Examining the Legal Battle Against Universities’ Wealth Bias
A new antitrust lawsuit has been filed against 16 elite universities, including Ivy League institutions, exposing contradictions in their claims of “need-blind” admissions policies. The lawsuit alleges these schools favor wealthy applicants, violating the federal law that allows financial aid collusion only if admissions decisions are made without regard to applicants' financial circumstances. Eric Rosen, the lead prosecutor in the Varsity Blues scandal, is among the attorneys spearheading this legal action.
The lawsuit challenges practices at institutions that purportedly prioritize financial meritocracy. For example, data reveals stark disparities in economic diversity: Yale University admits 33 times more affluent students than low-income ones, while Duke and Brown universities show similar imbalances. Plaintiffs argue that discriminatory practices, such as special admissions lists for wealthy families at Dartmouth and donor-influenced reviews at Northwestern, disadvantage financially needy applicants.
Rosen highlighted the parallels with Varsity Blues, stating, “That case took on the side door of admissions. This case takes on the back door,” referring to institutional favoritism toward the wealthy. Such practices, while less overtly corrupt than bribery, perpetuate systemic inequities.
The lawsuit also targets the 568 Cartel Agreement, a pact among member institutions to cap financial aid under a common formula. Critics argue this collusion prioritizes financial optimization over fairness, disadvantaging students with legitimate need. Rosen underscored the legal contradiction: “The law does not allow them to do both.”
Some institutions, such as Harvard, have refrained from joining the 568 Cartel, offering more generous financial aid. Others, like Amherst College, are moving toward equitable admissions by eliminating legacy preferences.
If successful, the lawsuit could force systemic changes, pressuring elite universities to align their admissions practices with claims of advancing social mobility and equity. The case could redefine what it means to be truly “need-blind.”
