One is Condemned, the Other is Praised

33 wealthy parents were charged with breaking the law in getting their children admitted to the colleges of their choice. The illegal actions took two forms: [bold added]

to bribe coaches and administrators to designate their children as top recruits in such sports as football, water polo, soccer, track and volleyball at universities including the University of Southern California, Georgetown and Wake Forest. Some parents also allegedly paid Mr. Singer as much as $75,000 for test-cheating services.

Yale was worth a million bucks to one parent. He should have saved his money (WSJ graphic)

Parents on the list, like actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, have lost jobs. Business executives have been suspended and also may eventually be fired. Sole proprietors and highly paid professionals have had their reputations impaired, perhaps permanently. The obloquy has been visited from across the political spectrum, as no one can defend cheating by the already-wealthy and privileged.

I can't condone (and I solemnly swear that I never did) what those parents did, but I understand it. And why so much outrage?

1) One source of anger is the belief that those admitted would not have gotten in based on "objective" criteria like SAT scores, but why is it okay for the bar to be set lower for affirmative-action applicants, some of whom also come from wealth and privilege? The latter don't have to cheat to raise their scores, because a low score is good enough if they happen to be in the right group.

2) The parents broke the law in a misguided attempt to give their children a better life. In contrast those crossing the southern border illegally are lauded for doing the same. Of course, there's a big difference; trying to sneak into USC, Stanford, or Yale doesn't put kids' lives in jeopardy like marching across Mexico with no food, water, or money.

The former is condemned, but the latter is praiseworthy. As is often the case, how one reacts to the story is a big story, too.