A significant class-action lawsuit has been initiated against 17 renowned universities across the United States, claiming that these elite institutions unfairly favor affluent students during the admissions process.
Newly surfaced court documents provide a glimpse into internal communications that appear to support these serious allegations, illustrating a pattern of bias toward children of wealthy individuals and influential donors.
Allegations of Preferential Treatment
One striking example from the lawsuit involves the former president of Georgetown University, who reportedly placed a prospective student on a personal “president’s list” after a meeting with her and her wealthy father at a high-profile conference geared towards billionaires.
This incident exemplifies the alleged preferential treatment that purportedly plagues university admissions.
While the notion of wealthy individuals receiving special treatment in college admissions isn’t novel, these legal filings offer a detailed look at candid conversations among university officials and admissions staff.
They reveal concerning moments where financial ties and potential future contributions may have swayed decisions on students who otherwise would have faced rejection.
Patterns of Favoritism Revealed
In a revealing email from 2018, Stuart Schmill, who serves as the admissions dean at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), highlighted a pattern of favoritism.
He disclosed that four out of six applicants who were recommended by a former board chairman gained admission, including two individuals whose applications would not have been competitive without that influence.
Although the chairman sought to minimize his sway, Schmill’s acknowledgment of providing insights into candidates made it clear that his input played a role in their acceptance.
The lawsuit alleges that these prestigious universities coordinated efforts to suppress competition in the admissions process, while simultaneously trimming financial aid offers.
An attorney representing the plaintiffs asserted that this alleged collusion resulted in a reduction of financial aid available to students, contrary to what might be expected in a genuinely competitive environment.
Settlements and Ongoing Contestations
As the legal proceedings unfold, ten universities have already reached settlements totaling an impressive $284 million.
Some current or former students may see payments up to $2,000 if they experienced financial aid shortfalls over the last two decades.
Settling institutions include notable names like Brown, University of Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Emory, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Yale.
Moreover, Johns Hopkins University is negotiating its settlement, while the remaining institutions still contesting the lawsuit include the California Institute of Technology, Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame, and the University of Pennsylvania.
MIT has firmly rejected the allegations, proclaiming that it maintains a non-discriminatory approach in its admissions decisions based on wealth.
A spokesperson for the institution emphasized that despite extensive document reviews, only a single example was presented to insinuate board members influence admissions processes.
Similarly, the University of Pennsylvania has denounced the lawsuit, deeming it unfounded and asserting that no evidence supports claims of preferential treatment for financially connected students.
They suggest that the lawsuit attempts to wrongfully tarnish their admissions practices, which are unrelated to the issues raised.
Notre Dame has also categorized the accusations as baseless, expressing confidence in the credentials of its admitted students.
However, leaked internal emails revealed by the court suggest otherwise, showing a tendency to admit applicants with lower academic qualifications tied to their familial connections and potential donations.
An email from an associate vice president at Notre Dame in 2012 acknowledged that the admitted class had weaker academic profiles compared to earlier years, a shift attributed to increased familial influence.
Furthermore, the lawsuit hints at a troubling trend where students capable of covering full tuition may experience a more lenient admissions process.
A former admissions director from Vanderbilt noted during a deposition that financial need could impact decisions regarding waitlisted candidates, indicating a possible advantage for those not requiring financial assistance.
Historically, these 17 universities had obtained congressional approval to work together on financial aid strategies to avoid antitrust concerns, provided they adhered to need-blind admissions policies.
These policies were intended to ensure that applicants’ finances wouldn’t affect their chances.
However, the lawsuit contends that many universities misrepresented their commitment to need-blind admissions while secretly favoring children of alumni and donors.
This alleged breach of the Congressional exemption has raised questions about the integrity of their collaboration, particularly as the framework has started to dissolve with the expiration of the exemption allowing such cooperation.
Source: Insurancejournal
