By Guillermo Matias Benedit, Rendage Chalani Fernando, Olivia Mendez Romero, and Olubukola Osuntade

The Operation Varsity Blues scandal revealed deep flaws in the admissions processes of some of the most prestigious universities in the United States, including Yale, Stanford, the University of Southern California (USC), and Georgetown (Medina et al., 2019; Fry, 2019). These institutions, many of them part of the Ivy League, are known for their rigorous selection processes, which Rick Singer managed to take advantage of through what he called the “side door” (Kasakove 2021; Cowen, 2019). By forging connections with athletic coaches and recruiters, Singer manipulated admissions by falsifying athletic profiles and securing spots for students who otherwise would not have qualified (Morrison, 2021; Wilson, 2021). While university leaders claimed ignorance of the scheme, the involvement of staff members in these practices raised serious ethical questions about accountability and integrity (Medina et al., 2019; Yale Daily News, 2019).

Singer played a pivotal role as the mastermind of this scandal. Through his college admissions consultancy, “The Key,” he positioned himself as a trusted advisor to wealthy families desperate to secure admissions to elite institutions (Berghel, 2020). These families were motivated by societal pressures to ensure their children’s success, believing that acceptance into top universities would solidify their status and provide long-term advantages (Files et al., 2021; Wilson, 2021). Singer exploited this anxiety by presenting himself as a solution, offering a guaranteed pathway to admissions through unethical methods (Medina et al., 2019; Cowen, 2019).

Families paid substantial sums of money, often disguised as donations to Singer’s fake foundation, which were then funneled to university staff as bribes (Fry, 2019). This system not only undermined the meritocratic values of higher education but also exposed systemic vulnerabilities, particularly in athletic admissions, which often operate with minimal oversight (Files et al., 2021; Morrison, 2021).

The scandal also brought attention to the longstanding practice of accepting large donations from wealthy families to influence admissions decisions (Taylor & Medina, 2019). While universities insisted that these donations were legitimate and unrelated to Singer’s scheme, the blurred lines between legal and illegal practices raised questions about fairness and privilege in higher education (Berghel, 2020; Wilson, 2021). For decades, elite universities have benefited from a system where wealth often provides an advantage, whether through legacy admissions, development contributions, or other forms of preferential treatment (Hextrum, 2021).

The scandal resulted in fines, prison sentences for parents, and the dismissal or prosecution of university staff (Kasakove, 2021; Cowen, 2019). In response, universities introduced measures to improve transparency in admissions, especially in athletic recruitment, to restore public trust. However, it highlighted the persistent privilege and inequity in higher education, fueling debates about access, fairness, and accountability (Files et al., 2021; Medina et al., 2019).

Analysis of Leadership Decision

As Rehbocck et al. (2023) pointed out, when people hear the word “leader”, they think many different things. What leadership is and what it constitutes might vary depending on the way in which such term is defined. It can also vary according to the frame used to understand people´s behavior and their positionality within a structure (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Still, it has been explained that a leader can influence a group of followers in the direction of a future vision (Yaslioglu, & SelenayErden, 2018).

In the case of study, Rick Singer was not a formal leader in any of the involved institutions, in fact, he did not work for any of them. Still, it is possible to argue that he is the person taking the leadership position since he managed, in most cases, to keep his commitment to get his clients accepted into the universities of their desire (Smith, 2021; Fry, 2019). One of the significant aspects of the case is that Mr. Singer managed to involve, manipulate, and control the actions of members of different athletic departments in those Ivy League universities (Lens, 2021; Degler & Ladwig, 2023). By manipulating laws, and also creating legal entities, Singer crafted different structures to pursue his goals of getting rich by ensuring that his clients get accepted by the universities they desired (Files et al., 2021).

The decision to admit or not to admit a student in each university is a sophisticated process that involves many factors that aim to provide a space for those who earn it (Burns, 2022). By creating what Mr. Singer referred to as “side door” (Smith, 2021), he altered, unilaterally, the selection process creating a disparity and an unfair advantage in favor of those who could pay for it. His decision was based only on selfish reasons, getting as much money as he could. While it could be possible to challenge that notion because Mr. Singer’s clients did get the benefit of being accepted in those universities, the said argument is as tarnished as such acceptance. Instead of helping those young people to improve themselves and get into the desired universities, or to another to which they could have been accepted, Mr. Singer took away the validity of the “achievement”. At the same time, his actions, once discovered, tarnished the institutions and the general community from those universities.

Application of Multiple Ethical Lenses

Ethic of Critique

The Operation Varsity Blues scandal has highlighted longstanding inequities within the college admissions system, revealing how wealth and privilege can disrupt the path to higher education. This issue underscores the importance of critically examining the structures and practices perpetuating these disparities.

The ethic of critique is deeply committed to amplifying the voices of those who lack power and challenging the prevailing structures that maintain inequalities (Berges Puyo, 2022, as cited in Hoare et al., 2024). For example, Lens (2021) described how college leaders let wealth and privilege push aside real merit in getting into top schools. It is exactly those kinds of unfair power setups that need to be broken apart. These are precisely the types of entrenched power dynamics that critical theorists seek to dismantle, highlighting the need to rethink and reform decision-making processes within educational institutions.

Scot Cowen (2019) noted the advantage given to those who can afford extensive preparation and influence through donations, showcasing the unfair leverage of economic power in education. This highlights the need for a fairer system, as some leaders in the scandal ignored or even facilitated fraud. Hextrum (2021) explained how legacy admissions sustain racial and economic inequalities, prioritizing privilege over equity and often excusing these biases with claims of ignorance when exposed.

This perspective is crucial in understanding how decisions are influenced not only by individual’s sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ but also by broader social expectations and norms. The narrative surrounding the scandal reflects these societal values, particularly the association of success with prestigious educational institutions. Schermele (2024) described the scandal as more than just a legal issue; it is a cultural story about who gets access to power through education. This aligns with Smith’s (2021) observation that the real issue is not a lack of colleges but a high demand for a few prestigious ones, revealing a societal obsession with elite status.

Educational systems often serve as mechanisms of social reproduction, privileging certain groups while marginalizing others (Wood & Navarez, 2014, as cited in Hoare et al., 2024). Berghel (2020) provided a breakdown of admissions demographics, showing a disproportionate representation of affluent, primarily White students in categories like athletics and legacy admissions. These statistics highlight systemic advantages that skew fairness in admissions, underscoring the need for policy reforms to reduce bias and promote greater diversity and equity in college admissions.

Moreover, Cowen (2019) highlighted societal complicity in maintaining privileged access to education, urging a systemic overhaul that includes more voices in governance. This aligns with the ethic of critique’s emphasis on the role of power dynamics and the importance of voice in the decision-making process. Similarly, Berghel (2020) and Paris (2019) emphasized that educational leaders must consider the broader implications of their decisions on societal values and the distribution of opportunities. These reflections encourage transparency, accountability, and a commitment to equity in redefining educational opportunities.

In conclusion, analyzing the Operation Varsity Blues scandal through the lens of the ethic of critique exposes how deeply rooted inequalities shape access to higher education. This lens highlights the ethical responsibility of educational leaders to challenge systems that privilege wealth over merit and to foster equity and inclusion. By addressing these disparities, the ethic of critique underscores the need for education to amplify the voices of those who, lacking privilege, are often denied opportunities in a system accustomed to being corrupted by wealth and influence.

Ethic of Justice

The ethic of justice proposes the prioritization of the rule of law (Patel, 2024) by accepting the idea of justice as blind, and hence equal to every person (Siegel, 2018). In the case known as Varsity Blues, there are different laws and regulations involved. These regulations impact several aspects of the case and deserve their own analysis.
While the admission process to Ivy League universities follows certain internal rules, the way in which those rules work gives the decision makers such large room for personal influence that they allow intentional manipulation of the results, which ends up contradicting the entire idea of a fair and blind process (Files et al., 2021). The ethic of justice in this case could challenge the fact that the lack of clarity in the rules means that there are no rules, hence, while the decision made by leaders in the admissions departments present themselves as ethical and fair under the justice lens, in fact they are based on selfish and self-centered behavior.

However, the most relevant aspect of the justice lens in this case, involves the behavior of Rick Singer. He offered the parents of the students who wanted to get into these universities several illegal options. Those options involved getting fake medical certificates to make sure that the students who have preferential conditions to take the standardized tests, to get someone else to take those tests on the students’ behalf, to pay bribes to coaches and faculty members of different universities, among other things. To make matters worse, a large portion of these actions were committed using mail, which turn illegal actions into Federal Crimes, with a harsher punishment (Lens, 2021). The ethic of justice lens makes it clear that any way in which a law is broken is contrary to the ethical standards. The fact that there were tens of criminal convictions clearly shows that the conducts and decisions were unethical.

Authors’ Positionality

Our group’s personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and academic training shaped how we looked at the ethical dilemmas in the Operation Varsity Blues case. Some of us come from places where fairness in education is highly valued, so we felt frustrated by how the system was manipulated. Others have seen how privilege and inequality often play a role in opportunities, so we approached this case with a focus on the larger systemic issues. Our studies in education and leadership helped us see how important accountability and fairness are, especially in institutions that claim to value merit.

At the same time, we recognize our own biases. Some of us tend to focus on fixing broken systems, which might mean we do not hold individuals accountable enough. Others might put too much weight on individual choices without fully considering the bigger picture. Working together helped us balance these views.

Each of us brought different perspectives to the discussion. Some highlighted the universities’ role in allowing this to happen, while others focused on the societal pressure that pushed parents to make unethical choices. Looking at the case through different ethical frameworks helped us see how both individual actions and systemic changes are needed to address problems like this.

Each team member contributed uniquely to our understanding of the dilemma. Olivia provided an in-depth exploration of the case, and Matias critically analyzed the leader’s decisions, highlighting key ethical concerns. They also applied multiple ethical lenses, such as the ethic of critique and the ethic of justice, to evaluate both individual actions and systemic implications, while also working together to connect these frameworks to practical scenarios. Bukky developed alternative solutions, offering actionable recommendations that addressed both immediate and long-term challenges. Chalani synthesized these contributions, integrating diverse viewpoints into this author’s positionality statement. This collaborative approach allowed us to examine the ethical dilemma holistically, balancing individual accountability with a systemic critique

Alternative Solution to the Case

The Operation Varsity Blues shed light on systemic inequities in elite college admissions. Rick Singer, having observed that the conditions for getting into these high-ranking schools are stringent and had loopholes, decided to create a “side door” to perpetuate his acts (Smith, 2021). However, there are alternative solutions that can mitigate against the actions that led to the scandal. The alternative solutions are rooted under the ethics of justice and community.

The ethic of justice stems from the point that there should be fairness, ensuring that rules are in place and followed, addressing systemic inequities by emphasizing equal opportunities and rights (Paris, 2019). Using the ethic of justice to address the Operation Varsity Blues by setting clearer rules and eliminating incentives for loopholes focuses on creating a transparent, equitable, and consistent admissions framework. This approach ensures that fairness prevails, and opportunities are not distorted by privilege, corruption, or manipulation (Cowen, 2019). The ethic ensures rule clarity and loophole prevention. This is achieved by giving rules that stem from having clear and objective admission criteria. It also aims to eliminate subjectivity determined to minimize vague criteria like “cultural fit” or “institutional needs,” which are susceptible to bias. Another major tool is to abolish legacy and donor preferences and ban policies that prioritize children of alumni or large donors. There should be enforcement of rules ensuring applicants are evaluated solely on merit and equitable considerations as this was considered a major loophole.

Athletic recruitment should be aligned with the same admissions criteria, preventing exploitation of sports programs for non-athletes. There should be a transparent system for applicants to ensure fair and open appeals process. Clear, accountable, and published rules eliminate confusion and reduce perceptions of bias or favoritism, which will eventually restore public faith in the admissions system. There will be potential resistance on these rules as alumni and donors accustomed to legacy benefits may push back against changes. Balancing strict merit-based criteria with the need to address systemic inequities could generate tension.

The other ethical lens considered as an alternative solution is the ethic of community. This is aimed to prioritize the well-being of the larger community over individual interests, fostering inclusivity and addressing systemic disparities. This can be achieved by evaluating applicants not just on academic merit but also on their potential contributions to their communities. Ensuing that there is community representative in the admission panel where representatives from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds in admissions committees are incorporated to have a broad perspective in decision-making is a good tool to consider. This might be a complex process as it will be difficult to balance community priorities with traditional academic criteria. But the end game is to reduce overemphasis on privilege and wealth by valuing community-oriented achievements (Wilson, 2021).

Table 1: Comparison of the alternative approach.

Conclusively, integrating the ethic of justice and that of community, ensures that the admissions process can evolve into a fairer, more inclusive system that aligns institutional priorities with societal values.

References

Berghel, H. (2020). A critical look at the 2019 college admissions scandal?. Computer, 53(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2019.2951211

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2017). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Burns, D. P. (2022). University Admissions, Justice, and Virtue. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 29(3), 173–182.

College admissions scandal: Your questions answered. (2019). The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/college-admissions-scandal-questions.html

Cowen, S. (2019, April 8). We are all complicit in the college admissions scandal. Higher Education Today. https://www.higheredtoday.org

Degler, A., & Ladwig, C. (2023). “Operation Varsity Blues”: Preventing Future College Admissions Scandals. Journal of Critical Incidents, 16, 85–87.

Files, L. B., Meiners, R. E., & Morriss, A. P. (2021). Corruption in University Admissions and the Administrative Allocation of Scarce Goods. Brigham Young University Law Review, 47(1), 1–66.

Fry, N. (2019). The college-admissions scandal and the banality of scamming. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-college-admissions-scandal-and-the-banality-of-scamming

Hensley, E. (2021). Double counting: The effect of wealth on college admissions. College of the Holy Cross. https://www.holycross.edu/sites/default/files/2021-09/Hensley_Ethan_Thesis.pdf

Hextrum, K. (2021). White property interests in college athletic admissions. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 46(4), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/01937235211015352

Kasakove, S. (2021, October 9). The college admissions scandal: Where some of the defendants are now. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/us/varsity-blues-scandal-verdict.html

Lens, J. (2021). Operation Varsity Blues and the NCAA’s special admission exception. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 31(1), 147–200. https://doi.org/10.18060/24923

Morrison, W. B. (2021). Country club sports: The disparate impact of athlete admissions at elite universities. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2021(3), 883–920.

Patel, R. (2024). Ethic of Justice. In A. Hoare, O.B. Osuntade, & R. Patel (Eds.) Ethical Educational Leadership. Untangling Ethical Dilemmas and Imagining Alternative Futures. TRU Open Press.

Paris, D. C. (2019). Scandal! Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51(4), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2019.1618136

Rehbock, S. K., Hubner, S. V., Knipfer, K., & Peus, C. V. (2023). What kind of leader am I? An exploration of professionals’ leader identity construal. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 72(2), 559–587. https://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.1111/apps.12389

Siegel, R. B. (2018). Blind Justice: Why the Court Refused to Accept Statistical Evidence of Discriminatory Purpose in McCleskey v. Kemp – And Some Pathways for Charge. Northwestern University Law Review, 112(6), 1269–1292.

Smith, C. (Director). (2021). Operation Varsity Blues: The college admissions scandal [Film]. Netflix Original.

Taylor, K., & Chen, D. W. (2019, June 12). Stanford coach avoids prison in admissions scandal. Have colleges avoided blame? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/stanford-coach-college-admissions-scandal.html

Taylor, K., & Medina, J. (2019, May 1). Chinese family reportedly paid $6.5 million to consultant for spot at Stanford. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/yusi-zhao-stanford-university.html

Wilson, G. (2021). The legal college admissions scandal: How the wealthy purchase college admissions to the nation’s elite, private universities through donations. BYU Education & Law Journal, 143. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/byuelj2021&section=9

Yale Daily News. (2019, April 1). Students say scandal worsened their view of Yale. Yale Daily News. https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2019/04/01/students-say-scandal-worsened-their-view-of-yale/

Yaslioglu, M. M., & SelenayErden, N. (2018). Transformational Leaders in Action: Theory Has Been There, But What About Practice? IUP Journal of Business Strategy, 15(1), 42–53.