California recently prohibited its private colleges from using an applicant’s legacy status — that is, whether other family members attended the school — in admissions decisions. Maryland passed a similar law earlier this year, and other states ban the practice for public colleges. Other states are considering similar bans.

On the surface, this all sounds perfectly reasonable. Just about the only argument in favor of legacy admissions is that the practice draws increased donations by building alumni loyalty.

But these laws must be seen in the broader social context: as part of a new trend of attacks on universities’ independence coming from the right and left alike.

To be clear, I’m not defending legacy admissions in principle. There are good reasons why scores of U.S. colleges have voluntarily ended the practice since 2015. Most of the other 500-plus universities should probably follow suit if they can afford to, law or no law.

The problem with the California ban is that it is the mirror image of the lawsuits that gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to strike down diversity-based racial preferences in admissions. That effort, led by conservatives, represented a concerted push to limit how even private universities could choose their students. And such lawsuits are not finished — far from it. The organization that led the lawsuits, Students for Fair Admissions, has promised (or threatened, depending on your point of view) to keep litigating.

The threat of litigation matters because, as I write these words, private college admissions officers are trying to figure out how to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling that they can’t consider race in pursuit of diversity while still admitting student bodies that in some way reflect national demographics.

The upshot is that we now have government beginning to tell private universities whom they can admit. That’s not the state’s business, any more than it can dictate what they teach. The First Amendment should protect both rights equally. Private universities nationwide should start thinking hard about the constitutional arguments they will have to make to defend their independence from the state.

Related Articles

Lisa Jarvis: These new anti-vaccine laws will hurt kids

Tyler Cowen: An economist’s guide to helping victims of Helene and Milton

Jacobson, Jokela: Should you be concerned about mpox?

Joshua Spivak: Will voter turnout in November repeat the historic numbers of 2020?

Beth Kowitt: Philandering CEOs are finally getting fired

Consider: If a ban on legacy admissions is lawful, a legislature could pass a law saying that private colleges must admit based only on SAT scores and grades, not extracurricular activities, essays or geography. Or the law could say private colleges may not admit based on selective criteria at all but must admit everyone. A legislature could mandate that colleges admit the top 5% of the class from all public high schools in the state. Any of these restrictions would be an example of state overreach and would fundamentally disrupt schools’ educational mission, which is to educate the students they choose in the way they see fit.

To fight back, the universities can argue in court that they have a First Amendment right to expressive association with the students they choose to admit. Such a right would trump state legislation unless the state could show that it had a compelling interest in the law and had narrowly tailored the law to achieving that interest — a difficult standard to satisfy.

The doctrine of expressive association is why private clubs like the Boy Scouts, which won the right in a Supreme Court case, may choose whom they do or don’t want to have as members. To win on an expressive association claim, the organization burdened by the law must be prepared to say that its choice of whom to associate with affects its ability to express its values and its mission.

It might feel distasteful for colleges to say that associating with legacy students is part of how they express their educational ideals. If so, then California’s private colleges may choose not to challenge this new law. Such a decision, however, will contribute to the perception among legislatures that it’s open season to try to wrest control over private college admissions. The payoff in political gamesmanship may well be too appealing for state legislatures to hold back.

Short of a direct challenge on the constitutionality of the California law, what’s needed is a clear statement made collectively by private universities all over the country that admissions decisions are at the core of their expressive mission. Such a statement could be made without specifically defending legacy admissions.

No private college or university would tolerate a state or federal law that told them what to teach. That would be an obvious First Amendment violation. Whom to teach is comparably fundamental to the question of what to teach.

Banning legacy admissions has an instinctive appeal. But the underlying issue is the independence of universities from coercive state control. In a moment of intense political focus on university life, that independence could not be more important.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of “To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.”

After trying for half of her life, Sabrina Carpenter is finally having a moment.

For the past seven weeks, she’s claimed three songs in the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100, the longest streak ever for a woman and not too far off from champions 50 Cent (11 weeks in 2005), the Beatles (10 weeks in 1964) and Justin Bieber (10 weeks in 2016).

After serving as the musical guest on “Saturday Night Live” in May, her inescapable hit “Espresso” was cleverly parodied by host Ariana Grande on Saturday’s episode. (The 25-year-old Carpenter reposted the clip on Instagram with several heart emojis.) Social media and the gossip press breathlessly cover her every move, outfit and date. Her sixth record “Short n’ Sweet” earned rave reviews and stands as the second-longest running No. 1 album of the year behind Taylor Swift, an obvious influence.

By all measures, the former Disney Channel star’s career is the hottest it’s ever been since she began acting at the age of 12. So it was a surprise to hear her tour was not providing local critics with tickets, nor allowing press photographers to cover her totally and completely sold out Monday night concert at Minneapolis’ Target Center. (Scalpers were getting $500 for the worst seats in the house.)

What is Carpenter trying to hide?

After watching her 85 minute performance, it’s not immediately clear. She has earned some negative buzz about the skimpy run time, although the set list was solely drawn from her first adult album (2022’s “Emails I Can’t Send”) and her new one, with which the tour shares its name. (Truth in advertising!)

Perhaps it was because Carpenter has consciously moved away from teen-friendly pop of her early days into a more explicit, sexually charged mode. Yet she still has a significant number of young fans. A trio of what looked to be grade schoolers were sitting in front of me Monday night and it was, uh, odd to see them singing along to Carpenter’s steamy single “Bed Chem,” which was introduced on stage with a “parental discretion is advised” notice on the big screens and ended with a muscular cameraman stripping off his shirt and Carpenter climbing on top of him.

Whatever the case, Carpenter proved to be a solid live performer with an excellent grasp on how she wants to present herself to the world. Her extremely choreographed show was modeled after a ’70s television variety show taking place at a slumber party.

Carpenter opened the show wearing what looked to be just a bath towel until she opened it to reveal a sparkly leotard and garters, the first of numerous outfits she’d wear during the evening. From there, she bounced between her two most recent albums, with the “Short n’ Sweet” numbers getting the bigger response. (The laid-back album is synth pop but not really dance music. At times it’s vaguely reminiscent of ’80s Fleetwood Mac.)

On “Espresso” as well as much of the new album, Carpenter sings in more of a hushed whisper. But live, she proved she’s got a big voice when she chooses to use it, as she did during “Fast Times” and “Read Your Mind.”

At one point she took to the heart shaped tip of a catwalk that extended out from her stage. The heart sunk down to create a conversation pit where her backup dancers joined her for “Coincidence” and her nightly surprise cover song chosen by Carpenter spinning a bottle. Madonna’s “Material Girl” was Monday’s winner and just in case the crowd didn’t know it, the words appeared on the big screens, karaoke style.

I can’t help but wonder how many of the Zoomers in the audience got the references to ’70s variety shows, analog TV and, well, conversation pits. But Carpenter proved to be a charming enough performer that it didn’t matter if they did or not.

Related Articles

Concert review: Twenty One Pilots offer audacious magic at Target Center

At breast cancer fundraiser Sunday, catch music by The Goombas, a.k.a. Mancini’s and Cossetta owners and friends

Concert review: Cody Johnson brings ’90s country roaring back at a sold-out Xcel Energy Center

Review: Julie Albers’ enthralling cello solo heightens SPCO concert filled with grand sounds

Review: The songs, not the story, are the draw for the Temptations musical ‘Ain’t Too Proud’