Wealthy Liberals Caught in Nationwide College Admissions Scandal (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Looks like Obama’s tennis coach got in on the action.

You mean they didn’t use their money to cheat for affirmative action minorities?

Via Fox News


Actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin were among more than four dozen people charged in a nationwide college admissions cheating scandal that involved wealthy individuals paying up to $6.5 million to place their children into elite universities, according to court records revealed Tuesday.

The alleged scam — which placed students into top colleges such as Yale, Georgetown, Stanford, University of Southern California, UCLA and the University of Texas — was run by William Rick Singer, from California, who helped parents get their children admission through bribes, court documents unsealed in Boston showed. Officials have been investigating the case for more than a year.

Singer, who authorities said will plead guilty to racketeering, ran the charity, Key Worldwide Foundation, which received $25 million in total to guarantee the admissions, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said during a Tuesday news conference. The charitable foundation was allegedly used as a front to run the scam.

“This is a case where [the parents] flaunted their wealth, sparing no expense to cheat the system so they could set their children up for success with the best money can buy,” Joseph Bonavolonta from the FBI Boston Field Office said in a Tuesday news conference.

Most of the students did not know their admission to the school was due to a bribe, authorities said, but in some cases, the children and their parents took part in the scheme.

“Singer would accommodate what parents wanted to do,” Lelling said, adding that it “appears that the schools are not involved.”

Singer’s college admissions cheating scam allegedly involved extensive coordination with parents. Lelling said Singer had a knack for making fake credentials look realistic enough as to not invite scrutiny.

The children’s parents would allegedly pay a specified amount of money fully aware it would be used to gain college admission. The money would then go toward an SAT or ACT administrator or a college athletic coach who would fake a profile for the prospective student — regardless of their athletic ability, according to the charging documents.

“There can be no separate college admission system for the wealthy and there will not be a separate criminal justice system either,” Lelling said. “We’re not talking about donating a building so a school is more likely to take your son or daughter, we’re talking about deception or fraud.”

……Singer would help his clients’ children by having another individual take SAT or ACT tests on behalf of the students, officials said. Parents would allegedly pay up to $75,000 for each test and wire money to “charitable accounts.”

“Singer used the purported charitable donations from parents, at least in part, to bribe two SAT and ACT test administrators,” court documents stated.


The full list, HERE.

Rush Limbaugh points out that the modern Ivy League and upper crust universities are no longer based on merit; it’s a machine to produce indoctrinated leftwing  tools for the State.

Ben Shapiro:

Colleges aren’t about training kids for the real world, or teaching them significant modes of thinking, or examining timeless truths. Universities aren’t about skill sets, either – at least in the humanities. They’re about two things: credentialism and social connections.

In our society, there is an easy way to be perceived as intellectually meritorious: point to your degree. Those with a college degree all-too-often sneer at those without one, as though lack of a college degree were an indicator of innate ability or future lack of success. That simply isn’t true. But for generations, the widespread perception has been that the smartest kids go to college – and that the relative merit of each college confers a similar level of merit on the students. A student who goes to Yale is smarter than one who goes to junior college. This provides a lifelong advantage: employers are willing to take more chances on those who earn a Yale degree than those who went to junior college, for example.

Then there’s social connection. Social institutions in the United States have been fading over time. Churches used to provide us our chief means of social connection. Colleges now do. JD Vance writes in Hillbilly Elegy that admission to Yale Law School granted him social capital: “the networks of people and institutions around us have real economic value.” They also have social value. We often get jobs from friends, or from friends of friends. The social circles in which we travel matter. That’s true for those born rich as well as those born poor.

Here’s the problem: neither of these priorities actually demands that universities teach anything. Credentialism occurs upon admission, so long as you aren’t thrown out of school; social capital begins to accrue with presence, not with performance. Hence colleges watering down curricula and grades in order to make it easier to credential, and to generate less friction. That’s what students and parents demand: not skills, not education, but credentialism and social capital.

……This also has significant political ramifications. It means that students admitted to colleges expect to be pampered, not challenged. Professor Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University was essentially forced by the administration not to give honest grades – he started giving two grades, one for merit, and then one for the administration, so as not to penalize people for taking his classes. Politically, this also means that students expect not to be challenged – they expect to be comfortable. Professors who challenge their politics, for example, may threaten their “college experience” – which may, in turn, threaten their social capital. Professors who make students feel uncomfortable may be threatening the ease they were promised. Discomfort becomes a bug, not a feature, of higher education. Pampering becomes the rule.


What that means is these pampered students in elite institutions of ‘higher education’, aren’t necessarily smarter than the people those who attend junior and community colleges because they can’t afford much else.

The Left runs the colleges.  It stands to reason that they would sell admission to other lefties for profit.

This is the same liberal contingent that preaches incessantly about ‘equality’ and how terrible it is that ‘white supremacists’ have an unfair advantage in education , the work force, etc.

These hypocrites live in gated communities and exclusive neighborhoods away from the working class and ghetto dregs they exploit as pawns for political gain.

And by the way, there’s lots of poor and disadvantaged white people that can’t help bribe their children into expensive elite universities, so on that note, they share the same ‘equality’ as their poor minority counterparts.

Remember this shit the next time you hear rich white liberal Dems opine about the condition of blacks and Hispanics.



Related articles



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial