[ad_1]
Actress Felicity Huffman was sentenced Friday to 14 days in jail in a federal prison for her role in a college admission plot. As part of this plot, 34 wealthy parents, mostly white, university-aged children would have paid thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars, to inflate the references of their children during the period of applications for studies higher.
Huffman was the first parent to receive a judgment.
Judge Indira Talwani oversaw the sentencing in Boston, where an investigation by US Massachusetts District Attorney accused about 50 people, including coaches, test administrators and police officers. others, to have falsified credentials for admission to the university. Investigators stated that some accused had changed test responses; others bribed sports coaches to claim they recruited students for sports they did not participate in.
The case has brought to light the benefits of people with significant financial resources during the college admissions process, as well as the dividing line that separates the high-level authorities acceptable to some – such as the possibility to call in private tutors, access to internships and inherited admissions – and outright fraud. He also drew attention to the cases in which disadvantaged people, mainly poor parents, were heavily penalized for fraud in the field of education, highlighting racial and economic differences. in American Education.
Huffman was arrested in March this year as part of the federal investigation into cheating during the college admissions process. She was charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest service fraud. She pleaded guilty on May 13 to pay $ 15,000 for a correctional test to correct her daughter's incorrect answers to the SAT, which greatly inflated her daughter's scores.
Huffman is serving a $ 30,000 sentence and 250 hours of community service. She will begin her two-week prison term on October 25th.
In sentencing, Judge Talwani reprimanded those involved in the scandal, including Huffman, for dissatisfaction with the opportunities offered by their wealth, and for using this money and influence to "take the extra step." to get the benefit of getting your child in sooner than ever ". " all the others.
After the conviction, Huffman issued a statement saying, "I accept the court's decision today without reservation. I have always been willing to accept the punishment imposed by Judge Talwani. I broke the law. I admitted that and pleaded guilty to this crime. There is no excuse or justification for my actions. Period."
The actress Lori Loughlin, of Full house Among the defendants are Gamal Abdelaziz, casino manager, and the winegrower and democratic democrat donor. Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, accused of spending nearly $ 500,000 to have their daughters badly recruited to the University of Southern California as rowers, will plead their case; the date has not been fixed yet.
The university admissions scandal is increasingly seen as a synthesis of US struggles over inequality
History has raised questions about how race and class are determining factors in admissions to the university. As Libby Nelson of Vox wrote, many university stuffing applications are completely legal, if you can afford it. Rich people hire private tutors, essay writers and test preparation services, for example. Others make important donations to schools before their children apply.
However, if few people are willing to give those who are able to make such gifts, or even to inheritance seekers, an additional benefit, similar benefits offered on the basis of race, through of positive action policies, are systematically criticized:
the alumni children have a length in advance. The same goes for the children of the main donors. a recent trial on Harvard Admission Policy revealed the details of how they are treated as much as the income generators that they are for their potential as students. And the athletes are regularly admitted with lower scores and test scores than the other students.
None of these benefits in the admission process usually attracts as much attention and indignation as the most notorious admission preference: positive action based on race. This contempt seldom holds that, legally, positive discrimination can not exist to help a student overcome discrimination. According to the Supreme Court, colleges can only consider race in admissions to the educational benefit of all students on campus by creating a racially heterogeneous environment, and only if the only way to create that environment is to consider the race.
As P. R. Lockhart also wrote for Vox, the college admissions scandal shows how racial and educational inequalities overlap. While the conversation in this case has focused on the benefits offered to some when applying to college, differentiated access to education and opportunities begins much earlier than this:
But in many ways, the disparities highlighted by the scandal are part of an even larger set of gaps that do not always attract the same attention. A recent report by EdBuild, a non-profit organization, found that on average, white-majority school districts receive $ 23 billion more than school districts that primarily host students of color and those low-income families (the difference is mainly due to wealth and local taxes). , according to the EdBuild report).
By the time a student reaches high school, this gap not only influences what he has already learned, but also what he will learn in the future. Research has shown that students attending financially stable high schools are more likely to have access to Advanced Placement and college readiness courses, but more importantly, they are more likely to have acquired the skills needed to succeed in college. these courses.
Friday's sentencing hearing – and the legal action taken against the last suspected conspirators – has raised questions about the plight of rich and white defendants facing charges of academic fraud, compared to similar cases involving poor parents and students of color who are most affected by educational disparities.
At the time of Huffman's conviction, for example, the case of Kelley Williams-Bolar was evoked: Williams-Bolar, a black single mother, was sentenced to five years in prison in 2011 for using the l '; suburban address of his father to incarcerate his children. different and reputed public school district. His sentence was later reduced to 10 days in jail and three years in probation.
"If a poor single mom from Akron who is actually trying to provide better education for her children goes to jail, there is no reason for a wealthy, privileged mother with all the legal means at her disposal should avoid the same fate, "said Eric S. Rosen, the senior prosecutor in the Huffman case.
Prosecutors in the Huffman case also referred to teachers in a largely black Atlanta school district who were sentenced to imprisonment – in some cases up to three years – for helping students. to cheat during state tests. And the scandal drew attention to the case of Tonya McDowell, who was homeless in Bridgeport, Connecticut, when she enrolled her 5-year-old son in a suburban school district. She was charged with stealing with theft and sentenced to five years in prison.
Some legal experts such as David Singleton, who contributed to the leniency of the Williams-Bolar case, said the case provided a senseless opportunity to look at the criminal justice system as a whole.
"When you're rich – and especially if you're rich and white in this country – the justice system is different," Singleton told the New York Times. "Sending Felicity Huffman to prison will not solve this problem."
Other observers, as Anna North of Vox wrote, argue that the scandal not only summarizes the inequality of the courts, but could "provoke a reexamination of society's misconceptions about wealth and merit":
The idea that rich people have all worked for and deserve their wealth is "a sacred value in this country" [University of California Irvine psychology professor Paul Piff] I said.
"It's kind of part of the American dream," he said – and if we believe the rich are making all their money, we're more likely to have a big gap between rich and poor.
By claiming to have paid for their children to go to schools where they would not have been admitted alone, the parents accused in this scandal could have perpetuated this myth of meritocracy.
Martin Murphy, the defense attorney, argued that Huffman had already been tried and found guilty by the merit court and that she was facing significant consequences because of her role in the scandal, including the loss of career opportunities. Huffman is best known for his work on television Desperate housewives, and his defense team said his opportunities to play were increasingly limited.
Addressing the judge, Huffman expressed remorse and said that she had learned a valuable lesson.
"I realize now with my mother that love and truth must go hand in hand, and that my love at the expense of truth is not true love," she said.
[ad_2]
Source link