Michelle Obama Defends Affirmative Action by Comparing It to Athlete Admissions

Michelle Obama is once again weighing in on the college admissions debate this time arguing that affirmative action is no different from preferential treatment given to athletes and legacy applicants.

During a recent episode of her “IMO” podcast, the former first lady responded to criticism of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives by suggesting that race-conscious admissions policies are simply one form of a broader system of preferences that has long existed in elite education.

Her comments arrive amid an ongoing national reckoning over affirmative action, following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

Speaking with comedian Josh Johnson, Michelle Obama reflected on her own experience being admitted to Princeton University. She described feeling insecure at first, worrying that she had been admitted as one of only a handful of minority students.

But once on campus, she said she realized that many other students also benefited from what she described as “affirmative action” including:

• Children of alumni (legacy admissions).

• Recruited athletes.

• Applicants with family connections.

• Students from wealthy donor backgrounds.

“Why are we only drilling down on these eight Black kids,” she asked, “when all these other kids got in all kinds of ways that could be considered affirmative action?”

The comparison between affirmative action and athletic admissions has long been a point of contention in higher education policy circles.

Data from elite universities show that preferences are indeed widespread. Studies have found:

• Legacy applicants at some Ivy League schools are admitted at rates two to four times higher than non-legacy applicants.

• Recruited athletes can account for 10–15% of an incoming class at certain institutions.

• Students from families in the top 1% of income earners are significantly overrepresented at highly selective colleges.

At the same time, affirmative action policies historically aimed to increase representation of underrepresented racial minorities. Before the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), race could be considered as one factor among many in admissions decisions.

Critics argue that race-based preferences are fundamentally different from athletic or legacy considerations because they explicitly involve immutable characteristics. Supporters counter that legacy admissions and athletic recruitment are also forms of preferential treatment that benefit specific groups.

Public opinion on affirmative action remains sharply divided. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 50% of Americans approved of the Supreme Court’s decision to end race-based admissions, while 33% disapproved. Views varied significantly by race, age, and political affiliation.

Meanwhile, criticism of legacy admissions has grown across party lines. Several lawmakers have proposed banning legacy preferences at federally funded institutions, arguing they disproportionately benefit wealthy families.

Michelle Obama’s remarks suggest that focusing solely on race-based admissions ignores broader systemic advantages embedded in college selection processes.

The education debate now centers on key questions:

• Should all forms of admissions preferences be eliminated?

• Are athletic recruitment and legacy status comparable to race-conscious admissions?

• Does removing affirmative action improve fairness or reduce diversity?

Elite universities argue that athletic programs generate revenue and campus spirit, while legacy admissions encourage alumni giving. Critics say those justifications reinforce inequality.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, several universities have reported shifts in demographic makeup, with some institutions seeing declines in Black and Hispanic enrollment.

Michelle Obama’s comments revive a longstanding argument: if Americans are serious about fairness in admissions, should scrutiny apply only to race or to every preferential pathway into elite institutions?

The answer will likely shape higher education policy for years to come.

Share this article and subscribe to our newsletter for more updates.