This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/us/usc-admissions-scandal.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
U.S.C. Freezes Accounts of Students Connected With Admissions Scandal ‘Do You Pull the Parchment?’: Students Caught Up in College Admissions Scandal Now Face a Reckoning
(about 4 hours later)
The University of Southern California said late Monday it had blocked students who may be associated with the college admissions scandal from registering for classes while the school reviews their cases. The many students enmeshed in the college admissions scandal that was unveiled last week now face a reckoning as universities seek to determine whether they were innocent victims who should keep working toward their degrees or unethical schemers worthy of discipline.
“Following the review,” school officials posted on Twitter, “we will take the proper action related to their status, up to revoking admission or expulsion.” The University of Southern California said it had identified six current applicants associated with the case and would reject them. The school informed an additional number of enrolled students who were linked to the scandal that they could not register for classes until administrators had determined their level of culpability.
A number of schools implicated in the scandal, including the University of California, Los Angeles, have warned that it might punish students who were connected to the scheme. U.S.C.’s announcement shows officials moving ahead to change the status of students potentially caught up in the fraud, while the school continues to investigate. Yale, another university implicated in the fraud, reminded students last week of a longstanding policy to rescind the admission of students who falsify applications. A statement from Stanford said that inaccurate information on a college application was grounds for being “disenrolled” from the university or having an offer of admission rescinded, “as has happened regretfully in the past.”
Last week, federal prosecutors indicted dozens of wealthy parents, including Hollywood celebrities and prominent business leaders, on charges that they paid large sums to get their children into Yale, Stanford and other schools. U.S.C. said last week that it would reject any applicants involved in fraudulent admissions. The 33 wealthy parents charged with paying large sums to get their children into leading universities are the targets of criminal complaints. But it is the schools themselves that must grapple with how to mete out justice to students who gained admissions through fraudulent means.
Schools like U.S.C. are now facing questions about what to do with students currently enrolled who may have benefited from their parents’ efforts to cheat the admissions system. Prosecutors said some students appeared to have been in the dark about what their parents were doing. The scope of the scandal has left many college administrators in uncharted ethical territory.
[Your questions on the college admission scandal answered.] “A college is not in a great position to investigate,” said Theodore O’Neill, who was dean of admissions at the University of Chicago for two decades. “The admissions process is held together by a tissue of trust.”
A spokesman for U.S.C., Eddie North-Hager, said he did not know how many students had been blocked from registering for classes pending the review, and did not know how long the process would take. Colleges have policies for addressing cheating by enrolled students. But now they must evaluate allegations of cheating that occurred before students ever set foot on campus — acts that some may not have known was being done on their behalf. Moreover, some students who gained admissions to universities through fraudulent means may have already graduated, raising the question of whether they ought to be stripped of their diplomas.
Among the accused parents with students at U.S.C. are Lori Loughlin, the actress best known for her role in the show Full House, and Mossimo Giannulli, a fashion designer. Their daughters, Olivia Jade and Isabella Giannulli, attend the university. The schools, many of which say they are victims, are eager to show they are taking steps to deter flagrant admissions fraud. But the conclusion of the criminal cases could take months, and perhaps exonerate some of those involved.
A former federal prosecutor, Berit Berger, said that it could be tricky for universities to conduct internal investigations during a possibly protracted criminal proceeding.
College disciplinary systems do not necessarily operate on a standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But if a school expelled a student, and a trial then exonerated the family, “that’s not a good look,” said Ms. Berger, now director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School.
Ms. Berger also wondered what universities might do if students implicated in the scandal had already graduated. “Do you pull the parchment?” she said.
At least one school, Wake Forest, has said that a student implicated in the case will remain enrolled.
“At this time, we do not plan to take any action against her when there is no evidence she had any knowledge of the alleged financial transaction,” said Katie Neal, a Wake Forest spokeswoman.
It is not just the nationwide college admissions scandal, which the authorities labeled “Operation Varsity Blues,” that is prompting review.
In the wake of revelations about the fraud and abuse that were rampant at T.M. Landry High School in Louisiana — which was the subject of a scandal of its own — students who had enrolled in college faced scrutiny from their administrators and peers.
The bribery scheme has also torn through the world of elite Los Angeles area prep schools. Harvard-Westlake School received subpoenas from federal investigators before the case was publicly announced. Two parents named in the case resigned from the board of trustees of Sage Hill, a private school in Newport Coast, Calif.
“We condemn the alleged actions of those implicated in this scandal as they clearly do not reflect our school’s mission, values and vision,” Sage Hill said in a statement, adding that the “consistent practice has been to recommend against the use of independent college counselors.”
Some of the students implicated in the case unearthed by federal prosecutors last week appear to have been knowing participants in the fraud.
But it was adults who played the dominant roles, with parents, consultants, college officials and athletic coaches under indictment for scheming on behalf of unwitting children.
In the court papers, which contain transcripts of conversations between parents and officials at the organization that arranged the bribes, one parent recounted a “glitch” when her son, fraudulently recruited as a track athlete, was asked about the sport by an adviser at orientation.
“Apparently the adviser said something to the effect of, ‘Oh, so you’re a track athlete?’ And [my son] said, ‘No.’ Cause, so [my son] has no idea,’’ the transcript reads.
“I understand, she won’t even know,’’ another parent said, referring to elaborate plans to deceive her daughter about an arrangement to falsify her standardized test score.
Still, several colleges issued statements this week indicating that students unwittingly associated with the scandal could still be held accountable because they are required to certify, by signing their applications, that they had told the truth.
At the University of Texas, for instance, that language reads: “I certify that the information I have provided is complete and correct, and I understand that the submission of false information is grounds for rejection of my application, withdrawal of any offer of acceptance, cancellation of enrollment and/or appropriate disciplinary action.”
University officials declined to discuss specific cases, citing privacy rules, but they said punishment could be as severe as being expelled or having admission rescinded. The federal investigation found that a Yale coach gave bogus athletic endorsements to two students, one of whom was admitted to the college, Tom Conroy, a spokesman for Yale, said Tuesday. He said that how well a student performed academically while at Yale would not factor into a disciplinary decision.
“When applicants sign their applications, they attest that the contents are true and complete,” Mr. Conroy said.
Even beyond such formal attestations, some ethicists said there was a case for expelling the students who benefited unknowingly from their parents’ machinations.
“It’s pretty common in the law, and it coincides with moral intuitions: If you’re the unwitting beneficiary of a fraud, you don’t get to keep the benefits,” said Brian Leiter, director of the Center for Law, Philosophy and Human Values at the University of Chicago, who has posted on his philosophy blog, “Leiter Reports,’’ about the scandal.
And children, Professor Leiter said, share a common interest with their parents. Allowing them to acquire a prestigious college degree would reward their parents’ behavior, even if they had been unaware of it. But he said what to do with students like those at T.M. Landry whose high school administrators had falsified their applications was more difficult, because the school had an interest in raising its own reputation.
“If it’s entirely on the administrator, probably the penalty shouldn’t be exacted on the student,” he said.
Messages left with more than three dozen parents and students associated with the alleged scheme were not returned on Tuesday.
William Singer, the college counselor at the center of the fraud case, expressed sympathy for the children of his former clients who now find themselves facing possible expulsion, his lawyer, Donald H. Heller, said in an interview.
“He feels horribly for the distress the kids are going through,” Mr. Heller said. Mr. Singer’s suggestion, for what it’s worth, is that “each student should be judged on the student’s personal culpability — as opposed to the conduct of others,” the lawyer said.