I agree that at a state university unless the applicant is admitted purely on merit then the university isn't serving the state purpose it was established for. I also think that as long as affirmative action is there, legacy admissions should be, and that legacy admissions are far more legitimate than affirmative action.
That said, I expect you will be against athletic scholarships as well. And set-aside scholarships for specific major areas. And special loan and grant programs for specific major areas.
All of these work against the state purpose of generally increasing the populace's education, and instead, specifically for a state purpose of increasing graduates in some major areas, which works against the market, to my way of thinking.
What makes legacy admissions more legitimate than affirmative action? I don't get it. I think I'll just have to say I have a difference of opinion with you on that. I don't believe admissions should be based on anything but merit and not because one is black,white, or can play football. Scholarships, if they are privately funded, are different and the state run school should NOT be offering money to anyone based on race, ethnicity,legacy,sports,etc. This concept of admission on merit is a very new concept, and one that has rightfully been born on the recent discussions of affirmative action/quotas.