Operation Varsity Blues & Supreme Court Decision

For decades, the United States has been acclaimed for holding the most elite system of higher education schools? institutions? in the world. Looking at global university rankings alone, the United States holds a stark majority of the top slots, and its universities continue to draw the world’s most ambitious and prestigious scholars. 

A study published by Statistica revealed that as of 2019, 62 current world leaders had received higher education from the United States, a number higher than that of any other country. 

Perhaps a situation that also demonstrates the popularity of American schooling concerns the education of the daughter of one of the U.S.'s most bitter rivals: Chinese President Xi Jinping. Yes, even Xi’s daughter received an American diploma, having graduated from Harvard in 2014. This information further cements the argument that the United States is home to the world’s most coveted and sought-after universities. 

Yet even including all the glory these institutions hold, American universities, specifically its system of college admissions, have recently been subject to much scrutiny.

In 2019, the FBI uncovered the biggest college admissions scandal in history, infamously dubbed “Operation Varsity Blues” (OVB) by investigators. This June, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action programs at two prestigious universities, the University of North Carolina (UNC), and Harvard University. These two landmark events continue to dominate headlines and have forced elite American universities to completely rethink college admissions. The time since the scandal poses the question: What has changed in the American college admissions process following the occurrence of both of these unprecedented events? 

Ironically enough, a completely unrelated investigation triggered the FBI’s involvement in the uncovering of the OVB scandal. Yet once news broke of “Operation Varsity Blues,” it soon became a nationwide scandal that shockingly involved elite U.S. universities, billionaires, and celebrities. In total, fifty wealthy adults were charged for involvement in the scheme, and the ringleader of the operation, Rick Singer,  was sentenced in January of this year to 44 months in prison. Singer’s operation involved using bribery and fraud to illegally arrange to have students admitted into some of America’s most prestigious institutions by posing them as elite athletes. The ironic part of the scandal was that many of the students who posed as athletes had little to no experience playing their respective sports. The universities involved included many that held high seats in the national rankings, such as Yale (#3, tie), Stanford (#3, tie), UCLA (#20, tie), and USC (#25, tie). Although the scheme came to a close a few years ago, the college admissions process continues to face its repercussions. 

California’s system of higher education is one of the most esteemed in the nation, but the program took quite a stumble when one of its schools, UCLA, was caught up in the scandal. 

Following the investigation, UCLA’s men's soccer coach, Jorge Salcedo, was sentenced to eight months in prison for receiving $200,000 in bribes from Singer to facilitate the admission of two students—one through the school’s women’s soccer program, and another through his own. In response to the humiliation that ensued following the scandal, the University of California system has pledged to take greater measures to ensure that those admitted into its schools through athletics are deserving of admissions. The UC program has done this by requiring that three athletics officials examine an athlete’s file before forwarding it to admissions officers. 

Yale University’s prestigious name was tainted post-OVB, which involved Yale’s “winningest coach” in the school’s history, the former women’s soccer coach, Rudy Meredith. The investigation unearthed that Meredith had been working with Singer since 2015 and was charged with accepting bribes in exchange for offering students admission into Yale as recruited athletes. One of the students Meredith recruited to his team had never even played competitive soccer. Similar to the University of California system, Yale now requires student-athlete prospects to provide three references to confirm their athletic ability. In addition, sports coaches are now required to report all “athletic-related income” not paid directly to them through Yale. 

Stanford’s former head sailing coach, John Vandemoer, was the first person charged for participation in OVB for accepting donations tied to Stanford’s accepting two students who had no actual sailing experience. In the wake of the scandal, Stanford released a public announcement that confirmed that some changes to its admission process had been introduced. Some of these changes include the implementation of a second-level review process to determine the athletic abilities of recruited student-athletes. Stanford also claims to have developed controls concerning its “gift acceptance” process in response to the money Stanford received during the scheme. 

​​

The University of Southern California (USC) was the only university to have multiple athletic personnel take part in the scandal. The involvement of so many staff in the scheme undoubtedly was a source of great shame for the university, and in 2019, through a statement of its own, USC announced the policies that the institution has adopted in response. 

Like Yale and the University of California system, USC has required every student-athlete prospect’s file to be reviewed on three levels- by the head coach of the sport, the senior sports administrator of the sport, and the Office of Athletic Compliance. Following this inspection, the file is then delivered to the Office of Admissions for review. Some other forms of protocol have also been introduced, such as the requirement that each USC head coach confirms in writing that the student is being recruited on the basis of their athletic ability and that all undergraduate prospectus must sign an attestation certifying that they submitted their own application and that the information it holds is factually correct. 

As convictions for those involved in OVB continued to develop, American universities once again were shoved into the spotlight, through the nation’s highest tribunal. On June 29, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action at UNC and Harvard,  yet decades prior to that decision, the Court argued the opposite during the landmark case of Grutter vs. Bollinger. In 1997, a white student, Barbara Grutter, was denied admission into the University of Michigan’s law school. In 2003, she challenged the institution’s use of race as a factor in college admissions, arguing that the decision violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a narrow 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan, thereby deciding that affirmative action was indeed constitutional. The issue of affirmative action was again discussed during the 2012 case of Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin. Fisher, a white student who was denied admission into the university in 1997, argued a case reflective of Grutter’s. Yet once again, the SCOTUS ruled that affirmative action was indeed lawful, by a vote of 4-3. 

Over a decade following that case, the argument of whether or not using race as a factor in college admissions was constitutional was once more brought before the Court in late June, via the cases of Students for Fair Admissions Inc. vs. Presidents & Fellows of Harvard College, and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. vs University of North Carolina. The case, like that of Grutter and Fisher, also argued that the use of affirmative action at the universities involved violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Once the case was brought forward, the Court thoroughly examined the admissions process at both universities and discussed to what extent race genuinely was a factor when deciding which students should make up the applicant pool. On June 29th, with a 6-3 majority, the Court ruled that both Harvard and UNC’s use of race as a factor was not constitutional, and the decision effectively overturned the cases of both Grutter and Fisher. “Both programs [Harvard and U.N.C.’s] lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the statement for the majority. The SCOTUS decision, which is just among a string of recent controversial decisions and rulings, sent shockwaves across the nation and divided Americans. Yet regardless of one’s opinion on the decision, the Court’s striking down of affirmative action forced American universities to adjust and re-examine their processes of college admissions.

 

Shortly after news of the Court’s decision broke, both Harvard and UNC released statements. While both universities pledged to comply with the Court’s ruling, the universities promised to uphold its dedication to diversity. “Carolina remains firmly committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond,” UNC Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewic stated. Even institutions that were not involved in the case made statements. “...diversity is essential to the excellence of this University and to the future of our country and the world. Princeton will pursue it with energy, persistence, and a determination to succeed despite the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court in its regrettable decision today,” wrote Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber. 

American universities are finding other ways to acknowledge the Court’s decision. In the application essay, Sarah Lawrence College is now giving undergrads the creative opportunity to write about the affirmative action case by asking in one of the available prompts,  “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced, or affected by the Court's decision.”

Both Operation Varsity Blues and the SCOTUS’ striking down of affirmative action raised many questions about the U.S. system of college admissions, and these events undoubtedly have led to massive shifts in how U.S. universities approach applications. It remains to be seen whether the changes will stop there, or if more change is to come. 

Specifically, other aspects of U.S. college admissions are now being scrutinized, in particular legacy admissions (which has been deemed as “affirmative action for the rich”) and the advantages given to applicants who play what is referred to as “aristocratic sports.” Changes to address these admissions are already arriving: for example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has scratched legacy admissions completely, while the University of Virginia (UVA) took the more gradual step of eliminating the ability to check a box confirming historical ties with the university while retaining applicants’ ability to refer to any legacy status in their narrative essay. 

It’s no secret that college admissions are becoming increasingly competitive, and hopeful applicants are having to do more and more to distinguish themselves from their counterparts. So the question remains, just how perfect really is the U.S. process of college admissions? And will the changes that have arisen from both Operation Varsity Blues and the end of affirmative action help or hurt the highly-acclaimed “American way” of admitting applicants? Only time will tell.