Pages

Saturday, January 25, 2020

There may be dirty laundry exposed as this process continues

From the LA Times: Jorge Salcedo, the former UCLA men’s soccer coach charged in the college admissions scandal, accused the school of using athlete admissions “as a vehicle to raise funds” in a motion filed by his attorneys in U.S. District Court in Boston.
The motion filed late Thursday seeks authorization to subpoena a wide variety of documents from UCLA and the University of California.
“UCLA’s own internal documents reveal that, for many years, its Athletic Department has facilitated the admission of unqualified applicants — students who do not meet UCLA’s rigorous academic or athletics standards — through the student-athlete admissions process in exchange for huge ‘donations’ by the students’ wealthy parents,” the motion said...
The motion alleged, as well, that UCLA has admitted non-athletes as sports recruits to help boost team grade-point averages. No names or other specifics were provided...
---
Excerpt from defense brief:
...The charges reflect the government’s fundamental misunderstanding of how UCLA has strategically used its student-athlete admissions process as a vehicle to raise funds to pay for its many expensive and underfunded athletic programs. UCLA’s own internal documents reveal that, for many years, its Athletic Department has facilitated the admission of unqualified applicants—students who do not meet UCLA’s rigorous academic or athletics standards—through the student-athlete admissions process in exchange for huge “donations” by the students’ wealthy parents. These documents, which UCLA did not disclose to the government before this prosecution, tell a compelling behind-the-scenes story, one that undermines the Superseding Indictment’s narrative by definitively proving that UCLA is not a victim of a fraud scheme.
Until this prosecution, UCLA has been able to keep its roster-spot-for-money admissions practice under wraps, hidden from the public. But the practice has been no secret at UCLA. Five years ago, UCLA’s Compliance Office was forced to review the Athletic Department’s admissions and fundraising tactics in response to a parent’s complaint concerning the revocation of her daughter’s admission. The Compliance Office investigation, spearheaded by the University’s Compliance Director, resulted in a “confidential” report loaded with explosive facts that drive a stake through the heart of the government’s charges... 
Having uncovered a mountain of damning evidence, the Compliance Office concluded that UCLA’s use of athletic team roster slots to raise funds violated Policy 2202 of UCLA’s governing body, the University of California Board of Regents (“UC Regents”). Policy 2202, titled “Policy Barring Development Considerations from Influencing Admission Decisions,” prohibits admission decisions based on financial benefits to the University. The Compliance Office, however, was careful to protect top echelon members of the Athletic Department, while heaping all of the blame on the coaches’ shoulders. Notably, the chief fundraiser’s name is not even mentioned in the report.
UCLA’s response to the “confidential” report’s scathing findings is telling. Available evidence suggests that UCLA did not revoke the admission of the student on the track team or return her parents’ $100,000 donation. It did not report the matter to UC Regents or to law enforcement authorities. It did not discipline members of the Athletic Department’s executive management team, or even interview Rebholz, who had brokered the deal with the parents of the student admitted on the track team. Rather, UCLA rewarded him with a hefty raise. The University ironically restored the admission decision of the student whose parent had complained. And, remarkably, UCLA continued conducting business with Mr. Singer, permitting him to use UCLA’s facilities to give college admission counseling presentations on campus...

No comments: