In Monday's edition of The Contradiction Times, it was reported President George W. Bush is taking a hard line against the tradition of legacy in public universities. That President Bush, yes, the younger President Bush. The Yale-graduated president named Bush who is the son of the other Yale-graduated president named Bush and the father of the recently Yale-graduated first daughter named Bush. That one. Cough.

Asked if colleges should discontinue the legacy preference in the admissions process, Bush replied, "Well, I think so, yes." The remainder of the interview established Bush's stance on admissions quotas - against - and affirmative action - maybe.

But the C-average commander in chief from Crawford, Texas has a point. The plight of affirmative action always has been based on the issue of race taking precedent over merit in admissions. One argument is that merit should be the only factor in college admissions - that no matter the color of one's skin or which deity they worship, if they don't have the grades, they aren't in. Overlooked in that debate, though, is the effect of legacy on admissions - if someone is admitted for being a legacy rather than for merit, the process has an unfair double standard, and the merit argument goes to pot.

In short, The State News has institutionally taken the following stances. Admissions quotas - bad. Affirmative action - good. The president's understanding of affirmative action - partly cloudy with a chance of showers. But legacy - we'll explain.

There is virtually no justification for legacy to overrule merit. If academic standards are not sufficiently met, it's highly unethical to admit a student based on where their mother or father went to school. Your grandfather could have built the MSU Main Library brick by brick and then donated $4 million to maintain it, but if you're a nitwit, better luck at some other place. The argument against legacy, however, is not an argument against affirmative action, although they both imply the alleviation of merit. The policy of affirmative action is to level the academic playing field after sufficient standards of merit are already met. Legacy overrules grades, affirmative action requires them.

In response to Bush's comments, MSU President M. Peter McPherson has fallen in line. Though he could be considered a beneficiary of legacy himself - his mother and father both graduated from MSU - McPherson said he remains proud of MSU's current anti-legacy admissions process. His assessment is based on today's students having an expectation to attend college, whereas their parents, or their parents' parents, had no such advantage. Alumni scholarships, however, remain.

Following in the footsteps of a family member is meant to entice a student to MSU, or any other college. Alumni scholarships and encouraging the practice of legacy, however, are both stalwart examples of nurturing MSU. If the merit is there, and the encouragement to continue a tradition is there, MSU is the beneficiary of legacy, not the student.

But when the student is the beneficiary of legacy at the expense of university standards, however, both parties - along with the institution of legacy itself - find themselves in the reject pile.