But what of her past indicates she's propped up by a social framework like DEI? She's related to NYT best-sellers, she lived in Saudi Arabia with a father that worked with the Army Corps of Engineers. She attended a private boarding school in New Hampshire, completed her undergrad at Princeton and Stanford, and earned her PHd at Harvard. If anything, she sounds like a privileged rich kid who's a legacy hire. Now some DEI-supported "token".
Are you consciously trying to create it as a new term, or is it in common use in some circles that I'm unfamiliar with? I don't think it's a good parallel with "legacy admission" unless it were to refer to hiring the child of an a previous employee, but this doesn't seem to be what you mean.
Granted, her legacy is that she received her PhD at Harvard, then worked as a Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences, on top of many other positions with various organizations.
My main point is that people claim that she's terrible because she was just a DEI hire and is not qualified for a position as Harvard President. When her resume shows she's more than qualified for the role.
This isn't a DEI issue, this is an issue of Harvard not doing the proper research on her dissertation & research and attempting to act like it's not a big deal for a President to be caught plagiarising works.
The secondary term here, "legacies" and "legacy students", are probably where most people have heard it, it's used in movies that involve sororities, when the snobby characters are gossiping: "How did she get in?" "She must be a legacy." and such.
