"Turns Out There's a Proper Way to Buy Your Kid a College Slot" from the
NY Times, which says that this case is not a defense of meritocracy but, rather, a defense of private property, i.e. the right of colleges to make the admissions decisions and then collect the revenues:
Federal prosecutors presented themselves as champions of meritocracy on Tuesday as they announced the indictments....
If the allegations are true, people should be held to account. But this case is not a defense of meritocracy in college admissions. What the government actually is defending is private property — the right of the colleges to make their own decisions about admissions, and collect the payments.
…Indeed, Mr. Lelling [United States attorney for the District of Massachusett] himself made clear at a news conference on Tuesday that the government is well aware wealthy people regularly donate money to colleges to secure the matriculation of their children — and the government is not attacking the conduct of that business as usual.
...The key distinction here is not just the amount of money, but the recipient. A donation is made to a college, while a bribe is paid to an employee who, in effect, is stealing an admissions slot, hawking it and pocketing the proceeds. (To comply with tax laws, donors also cannot engage in an explicit quid pro quo with a college. The well-rehearsed pas de deux of donations and admissions must be made to appear as a voluntary exchange of gifts, not a binding deal.)
Opinion | Turns Out There’s a Proper Way to Buy Your Kid a College Slot - The New York Times
