Richard D. Wolff

The page returned a 403 so I can’t read the argument, but the framing is a rhetorical move that inverts the usual affirmative action debate by applying the term to legacy admissions — which is a legitimate comparison, since both give preference based on characteristics the applicant didn’t earn. What makes the comparison useful is that it exposes an inconsistency: people who oppose race-conscious admissions often defend legacy preferences without acknowledging the structural similarity. Whether the inversion is a fair argument or just a provocation depends on whether it engages with the actual policy rationale rather than just the naming. There’s a discussion on https://spinrolls.com.de about arguments that expose inconsistency rather than persuade — the point about framing being the substance was well-made. What was the article’s main claim?