News

Damning Report on Illinois Scandal

August 7, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

When the Chicago Tribune revealed in May that the University of Illinois had used a "clout" admissions system -- in which trustees and senior administrators pressured admissions officers on behalf of politically connected applicants -- the university insisted that its admissions system was fundamentally fair and running well.

B. Joseph White, president of the university system, issued a statement at the time in which he said that tracking applications from the politically connected applicants "does not and should not translate into inappropriate pressure for admission," that the numbers involved were small (160, he said), that the university "does not succumb to pressure." He noted, further, that the article "makes no assertion that unqualified individuals were admitted to the University. This must always be the case."

On Thursday, a special state panel created to investigate the allegations raised by the Tribune issued a report consistent with the newspaper's findings and raising questions about much of the university's initial statement playing down the articles. There were actually 800 applicants placed on the "clout list," senior university administrators did in fact routinely pressure admissions officers to admit them -- in a number of cases after decisions had been made to deny admission -- and applicants who were more qualified than those admitted were in some cases denied admission.

"In scores of instances, the influence of prominent individuals -- and the university’s refusal or inability to resist that influence -- operated to override the decisions of admissions professionals and resulted in the enrollment of students who did not meet the university’s admissions standards -- some by a considerable margin," the report says. "In this way, sponsorship by prominent individuals at times became a heavy thumb on the scale, giving advantage to clouted applicants, who were typically from affluent backgrounds, and unfairly disadvantaging those in the general applicant pool."

These admissions offers "resulted, at least in part, from pressure applied by sponsors that high-ranking university officials, in turn, channeled to subordinates involved in making admissions decisions. In so doing, these officials routinely did nothing to block or diffuse the pressure (or, worse, amplified it), and thereby signaled their own endorsement of the applicants," the report added.

The admissions system in which candidates with clout were considered separately "derived its lifeblood from the active participation of, and tone set by, those at the top of the university. Numerous persons -- both within and outside the university’s administration – bear responsibility for compromising the fairness and integrity of the admissions process."

The panel found that individual trustees "personally participated in admissions applications in a manner that demonstrated a disregard for University-sanctioned principles of ethical conduct and fair dealing and lapses in judgment." Further, the panel said that President White "failed to exercise appropriate oversight of persons who reported directly to him and who, on a regular basis, engaged in admissions related abuses" and "personally participated in admissions applications in a manner inconsistent with university-sanctioned principles of ethical conduct and fair dealing."

And the panel found that Richard Herman, chancellor of the flagship campus at Urbana-Champaign, "personally and extensively participated in admissions applications in a manner inconsistent with university-sanctioned principles of ethical conduct and fair dealing."

Given the extensive trustee involvement in the system, the commission called for the resignations of all members of the Board of Trustees who are gubernatorial appointed (two did so in the days leading up to the report and one did so just after the report was released). A reconstituted board, the investigative panel said, should conduct "a thorough and expeditious review of the university president, the UIUC chancellor, and other university administrators, with respect to the information set forth in this report."

To prevent future problems, the commission recommended that the university:

Eliminate the special admissions category it had used (but suspended amid the outcry over the Tribune's revelations) for politically connected applicants.
Create a "firewall" around admissions officers with policies that "prohibit the consideration of sponsorship by prominent individuals or other undue influence in the admissions process."
Evaluate whether an appeals process is needed for undergraduate admissions and, if it is needed, "ensure that it is fully transparent and accessible to all applicants."
Create a "process to respond to admissions-related inquiries from prominent individuals without breaching any 'firewall' established by the university."

In addition, the commission urged the General Assembly to "enact legislation that would create an inspector general dedicated exclusively to the state’s universities. Alternatively, the existing Office of Executive Inspector General should be afforded additional resources to enable the office to devote substantially more attention to these universities."

The university's administration and trustees issued a joint statement soon after the final report was released, pledging to carry out many of the recommendations, including eliminating "clout" admissions and establishing many of the reforms suggested by the commission.

"The university is committed to correcting problems with the admissions process. Effective immediately, we are moving forward with several significant changes to the University’s admissions process, all reflecting three key principles: The process must be fair to all applicants, the process must be transparent, and the process must offer equality of access," said the statement.

"The composition of the Board of Trustees is a matter Governor Quinn will address. The entire university community is committed to working with Trustees as we work together to regain the public trust," the statement said.

The Tribune reported that, at a press briefing after the report was released, President White said he agreed with its recommendations, saying that it was "a very good report." He said that the criticism the commission made of hm and of Herman was "proper," but said he would continue to lead the university.

At Urbana-Champaign, the outgoing and incoming chairs of the Faculty Senate have called a special meeting of the Senate Executive Committee for August 17 to meet with Chancellor Herman. "We will be considering what role the faculty, and especially the Senate, should play in admissions procedures in order to best protect the integrity of the admissions process. We will probably also discuss whether we would like to make some recommendation regarding the selection process and composition of the UI Board of Trustees," said Joyce Tolliver, the incoming Senate chair and associate professor of Spanish and gender and women's studies. "Our primary concern at this meeting will be with how best to move forward in the face of the current crisis."

— Scott Jaschik

Go to comments (11) »

Get Hired!

See all postings »

Matching Jobs

Most Popular

Comments on Damning Report on Illinois Scandal

What about the other 2 universities in the same system?
Posted by Gene , Learning Scientist on August 7, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
I wonder if this inquiry will lead investigators to often reported Shenanigans in the admissions processes at the University of Illinois at Chicago (a city where the use of clout is standard operating procedure) and the University of Illinois at Springfield, both parts of the same university system as Urbana. I suspect that investigators will be speaking with current and former high ranking officials from those two institutions as well...at least I hope that they will.

Not so fast....
Posted by Jim on August 7, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
The Illinois panel's recommendations would go a long way to end admissions abuse at the U of I, and also to stop the inappropriate interference in admissions by Illinois elected officials and gubernatorially appointed trustees. However, I believe one should distinguish between admissions decisions resulting from political bullying (e.g., the threat of harmful legislation or budget cuts by legislators), and decisions based on other types of non-academic considerations (such as admitting the daughter of a generous and loyal alumnus).
While it may be tempting to dismiss any non-academic admissions considerations as inappropriate, the reality of college admissions is not so pure or clear cut. For example, nearly all public and private selective universities are acutely aware of the importance of recruiting full fee-paying students. Public universities, for example, often lower the admissions bar for out-of-state applicants who who will pay higher, non-resident tuition and fees.
Universities with top ranked football and basketball programs admit talented athletes whose academic credentials may be shockingly low. Selective universities often give a preferential nod to legacy applicants, to disadvantaged applicants with weak credentials, to veterans, and to applicants from underrepresented minorities. When I was an undergraduate years ago at an Ivy League university, it was well known that applicants from Wyoming had an easier time getting admitted than applicants from New York. Are such practices fair? It depends on one's perspective.
And even if a school were to adopt, say, a name-blind admissions policy that heavily weighted SAT scores and high school grades as the determining factors, there would be implicit economic biases to the practice. High SAT scores and GPAs correlate very strongly with family income, and high income means more full fee-paying students, and thereby less strain on the university budget. That's why universities build fancy student centers, luxurious dormitories, and sushi-serving dining halls - all intended to attract upper income students.
Administrators claim that such practices are intended to serve the larger good - that admitting the dim-witted son of a billionaire alumnus is justified if it results in a new classroom building that benefits thousands of students. Critics claim that the ends do not justify the means.
My point is that the ethical terrain in college admissions is not always demarcated by clear fence lines. One contributor to the murkiness is that admissions goals at public universities are not hard and fast. A school can always take on a few more students in its freshman class, so that admitting a wealthy legacy, for instance, does not mean that a more qualified applicant is rejected. (This is not true of, say, law or medical school admissions.)
Furthermore, selective universities always have more qualified applicants than they accept, so giving preferential acceptance to a few students doesn't necessarily translate into admitting unqualified students.
I think it is important that legislation, whether in Illinois or other states, not be so heavy-handed that it fails to recognize the ambiguities and multiple goals of college admissions. That said, I strongly oppose political interference in the admissions process.
However, I also oppose tying the hands of campus leaders so they are unable ever to make admissions decisions that would serve the larger interests of their schools, even if the decisions fall outside the normal review process. What is needed, in my opinion, is the development of a transparent philosophical framework to guide such decisions. Appropriate considerations would be the number of "slots" available (and 800, as at the U. of I. is way too many), the prohibition of personal gain, political pressure, and the admission of clearly unqualified applicants.

Daming Report on Illinois Scandal.
Posted by Viper at SIUC on August 7, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
Yes, it is bad. Formerly, U of I had elections for Trustees but this was changed by the former Governor who decided to appoint trustees and we now know why. The investigation should not only encompass U of I but other state institutions to see if they also have been in violation of their role. Better still, why not end the system of appointment of Trustees by the Governor and instead have free elections so that people from the surrounding community who care for their university can fill these positions instead of certain individuals who use the role of Trustee for financial and political advantage.
The whole system has to change and this is another example of the " culture of corruption" affecting this State.

Posted by Anne D. Neal , President at American Council of Trustees and Alumni on August 7, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
The situation in Illinois is a deplorable one, so it’s perhaps understandable that faculty want to change the trustee selection process. But the governance structure is not the problem. Trustees who are derelict in their duties deserve our reproach and should be reprimanded or dismissed. The current system of gubernatorial appointment is perfectly capable of dealing with such cases, as Governor Quinn’s swift actions demonstrate. The Illinois constitution also gives the governor the authority to remove trustees "for incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance." Furthermore, as we argued in the Chicago Sun Times, the current system allows for greater accountability than alternative proposals which would make it harder to pin down responsibility. As a single elected official, the governor is accountable. If gubernatorial appointees fail, the governor bears the responsibility.

Posted on August 7, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
The long post by "Jim" carries the 60s philosophy: "If it feels good to a president, then do it." The fact is, practice based on a code of ethics often involves saying "no" to powerful people and even doing what does not feel good. A college president second-guessing those whose expertise is admissions is a small step from a college president pleasing a religious donor by pressuring to tone down critiques of "intelligent design." Setting fire walls protects a president from practicing foolishly outside her/his area of expertise as much as it protects more qualified experts to who such a president is simply a nuisance. The only people who should object are those whose leadership positions depend upon patronage.

Don't forget our state legislators
Posted by retired , old man at UIUC on August 7, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
There are a number of prominent state legislators that also participated in this. WHY do they get to thumb their noses at the commission and go on in their corrupt ways? Just because they are powerful leaders? NO - that is why they need to go - they've demonstrated time and again that they will bend ever rule to suit themselves.

Posted by Viper on August 7, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
To Anne D. Neal, This present system of appointment is undemocratic and reminiscent of feudalism. When trustees were elected prior to Governor Rod, this sort of thing did not happen. What is wrong with free elections rather than political appointments so we can get the political corruption in the state of Illinois out of higher education? You are too closely connected with this system to be regarded as really objective here..

Clarify: UIC NOT involved
Posted by UIC Prof on August 11, 2009 at 4:45am EDT
In response to Gene who said "I wonder if this inquiry will lead investigators to often reported Shenanigans in the admissions processes at the University of Illinois at Chicago (a city where the use of clout is standard operating procedure):"
No. You are slinging accusations unfairly. Read the report.
The report singled out procedures used by UIC as worthy of emulation. It noted that UIC College of Medicine officials repeatedly rebuffed attempts to interfere in the admissions process. Also, a thorough probe of emails uncovered no clout in other admissions at UIC (nor at UIS). While it may feel titillating to throw around such accusations, you are penalizing people who behaved properly in the face of adversity. That means you are fighting the solution to this problem; next time, read the report if you are concerned.
Not mentioned in the report: UIUC's use of clout corresponded to a period where UIUC was funded at about 4-5 times the level of UIC. (Federal grants are only 30% higher for UIUC; and, the student population is about twice that of UIC.) It seems likely that the clouted admissions shifted funds away from the other campuses.

déjà vu?
Posted by Dan , Alumnus at UIC on August 17, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
Well, this is not the first time U of I President B. Joseph White has been in hot water with Governor Quinn. Deja vu all over again, actually.
Two years ago, Quinn wrote wrote a strongly worded protest letter to White, Chancellor Herman and the Board of Trustees over its treatment of military veterans in another admissions scandal in the Business School. Both Quinn and now-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel got involved. Quinn's letter was posted by the Associated Press and Chicago blogger Marathon Pundit. Just Google "Quinn White military marathon pundit" and see what comes up. In the veteran scandal, U of I shortened admissions deadlines for veterans and active duty soldiers overseas -- AFTER they applied and without telling them. The same new deadlines weren't used for civilians. The entire story can be found at www.scribd.com/protectingveterans.
Totally agree with previous posters that the UIC campus has ZIP to do with this CLOUT scandal and its administrators were never implicated whatsoever.

University Admissions
Posted by John A Silvi , Research Analyst at Former Employee LSAS/LSAC on August 27, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
The focus on the scandal at U of I revolves around the selection process for law school admissions. In working with the DOJ in presenting the proposal in 2005 (Case No# DJ 169-73-0) that would resolve the impasse and adhere to a non-bias admissions process, I have enclosed the passage that INSIDE HIGHER ED published on Dec 5th 2006 'Rough Ride for Law School Accreditor'
First and foremost, No Individual has been denied access to an undergraduate program. Our government has worked hard to insure that everyone, regardless of Race and the ability to pay has the opportunity to higher ed.
But the law school selection process has always been the center of controversy.
The 'Old Diversity Standard' was based on a define process to ensure both academics and financials upon law school graduation with the opportunity to ensure representation within each diverse community. But now the tough questions can be asked as this scandal widens.....
1) What did the Law Council offer in resolve to the Hopwood and Grutter Decisions ??
There is no record of involvement by either the current or past CEO's of the Council or Services organizations (respectively). The Regents at U of I did nothing more than spring the trap. And should the DOJ intercede and review all admissions over the last twenty years, we will find that all law schools have violated the process that was discussed in 1980 and
‘Re-introduced' at the 2005 Review Meeting.
As I have always stated, it is 'Control' by the Admissions Regents versus 'Compliancy' of the US Supreme Court Rulings’
The monies generated by the admissions process is the root cause. But with the Firms now in-charge of handling the upcoming lawsuits that will be generated out of this scandal, we are going to get down to the Bottom of this entanglement. 'Due Process'
Jack: You have always had the answer at hand. Now it will be played out !!
'Rough Ride for Law School Accreditor'
“The ABA council, which has stamped its seal of approval on 195 U.S. law schools, approved a new diversity standard at its August meeting revising a policy that was initially introduced 26 years ago. The standard does not specify what “concrete action” an institution should take, instead outlining a number of options, including race-based admissions preferences, special recruitment efforts and programs designed to meet the academic and financial needs of underrepresented groups. Institutions in states where race-based preferences are prohibited in public university admissions or employment decisions would have to find another way to meet the ABA council’s diversity standard. The standard is not quota-based, but it is in fact its very flexibility that was called into question Monday.”

Whats wrong with clout?
Posted by Principle on December 12, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
What is wrong with using clout? If the school is not 100% government funded then back off. There is some economics involved. If there are customers willing to pay the premium then why should they not have access to the service?
If you want all to be fair take away all regulations away from admissions and go purely on academics. Take away all quotas for diversification, so that only the applicants with the highest academic scores are accepted. No special quotas for Native American, African American, Hispanic, etc... How is any of this manipulation fair?

Search News