The Race Between Wealth and Meritocracy

When the Department of Justice revealed on Tuesday that dozens of people were accused of participating in a scam to bribe and lie their kids’ way into colleges, one question kept coming up: why? These parents — actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, casino executive Gamal Abdelaziz, and vineyard owner and Democratic donor Agustin Huneeus among them — were generally wealthy. Their kids did not need a degree from a selective college in order to support themselves — Loughlin’s daughter Olivia, for her part, didn’t particularly want to go to school. So why risk criminal charges just to get your child into college?
For some parents, getting a kid into a good school — even if they have to break the rules to do so — may function as a kind of proof that their wealth and social status are well-deserved. But the results can be damaging, both for the children of the wealthy and for other students who actually earned their spots in school. Ultimately, the admissions scandal could prompt a reexamination of society’s misconceptions around wealth and merit — if enough people are willing to pay attention.

As high school students, we all collectively wait with eagerness and angst for the day college admission decisions come out. All our hard work, perseverance, and all-nighters are one step forward in completing this race; the grand prize is the college of our dreams. So, it comes as a surprise when we face the reality of how corrupt the application process is and that money can get people ahead in the race, even past the finish line. In March, federal prosecutors charged over fifty people connected in a scheme – dubbed as Operation Varsity Blues – to secure spots in elite and selective schools such as Yale, Stanford, University of Southern California, and other big-name schools in what they called the “largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice” (Camera). Dozens of parents are accused of paying millions of dollars to help get their kids into these selective schools. Some of the accused at the forefront of this scandal include high-profile people like Lori Loughlin from Full House – who is accused of spending 500,000 dollars to get both of her daughters into USC –and Felicity Huffman who is best known for her role in Desperate Housewives. According to the District of Massachusetts, the man behind this elaborate scheme is William Singer – a consultant who operated a college counseling business – was behind a complex effort to “bribe coaches and test monitors, falsify exam scores, and fabricate student biographies” – all to aid the wealthy in securing a spot in elite schools for their children (Medina). The implicated colleges in this scheme and future schools must make it a priority to give all prospective students a fair chance and take more seriously the fraudulent activity that transpires from unfair advantages. With these problems becoming prevalent, implementing a lottery system will remove bias and be cost-effective.

The recent college bribery scandal, unsurprisingly, has unveiled how unfair the application process is, and that in most instances, it is exploitable and broken. Although potential students with impeccable resumes are revered throughout their academic life, admissions officers are still likely to favor pupils that will benefit the school’s funds and reputation. It comes with no surprise that children born to affluent families are more likely to get into an elite college than a child living in poverty. The elite college acceptance system is predicated on the completely legal ways wealthy people advance their children through tutors, test preparations, sports, donations, and legacy – students who are admitted “primarily because one or both parents are alumni” (Camera). Given the multiple instances of preference to the rich, it is obvious that merit is never the defining character in an application. Most people believe that being well-versed, having a perfect GPA, and the number of extracurriculars a student has will get them into an Ivy League school, but that is not always the case. There is one major factor that determines whether a student gets accepted into their dream school, in some cases large donations precede the admissions of donors’ children. According to Christine Emba, a reporter at CNN, a new focus has been placed on Jared Kushner – Donald Trump’s son-in-law – who’s father, a real estate developer, “pledged 2.5 million dollars to Harvard in 1998;” shortly after, Kushner was accepted into Harvard. Nowadays, families with the means will donate substantial amounts of money in order to continue their heritage. Although future students might claim that this is not a problem because there is no concrete evidence that children got in due to an unfair advantage, really, they miss that although it is only speculation, there have been too many cases of preference for us to dismiss. Ultimately, the admissions process is full of murky areas of bias and can be liable with the right amount of money or reputation; additionally, people have found new ways of an assured admission at a fraction of the cost it would take to donate.

 From bribery to cheating, the recent university scandal – disclosed by the Justice Department last month – revealed the lengths a parent will go to in order to get their child into prestigious colleges while students who work hard and deserve a spot are cheated out of a chance at a college education. In terms of wealth and connections, the affluent have no limits. Frankly, money makes the world go around, and the people accused in this scandal have plenty of it. According to Anemona Hartocollis – an editor at The New York Times – if their child was not able to get into a highly selective school, they funneled money into The Key – William Singer’s nonprofit organization in order for Singer to “pay bribes to coaches who could get them into college with fake athletic credentials.” Instead of depending on their kid’s ability to succeed in school, rich parents relied on Singer to provide a “side door” guaranteed method of admission. The door Singer offered, compared with the traditional route of donations, which could cost millions and uncertainty, is a relative bargain. Due to how competitive and cutthroat college admissions have become, bribing will not cut it and parents know that, so they have also resorted to cheating their child’s way in. With these highly selective schools – like Harvard and Princeton – that have an extremely low rate of acceptance, it figures that having a high SAT score will aid in the commission’s decision. Because of this, in order to assure a child’s spot was protected, Singer arranged for “students’ SAT and ACT results to be falsified by [sending them to take exams in Houston or Los Angeles,] where he bribed test administrators” (Alexander and Steverman). Parents with unlimited funds desire for their children to get accepted into an esteemed college, and according to this case, they will go to elaborate lengths in an effort to succeed. While wealthy people might claim that this is not a problem because it is their right to use whatever resources they possess, really they misunderstand that the essence of college is that everyone has fair access to education and if a certain few can cheat and bribe their way in, then are elite colleges really a status symbol of legitimate meritocracy. Overall, competitive and cutthroat admissions decisions are allocated based on fictitious extracurricular activities, ghostwritten personal essays, and the amount of money the applicant’s parent can give which takes the spot of a more deserving student.

In light of the college admittance fraud, we should implement an admissions lottery which would create an impartial application process and deter illicit activity. Allowing for a lottery system will benefit potential students and colleges in a more equitable way and also economize the process. Lotteries are governed by chance and a little luck. If we grasp and understand that concept, we can apply it to university admittance systems. The current admissions process indicates to students – who get into Ivy League universities – that they deserve their spot solely due to their own merits and in spite of their parent’s wealth or connections to the school. Unfortunately, that is not the reality; in fact, it is confirmed that “those who get into ‘elite’ schools come from wealthier, better-educated families” (Aisch). This concludes that merit is not equally dispersed across the population and that with a lottery system it can be fixed. Every year millions of students apply to colleges through CommonApp and ApplyTexas, which admissions officers would have to sort through to choose who gets accepted or denied. This operation is time-consuming and requires many people, especially if it is a renowned college known for its low acceptance rate like Harvard where “a forty-person committee of full-time, paid admissions officers [vote together on] tens of thousands of applicants” (Wexler). Because the system is laborious and exhausting due to thousands of applicants to sort through, creating a lottery system will cut back the amount of resources needed to pay officers in a process where admission is the significantly based on chance. Ultimately, the conventional way of admitting students into college has paved the way for corruption and inequality to transpire and in order to fix these issues enacting a lottery system would – in theory – eradicate bias.

Despite these benefits, parents may protest that creating a lottery system is filled with uncertainty and too many variables. They believe that lotteries might be a problem because they do not want to gamble their child’s future life with computerized admissions (Wong). They think this because they would like their child to be individualized and praised for their accomplishments and would rather stick to a system that might be weighted in their favor than depend on luck. However, they overlook the fact that college is supposed to be a symbol for fair access to education and that fairness requires random selection under the right conditions. They may also argue that a lottery system would include an exorbitant number of parameters (Camera). They believe this because its biased from the beginning due to setting admissions standards for entry “tickets” gives some students a higher chance of winning than others. Although this may be a problem at first glance, they miss that an admissions lottery will be more helpful because it will exclusively focus on the merits of each person while excluding preference towards the wealthy. Overall, a lottery system is the best available and adjustable plan in this current situation because it diminishes prejudice and promotes a meritocracy.

To fix the rigged admissions system, universities should enact a lottery where students are placed in categories that fit their academic profile. A scale will determine which classification will precede the next and how many are pulled out. This would include applicants who meet a certain academic threshold with stipulations that include live camera feeds in designated SAT-taking rooms, a minimum SAT or ACT, and GPA requirement – the more selective the school, the higher the minimum. The live cameras will discourage cheating and the minimum scores will ensure only the brightest minds are in the draw (Alexander and Steverman). The next component of the solution is making sure that any donations made to the universities, parents’ occupation, and the universities they graduated from will be retracted from applications (Wong). This will enable the system to place students into categories based on merit and extracurricular activities instead of preference towards legacy or affluent students.

Last month’s college scandal has revealed how unfair the admissions process is due to the rich using any means – illegal or legal – in order to guarantee admission spots for their children. It ignited public uproar because we are reminded about how deceitful the application process is. To fix it, we must repair the system for future students who would be casualties if we do not put an end to it. This is the most effective solution because it accounts for all the problems we are faced with right now. It will allow for full transparency and considers all probabilities. Despite the scandal incriminating school officials and coaches, despite the allowing of fraudulent activities to transpire, despite the favoring of legacy and wealthy students, all of this might deter prospective students from applying, but college is still a beacon for equal access to education; implement an admissions lottery and modify it to suit each colleges’ needs.

Legalized Pot Holes

Until its prohibition in 1937, extract of Cannabis sativa (marijuana) was one of the top three most prescribed medicines in the US. When it became illegal, its use as a medicine became restricted. Despite these regulations, research on the medical use of marijuana continued. In recent years, when some states decided to legalize smoked marijuana for certain patients, medical marijuana became a subject of contentious debate. Should patients be allowed to grow their own plants? Might medical use inevitably lead to recreational use? 2018 has been a banner year for the legal marijuana industry, as the national market for weed skyrocketed and five more states legalized it, reflecting widespread popular support. Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug at the federal level. That means it’s wholly illegal, defined as being prone to abuse, and not recognized as having any medical benefits. The big question is, when does this classification change?

There are few subjects that can cause more discord and debate among people than the topic of legalized cannabis. Cannabis, otherwise known as marijuana or weed, has been used since ancient times dating back to 500 BC in Asia for medicinal reasons. It was introduced to Western medicine in the 1830s by Sir William Brooke O’Shaughnessy who found that cannabis extract could aid in the prevention of vomiting and stomach pains in individuals with cholera. It has only recently caught negative attention in the 20^th century due to political and racial factors. Because of “massive unemployment and social unrest during the Great Depression,” anti-Mexican sentiments and terror of the “evil weed” were at an all-time high, which caused twenty-nine states to outlaw cannabis (Vasquez 10). This rapidly began the criminalization of marijuana and in 1970, Richard Nixon signed into law the Controlled Substances Act which listed weed as a “schedule 1 drug – along with heroin, LSD, and ecstasy – with no medical uses and a high potential for abuse” (Gieringer). Currently, some states have legalized marijuana in light of recent research that shows it can be beneficial. The legalization of both recreational and medicinal marijuana in certain states has led to an increase in the development of modern medicine, plummeted crime rates, and provided vast economic benefits for both state and federal governments.

The decriminalization of cannabis in some states has paved the way for a new era in modern medicine with numerous possibilities due to its effectiveness in alleviating chronic pain and easier access to other legal medications. If used responsibly, marijuana is as effective in alleviating pain and ailments as other legal medications, like opioids. With so many incurable and excruciating diseases in the world, we do not have the time and resources to substantially find a solution. According to “Marijuana as Medicine,” studies show that marijuana is especially helpful in many diseases like multiple sclerosis which is “the gradual loss in muscle control” and seizures. Through research and clinical trials, we have advanced our knowledge about marijuana and its effects on our health. With the modernization of science, we are now able to take the “high” aspect out of marijuana and use the certain chemicals it produces like cannabidiol (CBD) to help ease insomnia, anxiety, and nausea. Moreover, scientists reported that another component called tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) “slowed the growth of cancer cells growing in lab dishes” (“Marijuana as Medicine”). In addition to its health benefits, part of marijuana’s allure is that it is safer than opiates. In an effort to ease chronic pain, the number of opioid prescriptions has doubled over the last decade. According to Julian Morris – the executive director of the International Center for Law and Economics – in 2017 “more than 47,000 Americans died as a result of an opioid overdose” due to misinformation about opioids not being addictive (2). However, researchers found that opioid-related deaths plunged approximately twenty-five percent in thirteen states six years after marijuana was legalized. Some skeptics argue that synthetic substitutes that mimic marijuana effects like the FDA approved drug – Marinol – is just as beneficial as the real thing. The problem is that Marinol does not provide CBD, which studies have shown has antispasmodic, anticonvulsant, and anti-inflammatory properties. Also, Marinol is more psychoactive than regular weed because it is ingested orally. Overall, the legalization of marijuana in several states has furthered the advancement of modern medicine to allow for unconventional and new ways of pain management that are obtainable; additionally – to the surprise of the American populace – crime rates have dropped considerably.

In addition, the populous’ acceptance of legalized cannabis in certain states caused crime rates to decline because marijuana smokers do not have to rely on black-market products therefore, relieving the strain placed on law enforcement which allows for greater focus on violent crimes. According to Julian Morris, in the states that legalized marijuana and bordered Mexico, there was a drastic “reduction in homicides and aggravated assaults [and that the strongest impact] occurred at counties near the border” (1). When drugs are criminalized, supply will decrease, allowing for demand to rise, which cartels thrive on to make a profit. This evidence suggests that the legalization of cannabis mitigates the desire for marijuana smuggled illicitly from Mexico and thereby weakens drug trafficking organizations, along with the violence these organizations use to maintain dominance of the market. Moreover, a product of legalized cannabis is diverted police resources to more important cases. Some of these resources include money and legal proceeding. A recent study indicated legalizing cannabis led to an improvement in the “rate [of] clearance of cases relating to violent crimes” (Ingraham). Many concerned parents might argue that there is a reason that it is illegal in the first place. However, in 1971 Assistant Secretary of Health wrote a letter to Congress that explicitly stated that marijuana should only be “classified under Schedule 1 [due to] lack of evidence that it was harmful, not an abundance” and when the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse concluded that “there was not any medical basis for banning marijuana,” Nixon disregarded the consensus and “it remained illegal” (Vasquez 16-17). Ultimately, data shows marijuana has caused crime rates to drop due to diminishing needs of black-market production of weed that consequently enables law enforcement to devote more time to serious crime; additionally, legalized cannabis creates numerous economic benefits.

The legal use of cannabis has led to major economic benefits because of its booming industry of cannabis companies that have made an extensive impact on tax revenue and an increase in the job markets. According to Mrinalini Krishna, “sales in North America grew thirty percent and is projected to increase to $20.1 billion by 2021.” Through taxation, the state and federal government can allocate more money toward goods and services for people in need. This is evident in Colorado where the “Colorado State University-Pueblo’s Institute of Cannabis Research” recently found that the “legal cannabis industry has contributed more than $58 million to the local economy” (Krishna). When a state votes in favor of legalization of cannabis, the first initiative is setting up nurseries and dispensaries. In turn, this will create jobs and also trigger a flow of economic activity where it used to stagnate. New Frontier’s report predicts “nationwide legalization could generate 1.1 million jobs by 2025” (Vasquez 16). These jobs would emerge from the demand for laborers who can farm, process, and distribute cannabis. Some opponents adamantly argue that revenue gains ignore the significant burdens like how marijuana can result in lower IQ in our children. Except, that is a reason to set the legal age at twenty-one, not for making it illegal for everyone. Nevertheless, the legal status of marijuana makes it arduous to gauge its health “effects [being] that most studies are illegal under federal law” (“Marijuana as Medicine”). Overall, the use of marijuana has greatly impacted the economy for the better in states that have taken unprecedented measures to legalize both medical and recreational marijuana due to its exceptional tax revenue and the job outcomes it continues to create.

            The decriminalization of marijuana has led to the advancement of modern medicine, caused crime rates to fall, and produced a multitude of economic benefits. Cannabis has been used throughout history as medicine and its effectiveness is validated through studies. Legalizing marijuana does not mean there should not be any restrictions. Research shows that components of marijuana have been successful in easing pain and in some cases, killing cancer cells. Advocates demand legalization at all costs, legalization in spite of opposition, legalization, however lengthy and complicated the process may be; for without implementing new laws to decriminalize marijuana in the United States there is no progress in science. As intellectual human beings, we should sort out the costs and benefits of both recreational and medicinal marijuana using current scientific knowledge. Perhaps then, we’ll begin to legalize marijuana at the federal level again.

Works Cited

Gieringer, Dale H. “Medical Marijuana.” Encyclopedia of Drug Policy: “The War on Drugs” Past, Present, and Future, edited by Mark Kleiman and James Hawdon, 1^st Edition, Sage Publications, 2011, Credo Reference, search.credoreference.com/content/topic/medical_marijuana. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

Ingraham, Christopher. “Does Legal Weed Make Police More Effective?” The Seattle Times, 23 July 2018, http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/marijuana/wapodoes-legal-weed-make-police-more-effective/. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

Krishna, Mrinalini. “The Economic Benefits of Legalizing Weed.” Investopedia, DotDash, 22 Oct. 2018, http://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/110916/economic-benefits-legalizing-weed.asp. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

“Marijuana as Medicine.” National Institute on Drug Abuse, 27 June 2018, http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine. Accessed 22 Feb. 2019.

Morris, Julian. Does Legalizing Marijuana Reduce Crime? Reason Foundation, Sept. 2018, pp. 1-2. reason.org/wp-content/uploads/does-legalizing-marijuana-reduce-crime.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

Vasquez, Margie. Marijuana: Medical Uses, Regulations and Legal Issues. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 2016, pp. 9-17. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1226236&site=ehost-live. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

WOah, HuMAN’S Inalienable Rights

Hillary Clinton — at a conference in Beijing — said, “Human rights are women rights, and women’s rights are human rights.” She suggested in her speech that if the term women’s rights were interchangeable with human rights the world would be a better place. This phrase echoed throughout the world the moment it was broadcasted live and impacted so many generations of women to come. Yet, gender inequalities remain deeply entrenched in every society. Women lack access to decent work and face occupational segregation and gender wage gaps. They are often denied access to basic education and health care. Women in all parts of the world suffer violence and discrimination. They are under-represented in political and economic decision-making processes. This analysis further details her speech and gives insight to the same problems women still face today.

The fight for women’s rights is one of the most important civil rights struggles in U.S. history. On September 5^th, 1995, Hillary Diane Clinton delivered “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” in Beijing, China. She championed for women’s rights while protesting China’s dowry and one-child policies to a cavernous room full of world leaders. At the time, Clinton was only known as the first lady of the United States of America and before that, a Yale graduate. Her speech still resonates, twenty-three years later. Her speech catapulted her into the limelight, while also establishing her own political identity, apart from her husband. Clinton achieved the impossible in her prime as a young woman. In her speech, at the “United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing,” Hillary Clinton used a candid yet assertive tone, along with her experience and descriptions of the struggles women face across the world, in order to spread awareness to all the nations that women’s rights are human rights and put an end to the negative effects of the patriarchal society.

At the beginning of her speech, Clinton recounts her experience over the past twenty-five years working with women from different walks of life with the intention of establishing her reputation as a person who wants equality for all. Clinton intentionally begins her narrative using repetitive words to help emphasize her point to her audience. Her use of the word “every” in “every woman, every man, every child, [and] every family” emphasizes unity and accentuates that all human beings, in every aspect, are affected by the gendercide of women. This tool allows the audience to focus on minor details that clarify the speaker’s stance. She then switches to personal pronouns to further her credibility by informing the audience that “over the past twenty-five years” she has met a multitude of incredibly strong women from Indonesia, South Africa, India, and Bangladesh who devoted their lives to making society a better place. Clinton mentions meeting women who “helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping to build a new democracy.” Her experience with a multitude of women and their stories allows for her audience to visualize that women can be resilient and strong. Lastly, to further her credibility and silence any opponents, she implements a piece of statistics in her speech. Although women make up “more than half of the world’s population seventy percent of the world’s poor,” they are not valued by popular culture or government leaders; however, they are the primary caretakers of most of our elderly and children. Clinton’s use of these statistics increases her credibility in the eyes of the world leaders in the room. Ultimately, Clinton uses her expertise to initiate a sense of trust, in hopes that her credibility and history can persuade her audience to hear what she has to say; furthermore, Clinton reveals the mundane lives of women to illustrate the hardships they face behind the curtains.

In addition, Clinton uses her voice and status as the First Lady to discuss the problems women face every day in order to assert that there is more to a woman than cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the household. She starts with jarring examples of the cruel realities that women face. She talks about how women around the world are giving birth, raising children, and planting crops while watching their children “succumb to malnutrition” due to poverty. This exemplification clarifies her point and illustrates the impeding cruelty women face. Clinton reverts back to personal pronouns to stress that she wants to speak for all women whose voices go unheard. She wants everyone to know that she is championing for all the women “who are raising their children under minimum wage [to] the women whose lives are threatened by violence.” Clinton makes sure to include women from different walks of life to accentuate the fact that she will not exclude anyone. Lastly, she uses an anaphora to incite anger and resolve human right’s violations while making sure the audience is more likely to remember her points. With every example, Clinton begins with the phrase “it is a violation of human rights” to make the audience understand that it does not only violate women’s rights when “women and girls are sold into prostitution” or when they are “doused with gasoline and set on fire,” but overall, it is a violation of human rights. In the end, women are also human beings, they should receive the same rights. Ultimately, Clinton’s depiction of the daily lives of women across the world provides a clear image of how women are treated; furthermore, Clinton concedes that although her country is not perfect and has a long way to come, everyone should take the first stride in making equality for all.

At the end of her speech, Clinton calls for the end of injustice done to women in order to persuade the world to change the way they treat women and push for equality in every aspect. Clinton recounts how long it took to achieve women’s suffrage in the U.S. to encourage her audience to peacefully find a solution. She explains that women’s “suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.” The use of a metaphor in the speech allows Clinton to artfully create vivid imagery. She effectively paints a picture in the audience’s mind that it is a triumph that our country could achieve women’s right to vote without a bloody war. Although in the U.S., we celebrate women’s suffrage, Clinton concedes that “we still haven’t solved deeply rooted problems.” She uses this fact and reverts back to the use of personal pronouns like “we” and “our” to call for action to the severity of the problem while unitizing everyone. This strategy allows Clinton to respectfully concur that it is everyone’s problem without offending anyone. Finally, she uses parallelism to finish off her speech by repeating the phrase “family rely” at the beginning of every sentence. The use of the phrase gives Clinton the ability to affirm that countless people rely on tenacious women. This gives the audience a more compelling position that they are more likely to remember. Overall, Clinton’s utilization of her reputation as someone who is at the forefront of women’s inequality allows her to confidently call for global change.

In Hillary Clinton’s speech on women’s rights, she uses a critical yet passionate tone, along with her involvement on “issues related to women and children and families” and the battles women face, in order to make sure that all countries become accountable for their actions and convince them that women’s rights are human rights. The multitude of experience and the courage and the powerful speech are inspiring and hopeful to viewers from all periods of time to emulate her, but her cleverness and finesse cannot be duplicated. Her ability to recognize and renounce tragic events women face across the world not only shows her knowledge of the facts but also allows the audience to find common ground. When Hillary Clinton made the decision to talk at the Conference in Beijing, she was taking a risk due to China’s animosity. Despite pressure from her advisers to soften her remarks, Clinton called out human rights violations across the globe without intentionally naming China as the perpetrator. Two decades later, Hillary Clinton’s speech echoes in nearly all equality debate, with the phrase most commonly used as “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.” Although she did not coin the phrase, she most definitely popularized it as she did with the spread of the normalization of equality for both genders.

Works Cited

Clinton, Hillary. “Transcript: Hear Hillary Clinton’s Women’s Rights Are Human Rights.” 5 Sept. 1995. Edited by Sam Jones, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, 9 Aug. 2017, http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/amalia-pica/transcript-womens-rights-are-human-rights. Accessed 31 Jan. 2019.