible and open learning environments irrespective of past inequalities.

The historical context of Locke’s theories emerged during a time when traditions of power were questioned, echoing today’s debates about legacy admissions, or other similar forms of privilege. The impact of Locke’s perspective is also reflected in the formation of institutions of learning which value merit rather than hereditary standing. His natural rights theory has affected legal foundations supporting education as a civil right. This also relates directly to ideas around the social contract theory and whether or not government has a responsibility to create an equal playing field via public education.

The Philosophical Roots of Merit How California’s Ban on Legacy Admissions Reflects Ancient Debates on Justice – The Protestant Work Ethic Reshaping Social Mobility 1517-1648

The Protestant Work Ethic (PWE), arising from the Reformation era of 1517-1648, drastically altered perceptions of social mobility by connecting hard work with moral virtue. This idea promoted diligence, self-discipline, and thriftiness not just as virtues, but as means to achieve success, viewing economic gains as a sign of divine grace. The PWE helped foster a transition from inherited status to a more merit-based approach, where personal efforts became more important than family background. This transition did create chances for upward movement, while also establishing the basis for present day arguments around meritocracy that highlight the potential difficulties when attributing success solely to individual effort. Current debates surrounding equal access to educational institutions, as seen in California’s recent prohibition on legacy preferences, are part of this continuing historical conflict as it challenges the interplay between individual merit, historical privilege, and broader social fairness.

The Protestant Reformation, starting around 1517, triggered a profound change in the perception of work in Europe. The notion that diligent labor was an act of worship and a path to salvation promoted a culture of hard work, discipline, and high output as key values. This dramatically influenced social mobility and created a system where a person’s worth was directly linked to their output in life. Max Weber’s analysis, although debatable, posited that this emphasis on individual responsibility in Protestantism cultivated an entrepreneurial drive that powered economic growth and allowed individuals to climb the social ladder by way of industry.

Economic success came to be viewed by some through a theological lens as proof of divine blessing. This belief served as a motivation to pursue wealth, and it deeply intertwined spiritual convictions with upward social and economic mobility. This new ideology gradually started to challenge the existing aristocracy, by positioning achievement based on personal merit above the old ways where inherited titles and status defined one’s standing. Individuals from less privileged backgrounds could thus climb higher in society than was possible before, disrupting established class systems and shaking things up quite a bit. The Protestant focus on biblical literacy spurred a wider demand for education, leading to the establishment of schools and universities, thus expanding the ability of many more individuals to learn beyond what was previously available to elites alone.

Looking at things from an anthropological view, this focus on work in the protestant worldview also led to changes in how we viewed labour and what it meant in society. This framework argues that societies embody their values through how they structure their labor and in how they value it. The protestant work ethic’s strong dismissal of leisure also had wide implications, associating it with laziness and moral failings, thereby encouraging a mindset in Western culture that work is the main measurement of an individual’s value. The historical setting from 1517 to 1648, including the major disruptions like the Thirty Years’ War, underscores the idea that a very specific view of labor came about as an effort to impose order and meaning during uncertain and chaotic times. This, in turn, created systems that promoted very specific forms of behaviours, and often these patterns are difficult to break free from.

The internalization of these beliefs has been linked to concepts such as “protestant asceticism,” that prioritizes self-control and the pursuit of targets, even sometimes impacting well-being. The effects of this specific worldview are also found worldwide, influencing practices and societal structures well beyond Europe. This raises critical questions on the universality of such ideas and whether these principles work the same way across various cultural backgrounds, particularly when looking at current debates about justice and fairness in opportunities.

The Philosophical Roots of Merit How California’s Ban on Legacy Admissions Reflects Ancient Debates on Justice – California’s Public University System Origins in Meritocracy 1868

California’s public university system took shape in 1868, with a core mission to build educational access on principles of merit, where academic success and opportunity would ideally be the result of individual talent and hard work, not one’s family or social standing. This ambition grew from philosophical arguments about what constitutes fairness and equality, focusing on a vision where educational access reflected merit, rather than the inheritance of advantage. The newly formed University of California system, for instance, aimed to establish a fresh standard in education.

Recent state policy, specifically the ban on legacy admissions, has brought the discussion around fairness and merit back to the forefront. This change works to dismantle old systems and practices, where some applicants had an advantage based on family history, and aims to make admissions decisions more aligned with merit-based principles. This reflects the ongoing and long-standing friction within educational policy regarding the goal of creating equal access and opportunity, and challenges established practices of privilege that affect access for many. This changing approach aims to prioritize both merit and diversity, a reflection of the original intent that formed the state’s educational framework in the first place. The tension in how to ensure access and fairness in education is complex, and still actively debated today.

California’s public university system, initiated in 1868, was structured around the concept of merit, not familial ties or social status, a clear move from previous hierarchical approaches. The 1862 Morrill Act played a significant role in this shift, allocating land for the development of public institutions, especially for agriculture and engineering, underscoring an intent to democratize education while emphasizing applied learning, setting the stage for the more inclusive ideals seen in California.

The sharp increase in immigrants during the 19th century also put pressure on California’s educational structure. The new diverse demographic needed more and different educational access, therefore accelerating the need for a meritocratic system that would allow access irrespective of an applicant’s prior situation. Ideas from the Enlightenment, notably those of John Stuart Mill regarding individual progress via education, also impacted California’s policies and strengthened the idea that learning should be based on merit alone.

By 1900, the numbers of enrolled students within the California state university system were growing rapidly. This reflected a societal belief in learning as an individual right rather than a privileged benefit, a development that promoted more open admissions based on capabilities rather than status. The inclusion of women in education when the University of California was founded in 1868 also demonstrated a move toward equality, aligning with a focus on ability rather than social classifications of any type.

California’s public universities have since been a hub for advanced research and technical progress, stressing intellectual impact over social privilege. This is an institutional embodiment of meritocracy. This focus on merit reflected a more fundamental cultural shift which prioritised hard work, success, and the idea that talent coupled with effort could lead to advancement, no matter your background.

The economic turmoil of the Great Depression prompted larger governmental support for education as a tool for economic development, therefore doubling down on the idea that learning serves as a path to mobility and opportunity. Current arguments regarding legacy admissions and California’s subsequent actions can be viewed as a result of these ideas. By eliminating such practices, there is an effort to address any inequalities that might give some applicants advantages due to family ties and it reaffirms the goal of creating fair and equal access which hearkens back to the core ideas of what it meant to create these institutions of higher learning in 1868.

The Philosophical Roots of Merit How California’s Ban on Legacy Admissions Reflects Ancient Debates on Justice – Legacy Preferences Rise and Fall at Stanford 1891-2023

The trajectory of legacy preferences at Stanford University from 1891 to 2023 mirrors a broader societal tension surrounding merit, fairness and access within higher education. With California’s legislative ban on legacy admissions, taking effect in September 2025, a focus has shifted to prioritizing individual qualifications over familial ties in the admissions process. This directly challenges entrenched traditions and systems which have, in effect, given an edge to some applicants over others based simply on their background. Given that a noticeable segment of each incoming class at Stanford has historically held a legacy advantage, this new ban reveals a mounting concern regarding access and equity in education. This debate raises core philosophical dilemmas regarding how to balance the advantages of heritage versus individual accomplishments, which remain relevant across various academic institutions. These complex issues highlight a constant need to re-evaluate the basic principles regarding how we design systems to allow people equal access to higher learning, particularly as our ideas of justice and merit continue to change.

The debate around legacy admissions at Stanford highlights a clash between old traditions and modern ideals of fairness, and shows the deep tensions that have existed throughout time. Stanford’s early years, starting in 1891, were a reflection of the societal norms of the time, which often gave an advantage to the children of alumni. This policy, however, clashes sharply with what California’s public education system envisioned and tried to achieve after its establishment in 1868, based on individual ability and drive over family connections. In 2023, Stanford reported that 13.6% of its first-year students had legacy or donor affiliations, and this figure is indicative of how pervasive these policies have been. This was a slight decrease from 14% in the 2022 class and reflects the push for the abolishment of these old systems. This shift highlights an ongoing historical tension between merit and privilege, which has roots in philosophical questions regarding what constitutes social and educational fairness.

The decision to end legacy admissions at California universities is not just a recent one. The University of California system ended legacy preference policies way back in 1998. This recent statewide ban which was enacted in 2025, aims to address a deeper issue of equity within admissions. By eliminating legacy practices, California is actively trying to dismantle old systems that privilege those who come from wealthy and often white backgrounds. Critics point out that such admissions preferences tend to disproportionately benefit students from wealthy families, often who have been attending elite institutions for multiple generations. This then affects economic mobility by creating barriers for individuals from less privileged backgrounds who also have demonstrated academic capabilities.

The shift away from legacy preferences at Stanford in recent years reflects a growing recognition of the need for greater equity within the admissions process, and an acknowledgment of how such practices might run contrary to the stated mission of these institutions. Organizations such as the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) have long been vocal about their opposition to legacy admissions, advocating that admissions should be solely based on merit. In 2023, about 15.4% of Stanford’s entering class or around 271 students, benefited from legacy or donor relationships. This illustrates how influential these older preferences have been and also suggests how much still remains to be reformed. The movement reflects the spirit of the 1862 Morrill Act, which emphasized democratizing education by making it accessible based on one’s merits, not family ties.

From an anthropological viewpoint, this evolution in admissions policies reveals how societal norms about knowledge and social mobility are directly challenged. As our societal beliefs about education change, these institutions need to restructure their approaches to align with the changing cultural needs and values. The push for meritocracy isn’t just a modern idea; it has been a reoccurring argument dating all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who were also debating whether leadership should be based on merit or inheritance. The elimination of legacy admissions in California reflects this historical tension and underscores that what we view as “fair” isn’t always a static value but evolves in response to changing ideals. This constant evolution has shaped much of history in the western world as we search for an equilibrium on social justice, merit, and the power of education to shape our communities.