I don't see any evidence that they have negatively discriminated against applicants "of color", or will do so. It seems this discrimination chiefly affects Asian Americans, if you define them as "people of color".

Yale uses legacy status — which is discriminatory against applicants of color — as an admission criterion.

I think that's a rather weak point. I know many people (including myself) who are white or Asian and did not come from college educated families.

I think legacy status is a bit ridiculous, but legacy status admissions benefit those with higher socio-economic standings, not those of a certain race. The issue here is one of discrimination based solely on race. Legacy admissions are a weird from of classism (and therefor some degree of racism, I suppose), but not of race-based discrimination.

I think the difference is quite important.

It confers benefits based on race. Legacy college preferences are fundamentally identical to the “grandfather clauses” enacted during Reconstruction, which created onerous barriers to registering to vote while exempting people whose grandfathers were registered. The intent and result was to disenfranchise Black voters. So too with legacy admissions — they are rooted in attempts to continue segregating the student body after de jure discrimination became untenable.

It’s true that not every white applicant has a legacy status to benefit from. But if you look at the racial breakdown of students who benefit from legacy preferences, I think you’ll find far more white students than the in the overall student body.

They're not identical at all, because only a small minority of whites have legacy status at Yale, whereas the overall majority/plurality of whites had grandfathered voting status.

And nowadays, legacy preferences -- I'm all for getting rid of them -- hurts the average white student more than the average black student, because they fill up the white quota.