MONEY TALKS

MONEY TALKS

The first of the “college admission bribers” has been adjudicated and sentenced. There are several more to be tried. This group of wealthy, famous people saw fit to bribe college officials in order to get their children into prestigious schools and onto sports teams. Apparently this is quite common. The fact that these kids probably otherwise would not qualify to get into these schools seems to be irrelevant. The goal is to make sure not that they get a great education, but that their diploma is from the right school. That brings to mind the question, is a degree from Stanford, regardless of what one has learned, more valuable than a degree from any other less prestigious school where a student has applied himself and gotten a solid education?

Does money talk? A few years ago the late US Senator John McCain railed against the amount of money in politics. His contention was that the money being offered to politicians corrupted them. What? You mean that an honest person could be corrupted by someone offering money, bribes? What if I told you that a normal honest person would not be for sale to anyone regardless of the money. A corrupt person is already compromised. The money just confirms it.

All of this brings to mind this question. Who is more guilty, the briber, or the bribee? Take the cases of these individuals who are paying huge sums of money to these, pardon the expression, corrupt college officials. The ones who are doling out these huge sums of money are in trouble. Why aren’t the officials who are selling degrees from prestigious schools in even more trouble? Which of these activities is worse?

Consider the classroom at, say Harvard. Within that room there are students who have gotten there fairly with good grades and equally good character. There are also students whose admission was bought and paid for by wealthy parents. Is the material being taught compromised? Must the lessons be “dumbed down” to include persons who are ill prepared to be there? I guarantee you the professor knows who is in the class and how they got there. If a student, who has been given admission by bribery, flunks the class, will the professor give him a failing grade? I’m fairly sure that the parent who paid $500,000 to get his child admitted, would not look too kindly on a school who would reward that parent with a failed student. I’m pretty sure that half million was intended to not only gain admission, but also to make sure the students are graduated with the right grades. 

This whole deal cheapens the idea of prestigious schools and the value of their diplomas, doesn’t it? I surely don’t want the surgeon gloving up to cut on me to be one whose degree was bought and paid for by his wealthy parents. How about you? I don’t want the accountant who prepares my books and my taxes to be a graduate with a phony degree that was purchased with bribe money. Where does it end?

My take is that if a school is willing to exchange a degree for money, why should the payer of the money be in any more trouble than the school? If we are to arrest and punish the briber, then by all means we should also sanction the bribee, the receiver of the money. The whole deal stinks, period.

I have heard that the “Golden Rule” has been revised to read, whoever has the gold, makes the rules. I refuse to believe that. No doubt money talks but sometimes what it says is wrong.

Ron Scarbro