College Scandal: Get You an Aunt Becky

The college admissions process is not equitable and it has never been. Advantages come great and slight—from sharing your last name with a campus building to living in a better public school district with greater educational opportunities. The recent college admissions scandal only goes to emphasize the dramatic macro-level influence of America’s elite.

50 individuals nationwide were recently accused of cheating the college admissions system. Many of these individuals bribed college coaches to falsely recruit applicants. While much of the backlash is rooted in the idea that more qualified applicants have had their spots wrongly stolen, it is important to remember that a majority of the incidents cited in the indictment affidavit did not have any impact on non-recruitment admissions for the named universities. And, even if they did create inequality in the process, this inequality is not necessarily bad—in fact, it is quite possible it had the opposite effect.

The colleges and universities pertinent to this scandal are private organizations. There are many legal avenues of admission advantages, such as donations and legacy. In an email titled “My Hero” from Harvard’s Kennedy School Dean David Ellwood to Harvard’s Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons, Ellwood wrote: “[Redacted] and [redacted] are all big wins. [Redacted] has already committed to a building.”

“My Hero,” indeed. Private higher education is not a clean, noble system. It is a business that will take customers if they can pay. “Holistic” review, rhetoric commonly repeated by Harvard in its defense in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, must be contextualized. “Holistic” simply refers to other modes a student's presence can help the school. Affirmative action is one side of this: diversity is an essential component to any successful institution. But privilege is another end.

But who’s to say this privilege is bad?

Yes, for every student admitted off of their parent’s wallet or last name, another student who has poured countless hours into grades, testing and extracurriculars is rejected. Yet, just as Exeter cannot survive without the generosity of our donors, benefactors at colleges are what provide students at elite institutions with a first-rate education, plentiful resources and an extensive network. Money is the qualifier for an institution to be “elite,” and it is important not to disvalue the wallets they come from.

I would argue that the injustice in rejection for a handful of deserving and hard-working applicants is dwarfed by the drastic quality increase to school life provided by the continuing support of trustees and donors. Yes, it is unequal.

But colleges—private businesses—do not have an obligation to or claim to be equal in admissions.

Does this justify the actions of those indicted in the recent scandal? I don’t believe it does; it’s a very real crime to commit fraud through standardized testing and backdoor payments to coaches.

But this is wrong because it did not operate within the scope of legal business activity, not because it is discriminatory and an evil manifestation of capitalism. This discrimination is not sacrilegious to the American Dream. In fact, it is a necessity for the American Dream to exist. Without the continued support and generosity of rich trustees, students will never have the opportunity, education and resources to become successful themselves. It is a minute price to admit the children of those who are responsible for fueling the success of future generations.