Why the Potential Future Varsity Blues

Legal Trial Should Make College

Admissions Fair Game for All Students

ELIZABETH VULAJ

I. Start of the Scandal

his past spring, the topic of college admissions was on the forefront

T of everyone’s mind, but not because it is the time of year when

students are opening up their acceptance letters. Rather, people all
across the U.S. are digesting and discussing the college admissions
scandal, in which at least 30 wealthy parents are being accused of paying
millions of dollars to a man named William Rick Singer to secretly inflate
their children’s standardized test scores, bribe college officials, and lie on
college applications, claiming that their children played certain sports and
participated in extracurricular activities that they did not. 1
In March 2019, news broke out worldwide that numerous wealthy and
prominent individuals, including well-known actresses Felicity Huffman
and Lori Loughlin, paid thousands of dollars to have their children
admitted to elite academic institutions across the country, including The
University of Southern California and Yale University. The amount of
money paid and the lengths these parents went to facilitate their children’s
admission to these schools is staggering. Loughlin and her husband,
designer Mossimo Giannulli, reportedly paid upwards of $500,000 to
arrange for photos to be doctored of their two daughters playing crew to
support the false claim that they were high school athletes. Huffman
allegedly paid $15,000 to have Singer increase her daughter’s SAT scores
by several hundred points.2 Witnessing the wealthy and privileged use
their massive advantages to help their children get ahead is hardly a novel

1 See Katie Benner, Jennifer Medina & Kate Taylor, Actresses, Business Leaders and Other

Wealthy Parents Charged in U.S. College Entry Fraud, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 12, 2019),
https://perma.cc/4E2E-2CXU.
2 Kate Taylor, Felicity Huffman and 13 Others to Plead Guilty in College Admissions Scandal,

N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 8, 2019), https://perma.cc/CY5D-2KXM.

101
102 New England Law Review [Vol. 53:1

concept—for years parents have used their prominent jobs, positions, fame,
or riches to donate huge sums of money to universities, wrangle
recommendations from professors, or rub shoulders with top admissions
officers. While the scandal is causing fury and outrage across the country,
with many arguing that the actions of these parents have taken spots in
these schools away from children who are actually worthy of attending
them, it has also sparked a conversation about the long-standing practices
of some of the most prominent and elite schools in the country. Where do
we draw the line between bribery and forgery? At what point can
someone’s conduct be deemed illegal versus merely using the system to
their advantage? And, most importantly, how will the outcome of this case
impact the systems of these elite universities and colleges throughout the
country? Whatever the result, it is clear that many are urging for these
academic institutions to revise these admissions systems and make room
for unprivileged students deserving of a spot based on merit.3
Currently, Felicity Huffman and at least twelve other parents have
entered a guilty plea for the charges brought against them. Huffman in a
public apology, stated in part: “I accept full responsibility for my actions”
and [I] “apologize to the students who work hard every day to get into
college, and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices to support
their children and do so honestly.”4 Prosecutors estimate that Huffman
faces a sentence of up to four to ten months, and many experts state that
admitting her culpability helped lessen the overall time she is facing. 5 Ms.
Huffman officially entered her plea on May 13, 2019. When appearing in
U.S. District Court in Boston on April 3, 2019 to face her charges, Ms.
Huffman’s demeanor was somber, reserved and grave, and many agreed
that her apology matched the tone of her appearance. Alternatively, during
Lori Loughlin’s court appearance in Boston on April 2, 2019, Ms. Loughlin
joked with photographers, signed autographs, and chatted with fans on the
street.6 The next day, Ms. Loughlin smiled for photos, appearing
undeterred as she left U.S. District Court in Boston, with her demeanor in
stark contrast to Ms. Huffman’s.
It has been reported that several people initially indicted and not
pleading guilty in the scandal, including Loughlin, feel as though a trial is
the only way to clear their names and avoid jail time. Nearly half of the 33

3 See Larry Gordon, California Legislators Seek Reforms After College Admissions Scandal,

EDSOURCE (Mar. 28, 2019), https://perma.cc/AR3E-WFNE.

4 Mark Morales, Felicity Huffman Issues Apology Over College Admissions Case, CNN (Apr. 8,

2019), https://perma.cc/GZ9J-GFZR.
5 See Becky Freeth, Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman Could Face Jail Time If They Enter a Plea
Bargain On Their Fraud Charges, METRO (Apr. 3, 2019), https://perma.cc/767T-Q5WL.
6 Jon Kamp, Melissa Korn & Jennifer Levitz, Lori Loughlin, Felicity Huffman Appear in Court

for College-Admissions Case , WALL STREET J. (Apr. 3, 2019), https://perma.cc/SV6L-PNGU.

2019] College Admissions Case 103

people initially indicted pled guilty in an effort to minimize the duration of

jail time, while others such as Loughlin decided to take a gamble and put
their hopes on a potential trial, in which they will attempt to prove their
case and obtain a not-guilty verdict. The trial date has yet to be publicly
set,7 yet what is clear is that this case has busted open the door on the
“open secrets” of how the wealthy and privileged use their status and
position to pull the system of college admissions to their advantage. This
matter has sparked a debate all across America, prompting questions about
how far one may utilize their leverage of power, whether it be fame,
money, or success, to tip the scales in their children’s favor when to comes
to applying to college. Where does the line between determination and
deceit truly lie? And finally, with schools across the U.S. taking a closer
look at their admission practices, how will this case and ultimately this
trial, affect the process moving forward? Whatever the answer is, many
students, parents, and teachers across the country have already begun
advocating for a system that prizes hard work and merit-based admission
above utilizing power and status to get a seat.

II. One for the Books: How Colleges In America Evolved from
Affording Equal Opportunities to a Symbol of Corporate Capitalism

The process of getting into college in America has changed

considerably over the centuries. Many schools claim to be the first
institution of higher education in this country, and Harvard University,
which was founded in 1636, claims itself as the “oldest institution of higher
education in the United States.”8 In the 1700’s and early 1800’s, there were
only select individuals who could go to school, including mostly white
males coming from well-off families able to afford sending their sons to
college. If these students went to well-regarded high schools, they were
usually automatically granted admission to the few colleges available as
long as they were in good standing, knew Latin or Greek, and could afford
to write out a considerable tuition check.9 Prior to the Revolutionary War,
there were a total of nine colleges in the entire country, mostly attracting
wealthy and white male merchants, and students often applied to schools
associated with their religious faith or greater community. 10 Even though
most colleges at that time either did not charge tuition or had very low

7 Tom Ozimek, Lori Loughlin Confident She Won’t Do Any Jail Time: Report, THE EPOCH TIMES

(May 8, 2019), https://perma.cc/UE4Q-48LU.

8 Quick Facts, HARVARD, https://perma.cc/GGQ2-PXR5 (last visited June 18, 2019).
9 Julia Ryan, How Getting Into College Became Such a Long, Frenzied, Competitive Process, THE
ATLANTIC (Nov. 11, 2013), https://perma.cc/36NN-J6HW.
10 Yvonne Romero da Silva, History of College Admissions in the U.S., WBUR, (Mar. 22, 2019),

https://perma.cc/9772-URRZ.
104 New England Law Review [Vol. 53:1

rates, only wealthy men were able to afford the miscellaneous expenses
occurring during their study such as room and board, books, and other
supplies. Many families across the United States could not afford these
expenses or were not able to lose a working member of their family. 11 Then,
in 1862, the Morrill Land-Grant Acts were passed by Congress, allowing
for the implementation and creation of land-grant colleges in the United
States. Proceeds from federal land sales were used to create schools geared
specifically towards agriculture, home economics, and the mechanical arts.
In 1890 the acts were expanded to apply to former Confederate states. 12 The
passing of the Morrill Land-Grant Acts was extremely significant, since
prior to it, colleges in the United States had only been designated for the
classical arts. Following its passage, students were able to gain training and
skills for practical jobs, and each state was given land on which they were
able to build a university. This act created several large and widely
regarded schools such as Michigan State University and the University of
Michigan, and its passage was “meant to say that college is for everyone
and not just people who speak ancient languages. . . [they were] for people
who want to be excellent farmers, and they were famously inexpensive,
relatively easy to get into, including for women.”13
The period from the 1940’s until the 1960’s saw a trend of colleges and
lawmakers amending rules in the college admissions processes, giving a
chance to those historically oppressed, such as people of color, individuals
from lower-income families, and immigrants. In the 1930’s, while the
country was still reeling from the effects of the Great Depression, many
schools, including Harvard, began creating scholarships for students who
demonstrated a need for financial aid, enabling teenagers from
economically suffering families to attend elite schools.14 During the early
20th century, most people in America were not completing high school, let
alone pursuing higher education: “most Americans didn’t really start
getting high school degrees until around the time of World War II.”15 In
1944, the G.I. Bill, a law providing benefits to World War II veterans
including payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school,
college or vocational school, was implemented. Over a decade later in 1956,
nearly 2.2 million veterans used these benefits to attend college, and an
additional 5.6 million veterans utilized them to participate in training

11 A Timeline of College Tuition, BEST COLLEGES ONLINE, https://perma.cc/BD29-R6JC (last

visited June 18, 2019).

12 See Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile, THE NAT’L ACADEMIES

PRESS, https://perma.cc/7DN6-6RUW (last visited June 18, 2019).

13 Jeremy Hobson, To Understand the History of Elite College Admissions, Just Follow the
Money, WBUR (Mar. 22, 2019), https://perma.cc/B7F6-TN8F.
14 See Our History of Financial Aid, HARVARD, https://perma.cc/964Y-AAG2 (last visited June

18, 2019).
15 Hobson, supra note 13.
2019] College Admissions Case 105

programs they otherwise would not have been able to afford.16 The G.I. Bill
was later hailed as an economic and social success, and was often credited
for strengthening the middle class and affording opportunities for those
who would typically not have been able to obtain an education at all:
“Prior to 1940, colleges were mostly for the privileged, but the G.I. Bill
opened doors to many who were Catholic and Jewish, including rural
people, first-generation immigrant offspring, and veterans from working
and middle class backgrounds.”17 Simultaneously, during the 1950s, after
the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, the country saw the
growth of historically black colleges and universities, expanding
opportunities for people of color to pursue higher education and a better
life. In the 1960s, many junior colleges were renamed as community
colleges, allowing for a two year, low-cost, and practical education for
people who wanted training in the growing white-collar labor force, as
well as for technical jobs in the blue-collar world. In 1965, the Higher
Education Act was passed, increasing federal money to colleges and
universities through scholarship programs and providing low-interest
loans to students.18
Despite this, in 1972, only 49% of high school graduates attended
college, with 80% of federal grants able to cover the associated costs. Before
the 1970s, college tuition rates increased only 2–3% per year, a steady
growing rate in alignment with the growth of the economy, yet in 1975
college prices began to soar, rising to 5–6% above inflation.19 In the 1980’s,
it was estimated that the average yearly tuition price for an undergraduate
degree (including tuition, room, board, and fees) was roughly $15,160,
while in 2016, it was measured at $34,740.20
Since the 1970’s, United States students and graduates have seen
astronomical rising costs in tuition fees, which are growing in skyrocket
rates compared to how yearly salaries have been increasing, thus creating a
deeper burden of debt for students. To afford a higher priced education,
students in turn take out more loans, which are difficult to pay back due to
stagnant salaries and an increasing cost of living, thus making it more
difficult for graduates to own homes, purchase vehicles, start families, or
even get married. Now in 2019, statistics regarding student loans
demonstrate how grave the student loan debt crisis has become. In total,

16 Suzanne Mettler, How the G.I. Bill Built the Middle Class and Enhanced Democracy, SSN

(Jan. 2012), https://perma.cc/NT6S-W2ZY.

17 Id.
18 See Dane Kennedy, How the Feds Reshaped Higher Education, PERSPECTIVES ON HISTORY
(Mar. 1, 2018), https://perma.cc/7JTD-D67A.
19 A Timeline of College Tuition, supra note 11.

20 Emmie Martin, Here’s How Much More Expensive It Is for You to go to College Than It Was

for Your Parents, CNBC (Nov. 29, 2017), https://perma.cc/7B57-7GNC.

106 New England Law Review [Vol. 53:1

there are “44 million borrowers who collectively owe $1.5 trillion in
student loan debt in the U.S. alone”21 in 5,000 colleges all throughout the
U.S.22 It is clear that one of the top worries for parents all over America is
how to send their children to college, which is why the outbreak of the
college admissions scandal in March 2019 sparked fury from countless
people all over the country. Aside from the anger and public outcry, many
are also asking: how and why did this happen?

III. Where It All Began: How Relaxed Rules and Preference Towards the
Privileged Led to a Broken Educational System

The idea of wealthy and privileged parents using their position to buy
their kids’ way into school is not a novel concept. For years, parents have
relied on major endowments and donations to schools to secure their
perhaps less-than-qualified child’s place, and simultaneously, many
institutions have been awarding athletic scholarships to admit students in,
when the student may not have been deserving of a spot on an academic or
merit-based basis.23 But how and when did our system become so corrupt,
and what led to the current scandal that is dominating headlines now?
First, many argue that the general lack of accountability displayed at many
elite colleges and institutions, including failure to address issues of sexual
misconduct and rape on campuses, grading biases, and outdated
accreditation rules24 may have fostered an atmosphere in which bribery,
deceit, and lies used to buy someone’s way into college has been allowed.
Lacking a strong set of regulations to guide admissions officers, faculty,
and alumni on approaching the admissions process may have encouraged
an “all rules apply” culture: “Organizational justice is a clear factor that
determines if a culture will or won’t be ethical. . . [i]f people feel there is no
place to speak up about things they perceive to be unfair, behavioral
science tells us the stage is set for unethical behavior.”25 Second, during
many of these admissions processes, there is usually not a person present
from outside of that academic institution: “When Deans, department
chairs, and other administrators either get mired in false consensus
approaches to decision making, or default to unilateral ‘back room’
decision making, the connection between decision makers and those that

21 Zack Friedman, Student Loan Debt Statistics in 2019: A $1.5 Trillion Crisis, FORBES (Feb. 25,

2019), https://perma.cc/RT27-QBMS..
22 Jeffrey J. Sellingo, How Many Colleges and Universities Do We Really Need?, WASH. POST
(July 20, 2015), https://perma.cc/RT6D-VS3M.
23 See Ron Carucci, A 15-Year Study Reveals Why The College Admissions Scandal Was

Inevitable, FORBES (Mar. 18, 2019), https://perma.cc/FB6A-NDGH.

24 See id.
25 Id.
2019] College Admissions Case 107

carry out the decision is diluted, reducing the quality of decision-making

processes.”26 In many instances within the college admissions scandal,
athletic coaches and directors were granted sole power regarding which
students they wanted to admit and recruit, and many commentators argue
that not having additional people or even outside members of the
institution in on these decisions fostered a system of favoritism and unjust
admissions.27 Third, systems of higher education are known to be intensely
fragmented, with coordination, scheduling, and communication required
among various departments, professors, and even alumni, who may all
have diverging and self-motivated interests, resulting in a disorganized
and sometimes dishonest environment.28 Currently, “classical rivalries
between faculty and administration, between faculty and students and
between departmental staff, are intensifying. With fragmentation so
common in higher education, the petri dish of this scandal was set as the
broken seams between the athletic departments and admissions
departments served to conceal, rather than reveal, the corruption.”29 Many
say there is a total lack of communication between the various inter-bodies
of the school: “Departments don’t talk with other departments, campuses
don’t talk with other campuses.”30 Therefore, when the infrastructure of
these schools is dismantled to the point where divisions are not
communicating with one another, it makes it easier for deceptive practices,
bribery, lies, and corruption to creep in.
Much like when the housing market bubble burst in 2008, academic
corruption came to a boiling point on March 12, 2019, when United States
federal prosecutors revealed that fifty parents of college applicants are
being accused of paying upwards of $25 million from 2011–2018 to Singer,
founder of the Edge College & Career Network, also known as The Key, a
college coaching company.31 Prosecutors unsealed the criminal complaint
that charged individuals with conspiracy to commit felony mail fraud and
honest services mail fraud, which carry a maximum term of twenty years
in prison as well as a $250,000 fine.32 The FBI initially alleged that thirty-
three parents of high school students conspired to utilize bribery and fraud
to have their children admitted to these elite schools, but the formal

26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.

29 Carucci, supra note 23.

30 Id.

31 Lia Eustachewich, College Cheat Mastermind William Singer Once Pitched Reality Show, THE

N.Y. POST (Mar. 13, 2019), https://perma.cc/A8UZ-RKG4; The United States Attorney’s Office
for the District of Massachusetts, Arrests Made in Nationwide College Admissions Scam: Alleged
Exam Cheating & Athletic Recruitment Scheme, THE U.S. DEP’T OF JUST. (Mar. 12, 2019),
https://perma.cc/7VG3-YTC5.
32 Arrests Made in Nationwide College Admissions Scam, supra note 31.
108 New England Law Review [Vol. 53:1

complaint charged a total of fifty.33 On April 8, 2019, Felicity Huffman and

twelve other parents announced their intention to plead guilty 34 to charges
of bribery and fraud. The following day, on April 9, 2019, sixteen of the
original thirty-three charged parents who did not plead guilty to the first
set of charges, including Lori Loughlin, were additionally indicted with
conspiracy to commit money laundering.35 Further, that new indictment
added those defendants who did not plead guilty to an existing case
against David Sidoo, another of the thirty-three parents, for engaging in a
conspiracy to launder bribes to Singer by funneling them through his
charity and for-profit corporation, a charge that included twenty years in
prison as well as a $500,000 fine. 36 Huffman officially entered her plea on
May 13, 2019, and for those not pleading guilty and fighting the charges, an
initial status hearing was held on June 3, 2019.37 It has been reported that
Loughlin believes a trial will be her final chance at redemption and
retribution, and trusts that a verdict of not guilty will be rendered. 38 Others
say that it is nearly impossible for a final decision to be rendered in this
case without a guilty verdict, and that prosecutors are eager to prove that
unlike the circumstances that led to these charges, the wealthy and
privileged will not be able to buy their way out of these issues this time.
While the ending of this case has yet to be officially decided, it is clear that
the trial has captured the world’s attention (there are already several books
and television shows about the scandal in the works 39), and has many legal
scholars, attorneys, and experts debating about how this will affect the
regulations and rules regarding college admissions moving forward.

IV. The New Regulations That May Help Even the Playing Field for All
Students

There are various ways that college admissions rules can be legally or
institutionally strengthened in order to level the playing field for all
students. First, for years, wealthy parents have made substantial donations
to schools, hoping their generosity will tip the admission scales in their

33 Arrests Made in Nationwide College Admissions Scam, supra note 31.

34 Boston Herald Staff, Felicity Huffman’s Full Statement, THE BOS. HERALD (Apr. 8, 2019),
https://perma.cc/WR2G-5999.
35 Maria Puente, Lori Loughlin Indicted by Federal Grand Jury, Charged with Money Laundering,

USA TODAY (Apr. 9, 2019), https://perma.cc/A9RT-MCU8.

36Id.; Arrests Made in Nationwide College Admissions Scam, supra note 31.
37Felicity Huffman Returns to Court May 13 to Plead Guilty in College Admissions Scam, USA
TODAY (Apr. 29, 2019), https://perma.cc/AWB5-Y43Q.
38 See Brad Hunter, EXAMGATE: Lori Loughlin, Hubby Hope Trial Exonerates Them,
TORONTO SUN (Apr. 30, 2019), https://perma.cc/96PJ-2G8J.
39 Julie Miller, The College-Admissions Scandal Is Getting a TV Show, VANITY FAIR (May 7,

2019), https://perma.cc/52TY-DFC9.
2019] College Admissions Case 109

children’s favor, which fosters a system in which seats are automatically

reserved for generations of children of wealthy and privileged families. For
instance, “ . . . while it’s true that making large donations is a relatively
transparent, legal tactic. . . it speaks to the prevalence of social
reproduction at these schools: a system that is designed to benefit the class
they’ve traditionally served, generation after generation.”40 It is clear that
donations from parents simultaneously benefit the school and inevitably,
most of the students who attend, yet some still argue there should be
restrictions on how much parents can give in order to ensure a fair chance
is given to students who come from all walks of life.41 Second, creating
rules to ensure that admissions processes are not left up to the sole
discretion of one athletic coach, admission officer, or faculty member,
should surely help, considering that often, “ . . . the least trustful of officials
in these colleges are the college admissions officers themselves.”42 Third,
many advocate for amending tax laws so that wealthy colleges and elite
universities are treated as private corporations, in that any donations made
to them are taxed: “If you tax these wealthy colleges, the behavior will
stop. . . [t]hey’re acting in a for-profit manner.”43
Many lawmakers have already proposed new legislation in order to
prevent other parents from utilizing their status to unfairly manipulate the
system. In March 2019, six new proposals were submitted by Democratic
lawmakers in California, including “… banning preferential admissions for
donors and alumni, evaluating the phase out of the SAT and ACT exams,
and regulating private admission consultants.”44 Some of the proposals
included requiring at least three administrative staff members’ approval
before a student is accepted in various public colleges and universities in
California, mandating college admissions consultants to register with the
Secretary of State’s Office, and hiring a state auditor to examine the
admissions processes for student athletes and other special admits in many
of the state’s public universities.45 Earlier this month, AB 697, a bill that
would withhold Cal Grants “if the schools don’t provide data on the
number of legacy admissions and enrollments that do not meet the
college’s basic academic standards of excellence”46, was approved by the

40 Hannah Fry & Laura Newberry, The Legal Way the Rich Get Their Kids into Elite Colleges:

Huge Donations for Years, LA TIMES (Mar. 22, 2019), https://perma.cc/2FY7-9SAY.

41 See Sara Harberson, Colleges Need to Start Disclosing all Their Admissions Data to the Public,

L.A. TIMES (Mar. 27, 2019), https://perma.cc/LE23-BSY7.

42 Ed Stannard, College Admissions Scandal Exposes Need for Change, Experts Say, N.H.
REGISTER (Mar. 17, 2019), https://perma.cc/K25X-BD4Q.
43 Id.

44 Madison Park, California Lawmakers Push for Reforms to Prevent College Admissions Abuse,

CNN (Mar. 28, 2019), https://perma.cc/RPJ2-99KE.

45 Id.
46 Gordon, supra note 3.
110 New England Law Review [Vol. 53:1

Assembly Committee on Higher Education in California. Meanwhile, other

bills that were proposed, which include “tighter oversight of athletics
admissions” and “regulation of private admissions counselors” have
garnered widespread and public support.47 No matter which proposed
legislation is eventually approved, it is clear that many are already taking
swift action to strengthen the regulations around college admissions to
lessen the corruption that has permeated through this system for years.
It remains to be seen how Operation Varsity Blues will conclude, but it
is clear that many lessons can be taken from the scandal, particularly,
insight as to how to implement legal and institutional changes to these
universities’ admission processes. In order to avoid cases like this
occurring again in the future, and to level the playing field for all
participating students, putting in place revisions to these schools’ inner
procedures would surely allow for a more inclusive and fair practice for
all.

47 Id.