Hacking the Meritocracy: Affirmative Action For Wealthy Families At Brown & the Ivy League
NOTE - The recent college admissions scandal is generating a larger conversation about fairness in American Universities, felony bribery isn’t the only way to cheat, ultra-wealthy families have a variety of tactics, many of which are legal:
During my first semester at Brown, I enrolled in a large Political Science lecture. In one class discussion, the issue of legacy admissions was brought up. Most students said that its inherent favoritism went against Brown’s mission as an educational institution. However, there was one student who voiced a different opinion:
“If you have a family connection to Brown, and like, if your dad went to Brown and graduated, then that clearly shows motivation to succeed here.”
I was very confused. Despite not being a legacy, I was still very much motivated to get a world-class education capable of enabling some financial security for my family and I. Had this student ever considered a motivation beyond prestige?
I was 18 years old when I came to Brown that first semester. I had read about privilege and systemic injustice both on my own and at my high school in rural Vermont and part of the reason I applied to Brown was to follow in its activist tradition (which the Office of Admissions advertised to us), but I wasn’t prepared to confront the idea that, according to my peers, I wasn’t as motivated to succeed as some Vinyard Vines-adorned legacy student. Additionally, I came to Brown because wanted a rigorous liberal arts education, however, most of all, I wanted something else: a shot at financial stability.
Now, I could say more and elaborate on the difference between my family and the typical Brown student’s family. Then I could tie this argument back to how almost 40% of Americans could not handle a $1000 emergency. Next, I could explain the motivation behind wanting to get to the point where one trip to the ER doesn’t endanger your housing situation or ability to buy food. The point of this paragraph would be to drive home the fact that those of us who come from average working families do, in fact, have the motivation to succeed at Brown, Yale or anywhere else B-list celebs can bribe their way into.
It is clear that people are motivated to improve their conditions for themselves and their families, but the student who stated that legacy affiliation was a better marker of potential success at Brown wasn’t drawing from facts and data, he was engaged in a bad faith and lazy argument to justify the special treatment some students receive.
Which brings me to another lazy, albeit impassioned, argument. In a Letter to the Editor to the Providence Journal on Feb 25th, President Christina Paxson defended Brown University’s practice of having University staff provide major donor, and Brown Board of Trustees member, Martin J. Granoff with free event coordinating, and logistical services for his private, elite dinner parties. Paxson was responding to the Providence Journal’s article outlining Granoff’s invitation-only networking events and how they serve to “benefit children of the rich and famous”.
Paxson lamented the original article, writing that it “casts [Martin J. Granoff]” and Brown in a “negative light.” Paxson attempts to cite a lack of “data or facts”, is an odd move as the article cites research about the economic background of several ‘elite’ colleges. This research shows that Brown already admits more applicants from the top 1% of families, who already have every leg up imaginable, than from the bottom 60% (woah!). If Brown administrators were accountable to the Brown community, or even capable of feeling shame, this affirmative action program for the ultra-wealthy would cease; but, because this is clearly not case, back to the focus on “facts and data.”
The original article also included details of “logistical support” the Office of Advancement gave to Granoff. The generous benefactor who “loves” Brown treats his donations as investments and gets to use Brown University employees as his own, without having to directly pay them, of course. I admit I am unaware of Granoff’s finances at this time, but if he is unable to afford “sending invitations, managing responses, and event planning tasks“ for his events, perhaps Brown can give back his donations to ensure he remains solvent.
Providing donors access to use Brown University’s staff to plan and coordinate private networking events is egregious and sends a message to students on financial aid and alumni who haven’t endowed a professorship that they are indeed second class. In her response, Paxson denies any “special” treatment (by using dismissive “quotes”, probably to imply she read the article closely), refuses to explain how an exclusive Brown-related dinner isn’t special treatment, and then, as if completely unaware of her previous assertions, explains that the Vice-President of Advancement, Sergio Gonzalez simply had no idea the executives directly under him were providing Granoff with “support” (🤔). Paxson implies that VP Gonzalez, upon learning of this tradition for the first time, immediately banned the Office Of Advancement from providing free labor for private, events, thus ending this tradition of “non-special” treatment. Gonzalez is in charge of “advancement areas across the University, including the Office of Development, Office of Alumni Relations, Foundation Relations, the Office for International Advancement, the Brown Sports Foundation, the Brown Annual Fund, and others”. All documented invitations came from the Office for International Advancement, and Gonzalez’ reported ignorance of this practice calls into question his ability to perform his job and manage his subordinates. What else are these rogue administrators doing?
The most dispiriting thing about Paxson’s response is the thinly veiled threat she makes on behalf of Granoff: “Granoff wants to help all students at Brown,” and has “supported financial aid, internships, faculty hiring and spaces for education and learning.” In other words, if he wants special treatment to help build his elite business network, the Brown community should oblige, or risk losing scholarship money for people like me. This rhetoric is disingenuous and essentially boils down to “well that’s just how it has been done,” an argument which has been used countless times to obstruct progress and shut down debate. By bringing up Brown’s commitment to inclusion, diversity and financial aid in a response to University donors using Brown resources to build business connections and earn favors, Paxson attempts to stifle discussion around this practice by implying that if we (the Brown Community) stop catering to Granoff’s and other VIP donor’s professional demands we will no longer have need-blind admissions or a generous financial aid package. This argument places us in a double bind: either we allow this special treatment to continue in order for wealthy donors to fill the university’s coffers and provide financial aid for second tier, unmotivated, working-class students like myself, or the University commits to its egalitarian ethos and stops the special treatment, thus alienating these benefactors and leaving Brown unable to afford scholarships for second rate, unconnected students like myself.
This way of thinking forecloses all possibilities–it doesn’t allow for progress or transparency while being in direct contradiction with Brown’s stated mission to support the “spirit of free inquiry”.
