• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

USC may take action against Lori Loughlin’s daughter in bribery scandal

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,465
Reaction score
19,290
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From CBS News

USC may take action against Lori Loughlin’s daughter in bribery scandal
​

The fallout from an alleged nationwide college admissions bribery scheme continued Wednesday with the University of Southern California announcing it's reviewing the applications of current students caught up in the scandal. That would include Olivia Jade Giannulli, the daughter of actress Lori Loughlin, reports CBS Los Angeles.

Prosecutors allege Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, paid $500,000 to have their daughters labeled as crew-team recruits at USC, even though neither is a rower.

At a brief court appearance Wednesday, a judge allowed Loughlin to be released on $1 million bond and travel to the area around Vancouver, Canada, to work but otherwise imposed strict travel restrictions.

Loughlin's lawyer, Perry Viscounty, declined comment outside the courtroom where, a day earlier, Giannulli was freed on similar terms.

The couple's 19-year-old daughter, Olivia Jade Giannulli, is a freshman at USC.

COMMENT:-

Should the children who weren't parties to their parents "buying" them admission to universities be "punished" for their parent's actions?

Is "revoking a benefit obtained through illegal means and then transferred, for no payment, to a third party" a "punishment" if the benefit is taken away from the third party (who wouldn't likely have been able to obtain it through their own efforts in any event)?
​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

USC may take action against Lori Loughlin’s daughter in bribery scandal
​

The fallout from an alleged nationwide college admissions bribery scheme continued Wednesday with the University of Southern California announcing it's reviewing the applications of current students caught up in the scandal. That would include Olivia Jade Giannulli, the daughter of actress Lori Loughlin, reports CBS Los Angeles.

Prosecutors allege Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, paid $500,000 to have their daughters labeled as crew-team recruits at USC, even though neither is a rower.

At a brief court appearance Wednesday, a judge allowed Loughlin to be released on $1 million bond and travel to the area around Vancouver, Canada, to work but otherwise imposed strict travel restrictions.

Loughlin's lawyer, Perry Viscounty, declined comment outside the courtroom where, a day earlier, Giannulli was freed on similar terms.

The couple's 19-year-old daughter, Olivia Jade Giannulli, is a freshman at USC.

COMMENT:-

Should the children who weren't parties to their parents "buying" them admission to universities be "punished" for their parent's actions?

Is "revoking a benefit obtained through illegal means and then transferred, for no payment, to a third party" a "punishment" if the benefit is taken away from the third party (who wouldn't likely have been able to obtain it through their own efforts in any event)?
​
Click to expand...

Did the child sign her application? Was she over 18 at the time?

If the answer to those two questions are yes, then she is fair game.
 
Mycroft said:
Did the child sign her application? Was she over 18 at the time?

If the answer to those two questions are yes, then she is fair game.
Click to expand...

Indeed, personally I think that the situation falls under "revoking a benefit obtained through illegal means and then transferred, for no payment, to a third party" AND that that is NOT a "punishment", but rather it is a "known potential consequence that should have been planned for".

On the other hand, after looking at the pictures of the people whose admissions were "facilitated", I'm also likely to lump them into the same category as these two occupy.
 
Last edited:
During my time as an undergrad at USC, I can tell you I ran into a bunch of people that I wasnt sure they were students there. Plenty of Hollywood celebrities sent their kids to the college and I did end up sitting beside a few actors while taking classes.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

USC may take action against Lori Loughlin’s daughter in bribery scandal
​

The fallout from an alleged nationwide college admissions bribery scheme continued Wednesday with the University of Southern California announcing it's reviewing the applications of current students caught up in the scandal. That would include Olivia Jade Giannulli, the daughter of actress Lori Loughlin, reports CBS Los Angeles.

Prosecutors allege Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, paid $500,000 to have their daughters labeled as crew-team recruits at USC, even though neither is a rower.

At a brief court appearance Wednesday, a judge allowed Loughlin to be released on $1 million bond and travel to the area around Vancouver, Canada, to work but otherwise imposed strict travel restrictions.

Loughlin's lawyer, Perry Viscounty, declined comment outside the courtroom where, a day earlier, Giannulli was freed on similar terms.

The couple's 19-year-old daughter, Olivia Jade Giannulli, is a freshman at USC.

COMMENT:-

Should the children who weren't parties to their parents "buying" them admission to universities be "punished" for their parent's actions?

Is "revoking a benefit obtained through illegal means and then transferred, for no payment, to a third party" a "punishment" if the benefit is taken away from the third party (who wouldn't likely have been able to obtain it through their own efforts in any event)?
​
Click to expand...

If the daughter was an adult, she clearly could be in a lot of trouble. I have to wonder how much she knew.

I would like to know how this whole thing transpired. Did the actors contact the influence peddler or did the influence peddler come to them?

I am having a hard time seeing the difference between this situation and the situation where daddy buys the University a new library and kid that didn't make the grade before, all of a sudden is in. It is just a matter of degree.
 
year2late said:
If the daughter was an adult, she clearly could be in a lot of trouble. I have to wonder how much she knew.

I would like to know how this whole thing transpired. Did the actors contact the influence peddler or did the influence peddler come to them?

I am having a hard time seeing the difference between this situation and the situation where daddy buys the University a new library and kid that didn't make the grade before, all of a sudden is in. It is just a matter of degree.
Click to expand...

The difference is between "traditional and accepted open and up front __[fill in the blank]__ that the University knows about and benefits from" and "back door __[fill in the blank]__ that the University neither knows about nor benefits from but which provides significant financial benefits to non-University personnel".

Admittedly the distinction is small.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The difference is between "traditional and accepted open and up front __[fill in the blank]__ that the University knows about and benefits from" and "back door __[fill in the blank]__ that the University neither knows about nor benefits from but which provides significant financial benefits to non-University personnel".

Admittedly the distinction is small.
Click to expand...
How about this.... keep the standard high and let millionaires pay to get help to meet those standards. And as a reward for giving junior such a valuable education....the millionaire can then buy a new library. Kid gets a great education....school gets a library
they deserve ��

But I get your point��
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

USC may take action against Lori Loughlin’s daughter in bribery scandal
​

The fallout from an alleged nationwide college admissions bribery scheme continued Wednesday with the University of Southern California announcing it's reviewing the applications of current students caught up in the scandal. That would include Olivia Jade Giannulli, the daughter of actress Lori Loughlin, reports CBS Los Angeles.

Prosecutors allege Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, paid $500,000 to have their daughters labeled as crew-team recruits at USC, even though neither is a rower.

At a brief court appearance Wednesday, a judge allowed Loughlin to be released on $1 million bond and travel to the area around Vancouver, Canada, to work but otherwise imposed strict travel restrictions.

Loughlin's lawyer, Perry Viscounty, declined comment outside the courtroom where, a day earlier, Giannulli was freed on similar terms.

The couple's 19-year-old daughter, Olivia Jade Giannulli, is a freshman at USC.

COMMENT:-

Should the children who weren't parties to their parents "buying" them admission to universities be "punished" for their parent's actions?

Is "revoking a benefit obtained through illegal means and then transferred, for no payment, to a third party" a "punishment" if the benefit is taken away from the third party (who wouldn't likely have been able to obtain it through their own efforts in any event)?
​
Click to expand...

If the students knew what was going on, then yes, they should be immediately expelled. Even if they didn't know, they should be un-enrolled at the end of this semester. They'll be no worse off (still better off, in fact), than if none of this had happened.
 
AmNat said:
If the students knew what was going on, then yes, they should be immediately expelled. Even if they didn't know, they should be un-enrolled at the end of this semester. They'll be no worse off (still better off, in fact), than if none of this had happened.
Click to expand...

I'd go along with letting them finish up the current academic year AND having them re-apply for admission (after all, punting them part way through doesn't put another student in their place). If their academic work previously is sufficient to allow them to gain re-admission, then why harm the student. If it isn't - TANGO SIERRA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom