- A California mother was hit with a three-week prison sentence, one year of supervised release, 250 hours of community service and a $9,500 fine for her participation in the massive college admissions scandal.
- Marjorie Klapper paid $15,000 to cheat on her son’s ACT and agreed to falsely claim her son was a black and Latino first-generation college student when he was not.
- The sentence has reignited conversations about sentencing disparities in cases involving white or wealthy people in comparison to poor people and minorities.
A California mother who paid $15,000 to cheat on her son’s ACT and falsely claimed he was a minority on his college applications was sentenced to three weeks in prison Wednesday, marking the ninth sentencing in the notorious college admissions scam.
Marjorie Klapper, a jewelry business owner, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud in May. To execute her crime, prosecutors say she made her payment out to a fake charity that the scam’s mastermind William “Rick” Singer created called Key Worldwide Foundation. Singer then paid a proctor to correct her son’s test, which resulted in him scoring a 30 out of 36.
According to the prosecutors’ sentencing memo, Klapper agreed with Singer to lie about her son’s background by saying he was “African American and of Hispanic/Latino origin.” She also agreed to say he was a first-generation college student, even though both of his parents had actually graduated from college.
Klapper’s attorneys said it was Singer and his assistant, not Klapper, who filled out her son’s online college applications that falsely presented his background.
Prosecutors had asked that she be sentenced to four months in prison and fined $20,000, while her attorneys pushed for no jail time. Instead, they asked for one year of supervised release, including four months of home confinement, 300 hours of community service, and a $20,000 fine.
The judge ultimately settled on the three-week sentence and included one year of supervised release, as well as 250 hours of community service and a $9,500 fine.
Similar Sentencing in Test-Cheating Cases
Her three-week sentence is similar to the other sentences that focus on the test-cheating aspect of the scandal.
Actress Felicity Huffman, for instance, began serving her two-week prison sentence Tuesday, after admitting she paid $15,000 to cheat on her daughters SAT test. Three other parents were sentenced to one month in prison for test-cheating bribes, while one other was given no jail time but a fine, community service, and probation.
U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Lelling said he disagreed with the three-week sentence, given Klapper’s bribe and her false claims about her son’s background.
“Ms. Klapper thereby not only corrupted the standardized testing system, but also specifically victimized the real minority applicants already fighting for admission to elite schools,” Lelling said in a statement. “We respectfully disagree that a three-week sentence is a sufficient sanction for this misconduct.”
Meanwhile, Klapper’s defense team argued that she was motivated by her child’s “legitimate and documented disadvantages,” as well as a recent violent assault. Klapper’s son suffers from seizures and has a learning disability, her attorneys said. They said Klapper chose to doctor his exams because she “wanted him to feel like a ‘regular’ student.”
“Mrs. Klapper’s motives were maternal but her execution misguided and illegal,” her attorney’s wrote. “Beyond question, Mrs. Klapper allowed her zeal to over-reach, for which she profoundly regrets and takes full responsibility.”
Internet Users Criticize Sentencing
As more and more of these sentences are handed down, social media users continue to criticize what they call leniency towards white or wealthy parents.
The lenient sentence are so white, African people who have been found guilty of sending their children to undesignated sch got five years sentences.— Viscount John Bull (@DvdTrnbll) October 17, 2019
She pretended to be a minority; but a minority, in her place, would have gotten 5-10 years behind bars.— Menard Millus (@Menardmillus) October 16, 2019
Three weeks. 14 days. For fraud, lies, bribes, etc. But, you know, they are privileged. So, there you go peeps. We don’t stand a chance where justice is concerned.— Velda Rene Burns (@singlblessed7) October 16, 2019
Similar reactions surfaced when Huffman was handed her 14-day sentence in September. The decision prompted many to compare these college admission scandal cases to other fraud cases involving low-income people of color.
One case many turned to was that of Tanya McDowell, a Connecticut woman who was sentenced to five years in prison for lying about her address to get her son into a better school district. At the time, she was homeless and living out of her van, shelters, and an apartment she only had access to at night.
Others pointed to the case of Kelley Williams-Bolar in Ohio, who used her father’s address to get her children into a better school district and was handed two concurrent five-year sentences that she was later able to reduce to 10 days.
Big names also jumped into the conversation like musician John Legend who argued that prison is not the answer in these types of cases no matter what a person’s income level is. He said there are other ways to hold people accountable.
As of now, a total of 15 parents have pleaded guilty for their part in the massive college admissions scandal, while 19 others are contesting the charges, including “Full House” actress Lori Loughlin and her fashion designer husband, Mossimo Giannulli.
The two are accused of paying $500,000 to get their two daughters into the University of Southern California as fake athletes and their trials are expected to begin in 2020.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (Los Angeles Times) (Fox News)
4 UC Campuses Admitted Dozens of Wealthy and Well-Connected Students Despite Being Less Qualified, State Audit Finds
- University of California campuses admitted 64 less-qualified but well-connected students between 2013 and 2018, state auditor Elaine Howle said in a report published Tuesday.
- In the audit, Howle concluded that the UC system “has not treated applicants fairly or consistently.” In an interview with NBC News, she also said hundreds of more students could have been unfairly accepted into these four universities.
- In one example described in the audit, an applicant made the lowest possible scores on their application and was flagged as “do not recommend,” yet a donor relations admin passed on that application to a coach, noting that the applicant’s father had the capacity to donate major gifts to the school.
- Howle has now recommended that the UC Office of the President oversees admissions for at least three years and said campuses should be required to verify athletic recruits’ talents.
Audit of UC Campuses
The University of California admitted dozens of less-qualified, well-connected applicants over a six-year period, “[depriving] more qualified students of the opportunity for admission,” according to a state audit report published Tuesday.
The report details how four UC campuses — Berkeley, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Diego — admitted 64 students (and possibly more) between the 2013-2014 and 2018-2019 academic years. According to state auditor Elaine Howle, the majority of those applicants were white, and at least half came from families with average yearly incomes over $150,000.
In one example outlined in the report, a child of a major donor applied to UC Berkeley but received the lowest possible score on their application, which was marked “Do Not Recommend.” Despite this, a donor relations administrator later passed that application along to an unnamed coach while noting that the family had a “huge capacity” to donate and was “already a big supporter of Cal.”
According to the audit, the coach then identified that applicant as a qualified student athlete, even though the applicant “had played only a single year of the sport in high school and at a low level of competition.”
After accepting a spot at Berkeley, the student’s family donated several thousand dollars to the team, but as the report notes, “The applicant never competed with the team, and the coaches removed the applicant from the team after the season ended.”
In a different example laid out in the audit, a UCLA coach admitted a student as an athlete as a favor to a donor, even though that student’s application had already been marked “Denied.”
In fact, 22 of the total 64 applicants were admitted with the endorsement of athletic departments, despite not meeting the athletic qualifications.
In another example, an applicant who babysat for the colleague of the former admissions director was accepted into one of the schools.
In a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom and the California state legislature prefacing the report, Howle concluded “that the university has allowed for improper influence in admissions decisions, and it has not treated applicants fairly or consistently.”
“By admitting 64 noncompetitive applicants, the university undermined the fairness and integrity of its admissions process and deprived more qualified students of the opportunity for admission,” she added.
As part of several recommendations, Howle said the UC Office of the President should oversee admissions for at least three years to “ensure that all admissions decisions are merit‑based and conform to the university’s policies on admissions.”
That recommedation will likely be especially stressed for UC Berkeley, which dominated the report with 42 of the total cases.
Still, in an interview with NBC News, Howle said she believes the UC system’s unfair admissions practice could run even deeper.
“There’s at least another 400 or so students… that were really questionable,” she told the outlet.
Because of all those factors combined, Howle has also recommended that beginning with the current admissions cycle, campuses should be required to verify athletic recruits’ talents and review donation records for possible impropriety.
In general, Howle noted that “applicants’ chances of admission were also unfairly affected by UC Berkeley’s, UCLA’s, and UC San Diego’s failures to properly train and monitor the staff who review and rate applications.”
According to Howle, at times, admissions staff were “overly strict or overly lenient in their review of applications,” which made “applicants’ chances of admission unduly dependent on the individual staff who rated them rather than on the students’ qualifications.”
UC President Responds
UC President Michael Drake said Howle’s audit follows two internal audits that identified many of the same issues, with Drake noting that Howle’s audit will be used to improve the admissions system.
“Individuals involved in improper activities will be disciplined appropriately,” he stressed.
A spokesperson for UCLA said its athletics-related incidents happened before the school adopted additional safeguards. Both UCLA and UC Berkeley noted that they have improved their admissions policies within recent years and that their review processes are fair.
UC Santa Barbara also said it has adopted recent safeguards, including having faculty committees review an athlete’s academic and athletic history.
Still, Howle’s audit uncovered many more cases of unfair admissions than an internal UC audit released in February, which found only two instances of possible impropriety. That audit was ordered by then-UC President Janet Napolitano following the national college admissions scandal that has led to convictions for actresses such as Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin.
See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (NBC News) (CNN)
Celebrities, Tech Companies, and Others Draw Attention to National Voter Registration Day
- Celebrities including Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Ryan Reynolds, John Legend, and others took to social media to encourage their fans to register to vote in recognition of National Voter Registration Day.
- Social media companies themselves have also launched their own efforts to get Americans to register.
- Facebook said Monday it has already registered 2.5 million people, but many say Facebook’s efforts do not go far enough and that people should be suspicious of its motives.
National Voter Registration Day
Thousands of businesses, election officials, celebrities, and others joined together Tuesday for National Voter Registration Day, a non-partisan campaign to register Americans to vote.
“National Voter Registration Day seeks to create broad awareness of voter registration opportunities to reach tens of thousands of voters who may not register otherwise,” the official website for National Voter Registration Day states.“Every year millions of Americans find themselves unable to vote because they miss a registration deadline, don’t update their registration, or aren’t sure how to register.”
The annual campaign has been highly successful in the past. According to the website, since the event first started in 2012, “nearly 3 million voters across all 50 states have registered to vote on National Voter Registration Day, including 1.3 million in 2018-2019 alone.”
But there is still a lot of work to be done. Nearly one in every four eligible Americans are currently not registered to vote, and as the campaign pointed out in a statement, “this year, due to COVID-19, voter registration is more important than ever.”
“Because of the closure of DMVs and halting of voter registration field programs amid the pandemic, the number of new and updated voter registrations collected across the country has fallen dramatically since March,” the statement continued.
To combat that, partners and community groups are hosting “both digital voter registration drives and safe, in-person registration events,” in addition to “working to provide accurate information to voters on how to prepare to cast a ballot, either through mail-in voting, early in-person voting, or going to the polls on Election Day.”
Celebrities Promote Campaign
Many partner organizations took to social media to promote the event Tuesday, as well as celebrities like Ryan Reynolds, Katy Perry, Kesha, John Legend, and more.
“This National Voter Registration Day, research the voting rights in your state and make a plan to vote,” Legend wrote on Twitter. “By making your voice heard at the polls, you can determine the future of our country’s criminal justice system.”
Taylor Swift, who, accordiong to vote.org, inspired 65,000 people to register to vote in in 2018, also shared the campaign and emphasized its importance in an Instagram story.
“Hey guys, it’s National Voter Registration Day today. The election is November 3rd. It’s really coming up, and I’ve put together a swipe-up of resources,” the singer said. “You can register if you’re a first-time voter, you can check your registration, you can request an absentee ballot, you can figure out the process of voting early. We need everyone, and it is more important than I can even possibly say.”
Facebook’s Voter Registration Efforts
In addition to celebrities joining in on the campaign on social media, most of the major social media platforms themselves also took part.
Earlier this week, Twitter said it would roll out its biggest push yet to get people to register on Tuesday. Facebook, for its part, already begun its efforts even before National Voter Registration Day.
On Monday, the company said in a statement that estimated it has already helped 2.5 million people register to vote this year through Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger — already more than the 2 million it registered in 2016 and 2018. With just over a month until the election, the platform seems it is well on its way to completing its goal of registering 4 million people by the election.
As part of its efforts to meet that goal and others, Facebook has implemented a number of initiatives. In August, the company launched a “voting information center” with resources about voting on Facebook and Instagram.
Last weekend, it held a poll worker recruitment drive and announced it would be giving paid time off its U.S.-based employees who want to work at the polls. Just over this past weekend, Facebook also started providing users with information about how to register to vote at the top of Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger.
The platform has also done a number of things internally to prepare for the election. Earlier this month, it announced several changes it had made to fight against voting misinformation, most notably including not running new political ads the week before the election.
While some say these moves by Facebook are commendable, many have believe they fall short. Others have even said we should be suspect of Facebook’s motives.
“Corporations are political entities, and we should not assume that platform voter registration campaigns are being done with only public good in mind and aren’t also strategic,” Jennifer Grygiel, a communications professor at Syracuse University who studies social media, told USA Today.
“Social media companies have a lot at stake right now as they face increasing regulation. Their efforts to register voters could be serving corporate goals, and we need to make sure they are not strategically registering voters in a way that could skew the election.”
Facebook and the Election
Facebook’s recent voter registration efforts also come as the company is receiving significant public pressure to do more ahead of the election.
Last week, numerous celebrities including Kim Kardashian-West, Demi Lovato, Jennifer Lawrence, and others boycotted Instagram and Facebook for 24 hours to demand the company do more to address misinformation and hate speech as part of the Stop Hate for Profit Campaign.
That campaign also led major boycotts against Facebook back in July by persuading huge companies like Mircosoft, Adidas, Ford, Coca-Cola, and more to temporarily halt their spending on the platform.
Despite all the mounting pressure, it is still unclear if Facebook will take any drastic steps.
During an interview with the Financial Times on Tuesday, Facebook’s Head of Global Affairs Nick Clegg said that the company will take serious steps to “restrict the circulation of content” on the platform if the presidential election descends into widespread chaos or violent unrest.
While Clegg did not provide any specifics, he did say the company had plans for a variety of outcomes, including civic unrest or having in-person votes counted faster than mail-in ballots.
While the country prepares for what is widely expected to be an incredibly contentious race, many worry that Facebook is not doing enough to prevent unrest, violence, and the misinformation in the lead up to Nov. 3rd.
As far as if Facebook will heed the demands that it do more before the election, that remains to be unseen.
“As well as fighting a rising tide of misinformation from both foreign and domestic operatives, experts warn that Facebook must prevent the platform from being used to foment violence,” The Times wrote.
“Mr. Clegg said Facebook was carrying out ‘proactive sweeps’ for dangerous groups and incitement, including ‘in areas where we know that their activity is likely to be more pronounced in other parts of the country.’”
See what others are saying: (USA Today) (The Financial Times) (Billboard)
Pentagon Redirected Coronavirus Response Funds to Defense Contractors, WaPo Reports
- In March, Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion under the Cares Act to help the country prepare and respond to the coronavirus.
- However, according to a Washington Post report, rather than using the money to build up the nation’s supply of medical equipment, the Pentagon funneled the majority of the funds to defense contractors and used it for making things like jet engine parts, body armor, and dress uniforms. It even gave funds to companies that had already received assistance from the Paycheck Protection Program.
- The report comes as healthcare officials continue to ask for more funding and medical equipment. Congress even criticized the Defense Department for not using the money as intended.
- Still, the Pentagon argues that the funds are crucial to niche manufacturers that have been impacted by the pandemic. It’s also asking for an additional $11 billion in the next stimulus package.
The Washington Post released a new report Tuesday highlighting how the Pentagon redirected taxpayer money meant for coronavirus response efforts.
Back in March, Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion under the Cares Act to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” The fund was allocated under the Defense Production Act, which allows the president to compel U.S. companies to assist in producing items deemed essential to the national interest.
After the money was allocated, however, the Department of Defense began reshaping how it would give out the funds in a way that deviated from what Congress had intended. Lawyers for the department concluded that the money could be used for defense production, including projects that had little to do with responding to the pandemic.
So rather than use that money to build up the nation’s supply of medical equipment, the report says the Pentagon funneled the majority of the funds to defense contractors and used it for making things like jet engine parts, body armor, and dress uniforms.
For example, Firms like Rolls-Royce and ArcelorMittal received $183 million to “maintain the shipbuilding industry.” Tens of millions of dollars were given for space surveillance, drone and satellite technology.
According to the Post, $80 million was given to a Kansas aircraft parts business that was “suffering from the Boeing 737 Max groundings and the global shutdown of air travel,” and around $2 million was awarded to a domestic manufacturer of Army dress uniform fabric.
The newspaper also reported that at least 10 of the 30 companies that received assistance from the Defense Department had also received loans through the Paycheck Protection Program. That program allocated billions of dollars in forgivable loans to the small businesses impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.
This news made critics even more frustrated because it seemed to once again show how bailout funds have been handed out unfairly in certain sectors of the economy.
For instance, the company Weber Metals received between $5 million and $10 million through the PPP in April to support 412 jobs, then it got an extra boost through a $25 million Department of Defense relief award in June.
When pressed about this, a Defense Department spokesperson told the paper that the two bailout programs are not “in conflict or duplicative,” because a PPP loan does not make any directive with respect to supporting national defense.
Still, the Post notes that the Trump administration has done little to limit defense firms from accessing multiple bailout funds at once. He’s also not requiring the companies to refrain from layoffs as a condition of receiving the awards.
COVID Relief Money Still Needed
This news comes as health officials across the U.S. continue to request funding for pandemic response efforts. In his Senate testimony just last week, CDC director Robert Redfield said states desperately need $6 billion to distribute vaccines to Americans early next year. On top of that, reports of severe N95 mask shortages at hospitals around the country have continued to emerge. Both are precisely the types of issues that the money was meant to help address.
The Washington Post notes that the $1 billion is just a fraction of the $3 trillion in emergency spending that Congress approved earlier this year. Still, it shows how in many cases, the money is redirected to firms that weren’t originally targetted for assistance.
It also shows how hard it is for Congres to track how this money is spent and intervene when changes are made.
The Pentagon did initially plan to spend the bulk of the fund on medical supplies. In April, Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, told reporters that three-quarters would go toward medical resources and the rest to defense contractors.
Then in June, she told lawmakers during a congressional hearing that the department realized defense contractors had “critical needs as well.”
According to the report, DOD lawyers approved an arrangement where some $17 billion in Health and Human Services funding would be used for the medical industry instead, freeing up more money for defense contractors. Ultimately, the Pentagon presented a spending plan to Congress in June that set aside $688 million for the defense industry.
So essentially the Defense Department claims that the funds are crucial to niche manufacturers that need production from the economic instability caused by the pandemic. Like companies that make aircraft parts for military and commercial jets, for instance. They’ve been pretty impacted by the slowdown of air travel.
Lord told the Post that her office had worked closely with Congress to meet the needs of both the medical and defense industries.
“We are thankful the Congress provided authorities and resources that enabled the [executive branch] to invest in domestic production of critical medical resources and protect key defense capabilities from the consequences of COVID,” she added.
“We need to always remember that economic security and national security are very tightly interrelated and our industrial base is really the nexus of the two.”
However, the Democratic-leading House Committee on Appropriations has made it clear that the Defense Department has not distributed the money as intended under the Cares Act.
The committee wrote in its report on the 2021 defense bill, “The Committee’s expectation was that the Department would address the need for PPE industrial capacity rather than execute the funding for the DIB (defense industrial base).”
The Pentagon has countered that it has been fully transparent with Congress about its plans. Still, the Post notes that the $1 billion in coronavirus funds came at a time when U.S. military spending was already near all-time highs.
According to the report, “the $686 billion defense budget for fiscal year 2019 is comparable to a typical year during the Cold War or the period shortly after 9/11, although it has declined somewhat as a percentage of the economy.”
It also notes that some of the major defense contractors have remained financially healthy despite all the pandemic related disruptions and have continued to pay stock dividends to investors.
Though its already given out millions, the Pentagon is requesting an additional $11 billion in a potential new stimulus.