Colleges expel students linked to bribery

Students await administration decision weeks after USD implicated in scandal

Glenn McDonell / Asst. News Editor / The USD Vista

At the end of March, Yale and Stanford University announced plans to rescind the admission and vacate the credits of students named in the March 12 Department of Justice investigation into college admissions bribery, which also implicates a USD family. Now that USC and other universities are publicly planning to follow Yale and Stanford’s lead, USD students are left wondering whether their university will take similar action. 

Sophomore Justin Daus has been following reports ever since the scandal was revealed and is concerned about the possible consequences if USD does not take disciplinary action.  

“This is a very public situation,” Daus said. “By not doing anything, we will be sending a message to those who might want to try this in the future. If there aren’t any repercussions, what’s to say it won’t happen again? I think it could definitely set a dangerous precedent.”

The federal indictment implicates the Flaxman family of the University of San Diego, who paid the same racketeer from the Stanford and Yale cases to bribe former men’s basketball coach, Lamont Smith, into securing an athletics admissions referral for their son.  

In a statement released on March 20 by President Harris, the issue of disciplinary action was briefly addressed. The letter refers to language from the USD Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities stating that falsifying or making misrepresentations on an application for admissions can be grounds for disciplinary action, and that students found in violation of the code can be subject to sanctions, up to and including expulsion, depending on the nature of the misconduct.

The USD Vista reached out to President Harris inquiring into whether the conduct in the Flaxman case warrants expulsion or the vacating of credits. As of now, the administration has not made a determination on this question, maintaining only that the investigation is ongoing and is currently being conducted by an outside law firm.  

While Daus is receptive to the fact that the university has chosen to extend the federal investigation with a private one, he also expects the administration to enforce its own code in dealing with the scandal.  

“Since this has all gone public, I think it’s up to USD to uphold its own standards,” Daus said.  “It can be case by case and I realize this is still under investigation but at the end of the day if you are a student with admitted status at this school you should be here legitimately, not because you falsified your way in. Not that we have to do exactly what Stanford has done, but we should practice what we preach.” 

Federal documents reveal that both Flaxmans – the current USD student and his father – communicated directly with the fraudulent college counseling agency at the center of the investigation. The reports show email correspondence regarding the falsification of the son’s application to solidify his status as a student-athlete. 

While Flaxman’s son’s intentions and knowledge of the bribery are unknown, some of the students implicated in cases from other universities have claimed total ignorance of their parents’ wrongdoing. 

These nuances have opened up a national dialogue over what the fair course of action should be for the students, and whether their prior knowledge should be the key factor in disciplinary decision-making.  

Junior sociology major Stella Kilfoy, who has discussed this topic in some of her classes, says these situations are difficult and she is still unsure on the question of whether USD should take actions similar to other universities.

“I think it’s really hard to just take away the years they (the students) put in if they didn’t know their parent did this and if they were really trying hard to take their college career seriously,” Kilfoy said. “But if you knew what your parents were doing and you knew that you were taking a spot away from someone else I think it’s a different story.” 

Kilfoy believes that student knowledge and involvement should be taken into consideration, but that it doesn’t necessarily have to be the deciding factor.  

“For me it really depends,” Kilfoy said. “Each case is specific and unique and I think you have to take into consideration the tactics which were used, in what way the student was aware, and also how they are contributing to the school. If you had to make a complete generalization then prior knowledge seems like a fair reason to take action but I still think it’s really hard.” 

Yale University President Peter Salovey has said in public statements that the longstanding policy of the university is to rescind the admissions of students who are found to have falsified their application, citing the fact that the applicants sign a document attesting that the content is “true and complete.” This statement seems to suggest that prior knowledge was not a part of the Yale administration’s decision-making process in taking disciplinary action.  

Regardless of whether USD chooses to follow the lead of other universities in taking disciplinary action against those admitted through fraud and bribery, the larger issue of equity with regards to college admissions still remains. Wealthy families continue to incentivize admissions panels to favor their sons and daughters by making substantial donations and using their influence to secure funding for development projects.  

While the subjective nature of admissions decisions renders these practices legally ambiguous, Kilfoy takes issue with the ethical problems inherent in a college admissions system which is susceptible to this kind of influence.  

“I’m willing to bet that the majority of them (families in indictment) could have just donated to a building to get their kids in, but instead they took these extra measures,” Kilfoy said. “My takeaway is that it’s bigger than just bribery or fraud. We can keep these individuals accountable but it’s our whole system which needs to be changed if they want to make it equitable because I can see it continuing to happen in legal ways.” 

With the admission scandal came into the national spotlight, a specially appointed oversight committee of USD administrators has convened regularly to discuss appropriate action in response to the findings of the federal investigation. 

Until the administration releases the results of its own probes and publicly explains its disciplinary decision, student questions and public scrutiny will continue.