hanky1 said:

---

USC's been having a rough past 2 years. One scandal after another. Non-stop. And not small time ncaa scandals either. But the type of scandals that send people to jail.

---

Yeah. They are getting the crap kicked out of them. Another Medical scandal today. Tragic killing of student near campus recently.

Complete list of the involved players, from NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-massimo-giannulli.html

Also skimmed an article, New Yorker? Basically it asked the obvious question - why didn't these folks just do what Jared Kushner's dad did at Harvard...make a large contribution before he applied. Of course he got in.

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

Thank you.

In my opinion, the current admissions scandal is missing the forest for the trees. Yes what happened was wrong and illegal. People should go to jail for fraud and tax evasion. I'm glad this is being exposed.

But the real place where money buys influence is in connection with private prep high schools, primarily but not exclusively on the east coast. Those schools are pipelines for admissions to Ivys and other elite schools. The reality is that the wealthy parents exert tremendous leverage on (and pay tremendous sums to) those prep schools in order to buy preferred admissions status. The people running those schools leverage their relationships (and the schools "reputation') to charge exorbitant tuition. The grade inflation and other special treatment ensures that disproportionate percentage of their students gain admission to elite schools.

Contrast that the experience of a high achieving student in a very competitive public school system. For example, the Irvine public high schools are award winning, notoriously competitive and have elite students. A select few gain admission to the elite schools while the reality is that the students who don't gain admission are probably more qualified than the majority of the prep school kids - and many of the Irvine kids have far fewer benefits associated with $$ (some are affluent, many are not). But the real disadvantage is attending public schools where teachers will give Bs and Cs and where the entire school is not oriented toward guiding the student to the Ivy league (or even a place like Cal or UCLA).

If the elite universities wanted to even the playing field and eliminate "privilege", they would admit more public high school students. Of course, they don't want to do that because attracting students from wealthy families = donations.

I'm glad Rob Lowe's son worked hard to get into Stanford. That school wouldnt' take anybody based on their parents.

A reminder that Deadspin's editor in chief (pictured in The Play below) went to Berkeley High.

Okaydo - this may be a good time for you to stop trying to out-creep Rob Lowe.

Stewart Mandel rips USC, doesn't pull any punches here.

https://theathletic.com/864909/2019/03/12/usc-fbi-bribery-scandal-college-admissions/

Quote:

---

If sports are considered the "front porch" to a university, USC's has broken glass in the windows, gaping holes where there should be stairs and a raging fire rapidly incinerating the whole thing.

On Tuesday, three Olympic-sport coaches and a senior administrator at USC were part of an explosive national college admissions scandal in which parents paid expensive bribes to get their kids admitted to prestigious universities. Many other coaches and schools were implicated, including crosstown rival UCLA, but none with the same scope of involvement as that of USC.

It's just the latest black eye for an athletic department that's been attempting to set a world record for them over the past decade or so. And they've got to stop. USC means too much to its loyal alumni, the Pac-12 and the city of Los Angeles to be such a chronic source of shame and embarrassment.

---

Quote:

---

At some point, presumably, USC will hire a new president. The search has been underway since last August. One of his or her first orders of business should be this: Blow up the athletic department.

Seriously. The front porch to your university is ugly and rotting. The neighbors are all making fun of it. Burn it to the ground and start anew. Give your supporters something they can actually be proud of for a change.

---

01Bear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that ...

Corruption is America.

---

USC, the last bastion for the ignorant rich.

Seriously though, everyone always knew you can undeservingly buy your way into an elite private school, I'm more surprised the feds are cracking down.

---

It's one thing if your kid has the same qualifications as another and you pay to get him/her in. Cheating on SAT's with crooked proctors and test takers crosses an even further line.

---

Serious question: How so?
IIRC, the SAT and ACT tests are conducted by private corporations. There is no requirement that any school use these tests for admissions considerations. There's also no requirement that these tests be applied equally across the board to all test-takers. Why, then, is paying for additional time or paying for a substitute test taker "crossing the line?" Sure, it violates a sense of fair-play, but if it's not illegal, why is it any worse than hiring test-prep tutors?

---

Baseball umpires are employed by a private organization. Is it wrong for a player to bribe umpires for preferential treatment? Is that akin to hiring a batting coach.

My kid has a test prep tutor. She is trying to do the best she can. She and I recognize how lucky she is to have the resource. We also recognize it is unfair some kids are disadvantaged by not having that resource. We also support schools using tactics to try and even the playing field for these kids. But her being born to a family with more money than some and less than others is part of the unfairness of life. Using resources you have to be better at something is not gaming the system. It is not cheating.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bay Area twist being ignore: 14 Bay Area CEO's were indicted.

And then his gem:

Arizona State University gets dissed in college bribery scandal court documents https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2019/03/12/asu-mentioned-university-bribery-scandal-court-documents-lori-

This is going to be fun for a long time.

---

Noo!! Anything but ASU!

OaktownBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that ...

Corruption is America.

---

USC, the last bastion for the ignorant rich.

Seriously though, everyone always knew you can undeservingly buy your way into an elite private school, I'm more surprised the feds are cracking down.

---

It's one thing if your kid has the same qualifications as another and you pay to get him/her in. Cheating on SAT's with crooked proctors and test takers crosses an even further line.

---

Serious question: How so?
IIRC, the SAT and ACT tests are conducted by private corporations. There is no requirement that any school use these tests for admissions considerations. There's also no requirement that these tests be applied equally across the board to all test-takers. Why, then, is paying for additional time or paying for a substitute test taker "crossing the line?" Sure, it violates a sense of fair-play, but if it's not illegal, why is it any worse than hiring test-prep tutors?

---

Baseball umpires are employed by a private organization. Is it wrong for a player to bribe umpires for preferential treatment? Is that akin to hiring a batting coach.

My kid has a test prep tutor. She is trying to do the best she can. She and I recognize how lucky she is to have the resource. We also recognize it is unfair some kids are disadvantaged by not having that resource. We also support schools using tactics to try and even the playing field for these kids. But her being born to a family with more money than some and less than others is part of the unfairness of life. Using resources you have to be better at something is not gaming the system. It is not cheating.

---

If there are no rules or laws against bribing the umpires, then (again, aside from issues of fair-play), then no, there's nothing wrong with doing so.

In fact, your argument that using resources one has to be better at something is not gaming the system or cheating supports that argument.

Further, your argument is the real point at which I'm driving. Fundamentally, all the parents did was utilize their resources to better the odds of success for their kids. Yes, it runs afoul of traditional notions of fair play, but as you suggested, that's part of the unfairness of life. As a result, I'm not seeing the mythical line being crossed, based on such notions.

Another Bear said:

---

Complete list of the involved players, from NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-massimo-giannulli.html

Also skimmed an article, New Yorker? Basically it asked the obvious question - why didn't these folks just do what Jared Kushner's dad did at Harvard...make a large contribution before he applied. Of course he got in.

---

For those who don't want to deal with the NYT paywall, there's this: https://www.kqed.org/arts/13852765/u-s-accuses-actresses-others-of-fraud-in-massive-college-admissions-scandal?fbclid=IwAR2fRxMHAqNnCW4nXo9W5D6EHrznNnhrQ-z2jY5J82Yz3LZ9FYzo4Fyjygk

71Bear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

It's amazing how true this is. (I'm sure many here will disagree, particularly those with advanced degrees.)

---

It is absolutely true.

---

I guess you never worked in Silicon Valley or doe a VC

Quote:

---

Further, your argument is the real point at which I'm driving. Fundamentally, all the parents did was utilize their resources to better the odds of success for their kids. Yes, it runs afoul of traditional notions of fair play, but as you suggested, that's part of the unfairness of life. As a result, I'm not seeing the mythical line being crossed, based on such notions.

---

My sense is the line being crossed that led to prosecution was the element of tax fraud. Absent that, I'm not sure any of this goes anywhere.

When you set aside the tax fraud (which includes money laundering, etc.), the crime basically is "honest services" mail fraud from 18 U.S.C. 1346. "Honest services" mail fraud comes from a vague statute that prosecutors love to rely on (see here for an explanation). It's been narrowed by SCOTUS (in Skilling, 2010) to more or less the following: "fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who has not been deceived". It was also the statute the feds relied on to go after Baylor coaches who engaged in recruiting violations. It's essentially a way to criminalize conduct that is wrong but for which there is no other statutory crime.

Seems to me that in and of itself, this wasn't what the feds really care about but they use it to widen the net and then they get to rope in conspiracy, racketeering, etc.

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Bribery is illegal, so yes it's wrong.

Regarding AA...



Do you understand the distinction?

Just out of curiosity, what are the tax consequences from all these donations being made to the non-profit foundations, payments to coaches and administrators... are these donations being reported to the IRS, either as donations to 501 c(3) or as income to the recipients.

This could go on for years...

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

Another Bear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Bribery is illegal, so yes it's wrong.

Regarding AA... yeah, you know, well, that's just like your opinion, man.

Do you understand the difference?

---

People!!! Can we just focus on our Stanfurd / SC schadenfreude!!! :-)

TheFiatLux said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Bribery is illegal, so yes it's wrong.

Regarding AA... yeah, you know, well, that's just like your opinion, man.

Do you understand the difference?

---

People!!! Can we just focus on our Stanfurd / SC schadenfreude!!! :-)

---

That would be "schadenfurderloser".

Another Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Bribery is illegal, so yes it's wrong.

Regarding AA... yeah, you know, well, that's just like your opinion, man.

Do you understand the difference?

---

People!!! Can we just focus on our Stanfurd / SC schadenfreude!!! :-)

---

That would be "schadenfurderloser".

---

#teamwork!

Too many of you really know how to ruin a good, perfectly fun scandal

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Well, the argument is, there is still a huge disadvantage from one segment of the population to the other, as far as opportunity, hence, there needs to be something to address that. This latest story only reinforces it.

Sebastabear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

If you slightly tweaked this scheme and had the money going directly to the universities (as opposed to individual coaches and middlemen) and took out the fake test scores you could literally arrest entire ZIP Codes in Connecticut and the Silicon Valley.

---

Exactly what I was thinking. Surprised that some of these folks didn't just make the donation and buy a spot. I've had arguments with a lot of people on this issue. Personally, if somebody is willing to donate REAL money - mid to high 8 figures - to a school, then I think there's benefit to the student body as a whole and I have no problem with it. OTOH, when somebody buys a spot with $500K to $1M or so, I don't see how that can pay tuition for another kid or two over the long haul.

Sebasta would know more than I would, but my sense is that since Cal is a public school, it's much more difficult to buy a spot since there's supposed to be more transparency on the admissions process.

---

Spot on. Cal actually audits the hell out of this and the administrators are incredibly paranoid about even the appearance of favoritism to children of donors. I know they also look closely at the teams to see if the kids recruited as PWOs wind up playing. They definitely count them against the roster spots the coach can have - something other schools don't do.

---

How about brothers and sisters of student athletes who have played at Cal getting PWOs?

---

Regardless of what you think about the path Zach Maynard took to Cal, what's indisputable is that he was our starting quarterback. Not equivalent to this situation at all.

---

Sebastabear: OMG, how wrong you are. My post has nothing to do with Maynard. I have granddaughters in college now one of whom really wanted to go to Cal and was #3 at her HS with marks and test scores to do so. An athlete at Cal then had a sibling who was nowhere near the student as our family member (same high school) that got a PWO where the older sibling had pull. And never played the sport. Sorry, nothing about Maynard. You are too smart to get sucked in by conformational bias. I still love your posts though. And with the difficulty getting into Cal, plus my love and history with Cal you can imagine there is/was bitterness.

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

01Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that ...

Corruption is America.

---

USC, the last bastion for the ignorant rich.

Seriously though, everyone always knew you can undeservingly buy your way into an elite private school, I'm more surprised the feds are cracking down.

---

It's one thing if your kid has the same qualifications as another and you pay to get him/her in. Cheating on SAT's with crooked proctors and test takers crosses an even further line.

---

Serious question: How so?
IIRC, the SAT and ACT tests are conducted by private corporations. There is no requirement that any school use these tests for admissions considerations. There's also no requirement that these tests be applied equally across the board to all test-takers. Why, then, is paying for additional time or paying for a substitute test taker "crossing the line?" Sure, it violates a sense of fair-play, but if it's not illegal, why is it any worse than hiring test-prep tutors?

---

Baseball umpires are employed by a private organization. Is it wrong for a player to bribe umpires for preferential treatment? Is that akin to hiring a batting coach.

My kid has a test prep tutor. She is trying to do the best she can. She and I recognize how lucky she is to have the resource. We also recognize it is unfair some kids are disadvantaged by not having that resource. We also support schools using tactics to try and even the playing field for these kids. But her being born to a family with more money than some and less than others is part of the unfairness of life. Using resources you have to be better at something is not gaming the system. It is not cheating.

---

If there are no rules or laws against bribing the umpires, then (again, aside from issues of fair-play), then no, there's nothing wrong with doing so.

In fact, your argument that using resources one has to be better at something is not gaming the system or cheating supports that argument.

Further, your argument is the real point at which I'm driving. Fundamentally, all the parents did was utilize their resources to better the odds of success for their kids. Yes, it runs afoul of traditional notions of fair play, but as you suggested, that's part of the unfairness of life. As a result, I'm not seeing the mythical line being crossed, based on such notions.

---

1. Bribery is an issue taken very seriously under the law. For instance, if a company does business in a country where it is not only legal but customary to provide kickbacks and things to get business and they do that, they risk having the Feds all over them. It is illegal for a US company to do so even if it is legal in the country they did it in. If the SAT was found to be regularly taking bribes to fix scores, people will go to prison. I'm not sure why you think them being a private organization would mean they aren't subject to the law.

2. I do not see how you think it is morally equivalent even if we had no laws. In one case a person is trying to make themselves better at a skill by learning how to do that skill. They hire somebody to teach them how to do that skill. Yes, it may be unfair from a society perspective that some people who would love to learn to be better at a skill do not have access to teachers to teach them. But there is nothing wrong with somebody trying to better themselves and better their PERFORMANCE. There is something morally wrong about not bettering yourself, not improving your skill, not putting in any work, and just paying somebody to give you a better SCORE. The first person earned the score. They did nothing wrong. If there is wrong it is not by that person. It is (and this would be a point people would argue about) that society does not provide equal access to the resources). The second person didn't achieve anything. They bought a score. If you are going to go that far, then why should they go to school at all. Pay Stanford for a degree.

I, like most law school graduates paid a good chunk of cash to BarBri (or fill in your favorite Bar Review Course). That plus my Boalt Hall education gave me a 99% chance at passing my year. It's been a while, but I believe the passage rate was in the 75%-80% range if you went to Boalt and didn't take a bar review course. (the overall passage rate for the state was about 50%). Did I do something wrong by taking that course so I could have a structured study plan? If I could have just paid an examiner the same money to just pass me, you see that as the same?

I think you are confusing societal inequities with individual morality.

Jackieridgle said:

---

71Bear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

It's amazing how true this is. (I'm sure many here will disagree, particularly those with advanced degrees.)

---

It is absolutely true.

---

I guess you never worked in Silicon Valley or doe a VC

---

Several decades ago, I helped manage recruiting for a small Investment Bank's Analyst jobs. There were 10,000 applicants each year for 65 spots.

The bank only recruited at the Ivy League, MIT, Chicago, Duke, Williams, Amherst, & Northwestern. The only two colleges they'd consider in the west were Cal and Stanford. In my second year recruiting, the bank added the five Claremont/McKenna colleges, Virginia and North Carolina. I was not able to get them to consider ucla.

Another Bear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Bribery is illegal, so yes it's wrong.

Regarding AA...



Do you understand the distinction?

---

The distinction between legal and illegal was a red herring thrown into the mix because OneTop didn't actually have a substantive response so he had to pivot. Let's go back to the original proposition: bribery by rich whites is a good argument for affirmative action. Do you agree?

Also, to indulge your patronizing response: "legal" and "illegal" are not great proxies for "right" and "wrong." Certainly not in this case.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

Further, your argument is the real point at which I'm driving. Fundamentally, all the parents did was utilize their resources to better the odds of success for their kids. Yes, it runs afoul of traditional notions of fair play, but as you suggested, that's part of the unfairness of life. As a result, I'm not seeing the mythical line being crossed, based on such notions.

---

My sense is the line being crossed that led to prosecution was the element of tax fraud. Absent that, I'm not sure any of this goes anywhere.

When you set aside the tax fraud (which includes money laundering, etc.), the crime basically is "honest services" mail fraud from 18 U.S.C. 1346. "Honest services" mail fraud comes from a vague statute that prosecutors love to rely on (see here for an explanation). It's been narrowed by SCOTUS (in Skilling, 2010) to more or less the following: "fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who has not been deceived". It was also the statute the feds relied on to go after Baylor coaches who engaged in recruiting violations. It's essentially a way to criminalize conduct that is wrong but for which there is no other statutory crime.

Seems to me that in and of itself, this wasn't what the feds really care about but they use it to widen the net and then they get to rope in conspiracy, racketeering, etc.

---

I really appreciate the additional info on mail fraud. But my argument was really exclusive of the law/legality. That is, I don't see the line being crossed (excepting (1) where it violates the law and (2) insofar as it contravenes notions of fair play).

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

Apparently Dean Wormer is under investigation for taking bribes in exchange for granting early admission to Faber College to several curling athletes, some of which have never curled in their lives.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Bribery is illegal, so yes it's wrong.

Regarding AA...



Do you understand the distinction?

---

The distinction between legal and illegal was a red herring thrown into the mix because OneTop didn't actually have a substantive response so he had to pivot. Let's go back to the original proposition: bribery by rich whites is a good argument for affirmative action. Do you agree?

Also, to indulge your patronizing response: "legal" and "illegal" are not great proxies for "right" and "wrong." Certainly not in this case.

---

You go ahead and circle back to the "original" argument. I'll stay right where I am.

Otherwise, legacy and donor-based admits is affirmative action for some alumni and the wealthy.

On that note, if that's reality and fair game, admitting under-respesented individual seems fair to me.

FYI: diversity at prestigious instituations are for the benefit of everyone,..including legacy students, etc. Why? Because if a modern citizen isn't exposed to diversity, they're at a disadvantage in the real world. (You want to go to India and do international business...helps to have experiences with people who are diffrernet. Common sense.). Also that diversity admit, might become POTUS...and yes, you want him in your network.

That's all I got for you. You're a big boy, you can figure out the rest.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

If you slightly tweaked this scheme and had the money going directly to the universities (as opposed to individual coaches and middlemen) and took out the fake test scores you could literally arrest entire ZIP Codes in Connecticut and the Silicon Valley.

---

Exactly what I was thinking. Surprised that some of these folks didn't just make the donation and buy a spot. I've had arguments with a lot of people on this issue. Personally, if somebody is willing to donate REAL money - mid to high 8 figures - to a school, then I think there's benefit to the student body as a whole and I have no problem with it. OTOH, when somebody buys a spot with $500K to $1M or so, I don't see how that can pay tuition for another kid or two over the long haul.

Sebasta would know more than I would, but my sense is that since Cal is a public school, it's much more difficult to buy a spot since there's supposed to be more transparency on the admissions process.

---

Spot on. Cal actually audits the hell out of this and the administrators are incredibly paranoid about even the appearance of favoritism to children of donors. I know they also look closely at the teams to see if the kids recruited as PWOs wind up playing. They definitely count them against the roster spots the coach can have - something other schools don't do.

---

How about brothers and sisters of student athletes who have played at Cal getting PWOs?

---

Regardless of what you think about the path Zach Maynard took to Cal, what's indisputable is that he was our starting quarterback. Not equivalent to this situation at all.

---

Sebastabear: OMG, how wrong you are. My post has nothing to do with Maynard. I have granddaughters in college now one of whom really wanted to go to Cal and was #3 at her HS with marks and test scores to do so. An athlete at Cal then had a sibling who was nowhere near the student as our family member (same high school) that got a PWO where the older sibling had pull. And never played the sport. Sorry, nothing about Maynard. You are too smart to get sucked in by conformational bias. I still love your posts though. And with the difficulty getting into Cal, plus my love and history with Cal you can imagine there is/was bitterness.

---

oops. My bad. I didn't get the reference so assumed it was a Zach Maynard allusion. Back to the drawing board.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Bribery is illegal, so yes it's wrong.

Regarding AA...



Do you understand the distinction?

---

The distinction between legal and illegal was a red herring thrown into the mix because OneTop didn't actually have a substantive response so he had to pivot. Let's go back to the original proposition: bribery by rich whites is a good argument for affirmative action. Do you agree?

Also, to indulge your patronizing response: "legal" and "illegal" are not great proxies for "right" and "wrong." Certainly not in this case.

---

Since you asked and brought me up, I would say, yes, it is an argument. It is right to give disadvantaged groups an opportunity not afforded to them. And I would love AA to encompass lower income groups.