>>> NOW WE TURN TO THE U.S.

COLLEGE ADMISSION BRIBERY SCANDAL

THAT SHOCKED BUT HASN'T

SURPRISED MANY IN AMERICA.

SURPRISED MANY IN AMERICA.

THAT'S SOMETHING OUR NEXT GUEST

THAT'S SOMETHING OUR NEXT GUEST

DANIEL GOLDEN HAS DEVOTED MUCH

OF HIS CAREER TO UNCOVERING.

HE'S THE AUTHOR OF "PRICE OF

ADMISSION" AND EVEN WON A

PULITZER PRIZE FOR HIS WORK ON

THE TOPIC BACK IN 2004.

SO HOW MUCH HAS CHANGED IN THE

PAST 15 YEARS?

DANIEL TOLD OUR MICHEL MARTIN

THAT ITS ONLY GOTTEN WORSE.

IT'S PART OF OUR ONGOING

INITIATIVE ABOUT POVERTY, JOBS

AND ECONOMICS IN AMERICA CALLED

"CHASING THE DREAM."

>> DANIEL GOLDEN, THANKS SO MUCH

FOR TALKING TO US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> YOU GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION IN

2006 FOR A BOOK YOU WROTE AND

YOUR INITIAL REPORTING ABOUT HOW

THE SUPER WEALTHY CAN ENHANCE

THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR KIDS

TO GO TO ELITE COLLEGES.

SO TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT

THE SITUATION THEN AND WHAT'S

DIFFERENT ABOUT NOW?

WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THE CASE

THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS

BROUGHT NOW?

>> THAT BOOK GREW OUT OF A

SERIES THAT I WROTE FOR "THE

WALL STREET JOURNAL" IN 2003 AT

A TIME WHEN TRADITIONAL

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR

MINORITIES WAS UNDER ATTACK IN A

SUPREME COURT CASE.

AND I DID A SERIES POINTING OUT

THAT THE PREFERENCES FOR WEALTHY

WHITES, WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL

WHITE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, ARE

FAR MORE PERVASIVE AND HELP A

LARGER NUMBER OF STUDENTS.

AND ULTIMATELY THE SUPREME COURT

PRESERVED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY

A 5-4 VOTE AND I EXPANDED MY

SERIES INTO THE BOOK "THE PRICE

OF ADMISSION," THAT AS YOU SAY,

CAME OUT IN 2006.

NOW -- AND I -- MY BOOK

DOCUMENTED MANY, MANY INSTANCES

WHERE WEALTHY PEOPLE GAVE LARGE

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIVERSITIES

AROUND THE TIME THEIR -- THEIR

MARGINALLY QUALIFIED CHILDREN

WERE APPLYING, AND THOSE

STUDENTS GOT IN.

NOW, WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE

ENSUING DOZEN OR SO YEARS IS

THAT THE SITUATION HAS, IN

ANYTHING, GOTTEN WORSE.

FOR ONE THING, BECAUSE OF

INCREASING INCOME INEQUALITY, WE

HAVE AN AWFUL LOT MORE VERY RICH

PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET THEIR

KIDS INTO ELITE COLLEGES.

AT THE SAME TIME, THESE COLLEGES

HAVE BECOME EVEN HARDER TO GET

INTO, EVEN MORE SELECTIVE THAN

THEY WERE BEFORE.

>> WHY IS THAT?

>> I'D SAY THEY'VE BEFORE EVER

MORE SELECTIVE MAINLY BECAUSE

THEY HAVEN'T INCREASED THEIR

STUDENT BODIES.

YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER OF

APPLICANTS CONTINUES, YOU KNOW,

CONTINUES TO GROW AS THE

POPULATION GETS BIGGER.

AND EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT

SEEMS TO APPLY TO MORE COLLEGES

THAN EVER BEFORE BUT THE

COLLEGES ARE NOT KEEPING PACE IN

THE SIZE OF THEIR STUDENT

BODIES.

THAT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO

LOOK EXTREMELY SELECTIVE.

THEY WANT TO LOOK DESIRABLE.

YOU KNOW, HARVARD, IT ADDS TO

THE -- HARVARD'S MYSTIQUE THAT

IT ADMITS LESS THAN 5% OF ITS

APPLICANTS.

ANOTHER CHANGE THAT'S HAPPENED

SINCE I WROTE MY BOOK IS THAT IN

GENERAL THE PERCENTAGE OF ALUMNI

WHO DONATE TO COLLEGES HAS GONE

DOWN.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, FEWER ALUMNI

BY PERCENTAGE TERMS ARE SMALL

DONORS, GIVING $50 OR $100 A

YEAR.

THAT MAKES THE COLLEGE MORE

RELIANT THAN EVER ON BIG DONORS,

YOU KNOW, WHOSE GIFTS ARE OF THE

SIZE THAT WOULD BE INFLUENTIAL

IN OBTAINING A QUID PRO QUO.

IN OTHER WORDS, IN GETTING THEIR

CHILDREN INTO THE SCHOOL.

>> SO TALK A LITTLE BIT IF YOU

WOULD ABOUT ONE OF THE PIECES OF

YOUR REPORTING THAT GOT A LOT OF

ATTENTION WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED

DOING IT WAS ABOUT JARED

KUSHNER, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S

SON-IN-LAW.

CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS

THAT HIS PARENTS DID TO, IN YOUR

VIEW, SMOOTH HIS PATH INTO

HARVARD?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

I LOOKED AT JARED KUSHNER FOR MY

BOOK AS PART OF A STUDY I DID OF

ALL THE MEMBERS OF A COMMITTEE

AT HARVARD CALLED THE COMMITTEE

ON UNIVERSITY RESOURCES, WHICH

IS A COMMITTEE ESSENTIALLY OF

HARVARD'S BIG DONORS.

I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW

MANY OF THEIR KIDS WENT TO

HARVARD BECAUSE IF A LOT OF THEM

DID, IT WOULD SHOW A PREFERENCE

FOR MONEY OR WEALTH.

I NOTICED THAT THE KUSHNERS WERE

ON THAT COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS

SURPRISING BECAUSE JARED'S

PARENTS WERE NOT HARVARD ALUMNI.

I LOOKED INTO THEIR SONS, BOTH

OF WHOM HAD GONE TO HARVARD, AND

JARED IN PARTICULAR, AND WHAT I

FOUND WAS THAT AROUND THE TIME

HE WAS APPLYING TO HARVARD, HIS

FATHER HAD PLEDGED A $2.5

MILLION DONATION TO THE

UNIVERSITY.

AND I ALSO FOUND THAT JARED WAS

NOT A PARTICULARLY OUTSTANDING

STUDENT AND THE CLASSMATES AND

STAFF AT HIS HIGH SCHOOL WERE

UNIVERSAL IN AGREEING THAT HE

WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN INTO

HARVARD ON MERIT.

>> YOU STARTED LOOKING AT THIS

BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE

PLACING EMPHASIS ON AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION I ASSUME FOR FACE -- FOR

REASONS OF, YOU KNOW, RACE AND

ETHNICITY --

>> RIGHT.

>> AND POVERTY, RIGHT?

YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE SAID THAT

FOR MANY, MANY YEARS NOW WHITE

CONSERVATIVES JOINED BY THE

OCCASIONAL BLACK CONSERVATIVE,

LIKE CONNERLY, HAVE BEEN RAISING

A HUGE STINK ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION.

AND I DID WANT TO ASK YOU HOW

THIS CONVERSATION NOW INTERPLAYS

INTO THIS.

WE SEE NOW THAT THIS CASE THAT

HARVARD IS NOW DEFENDING ITSELF

AGAINST CHARGES THAT IT

DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, YOU KNOW,

ASIAN AMERICANS.

THE FOCUS, AS IN PRIOR CASES

AROUND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, LIKE

THE FISHER CASE AND THE

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, IS DIRECTED

AT BLACK AND LATINO KIDS WHO

WERE DEEMED NOT TO --

>> RIGHT.

>> -- BE WORTHY OR FIT TO BE AT

THESE INSTITUTIONS.

I MEAN, HOW DOES THIS EMERGENCE

OF THIS SCANDAL PLAY INTO THIS

ARGUMENT IN YOUR VIEW OR HOW

DOES IT CONNECT TO THAT?

>> WELL, THIS SCANDAL REINFORCES

THE POINT I MADE IN MY BOOK.

COLLEGE ADMISSIONS IS NOT A

SYSTEM WHERE EVERYONE GETS IN

BASED ON MERIT.

IT'S A CRAZY SYSTEM OF NUMEROUS

PREFERENCES, MOST OF WHICH FAVOR

WHITE AND WEALTHY PEOPLE.

THERE IS LEGACY PREFERENCE FOR

ALUMNI CHILDREN.

THERE IS DEVELOPMENT PREFERENCE

LIKE JARED KUSHNER GOT FOR

CHILDREN OF NONALUMNI WHO WERE

WEALTHY AND PREPARED TO DONATE.

THERE IS ATHLETIC PREFERENCE,

WHICH WOULD HELP SOME MINORITIES

IN SPORTS LIKE FOOTBALL AND

BASKETBALL, BUT THAT'S

OUTWEIGHED BY THE NICHE UPPER

CRUST SPORTS FOR RICH WHITE

KIDS.

THERE IS OTHER PREFERENCE AS

WELL.

SO THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE SKEWS

TOWARD WHITE WEALTHY APPLICANTS.

AND ELIMINATING AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION MIGHT WELL JUST INCREASE

THAT DEPENDING ON HOW THE, YOU

KNOW, WHAT IS DETERMINED TO

REPLACE IT.

>> THE OTHER THING I'D SAY IS, I

DO HAVE A LOT OF EMPATHY FOR

THESE KIDS WHO DON'T QUALIFY FOR

ANY OF THE PREFERENCES, EITHER

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OR THE

PANOPLY OF REFERENCES FOR THE

WEALTHY.

MAYBE 50% OR 60% OF STUDENTS IN

AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL OR OTHER

TYPE OF ELITE UNIVERSITY HAVE

ONE PREFERENCE OR ANOTHER.

THE REST ARE STRUGGLING UPHILL,

AND THAT INCLUDES ASIAN

AMERICANS WHO ARE NOT ADMITTED

IN THE PROPORTIONS THAT THEIR

TEST SCORES AND THEIR GRADES

WOULD SUGGEST.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THE HARVARD

LAWSUIT IS OSTENSIBLY ABOUT.

AS I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THAT CASE,

IT HAS THE RIGHT VICTIM.

ASIAN AMERICANS ARE VICTIMIZED.

BUT THE WRONG VILLAIN.

BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT THE

REASON THAT THESE ASIAN

AMERICANS ARE NOT GETTING INTO

THE ELITE COLLEGES AS MUCH AS

THEY SHOULD IS BECAUSE OF

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

YOU KNOW, YOU COULD MORE

JUSTIFIABLY SAY THEY'RE NOT

GETTING IN BECAUSE OF ALL THE

SPACES FOR LEGACIES AND

DEVELOPMENT ADMITS AND ALL THE

OTHER WEALTHY WHITE KIDS.

AND -- BUT NONETHELESS THERE IS

NO QUESTION THAT ASIAN AMERICANS

ARE KIND OF THE MODERN

EQUIVALENT OF THE WAY JEWS WERE

TWEETED IN THE ERA OF QUOTAS.

MANY MORE JEWS DESERVED TO GET

INTO THE ELITE SCHOOLS BUT THEY

WERE LIMITED BY QUOTAS.

THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS

QUITE PERSUASIVE THERE ARE

INFORMAL QUOTAS KEEPING DOWN THE

NUMBER OF ASIAN AMERICANS

STUDENTS.

>> WHEN PEOPLE FIRST LEARNED OF

THESE ARRESTS AND INDICTMENTS,

WE'VE BEEN HEARING A LOT OF

OUTRAGE FROM STUDENTS,

PARTICULARLY FIRST GENERATION

COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO TALK ABOUT

HOW HARD IT WAS FOR THEM AND,

YOU KNOW, HOW HARD THEY HAD TO

WORK AND HOW THEY REALIZED THEY

WERE KIND OF PLAYING CATCH-UP,

ESPECIALLY IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE

PARENTS WHO HAD GONE TO COLLEGE

BEFORE.

I WONDER IF AT SOME POINT WE'RE

GOING TO HEAR A DIFFERENT

PERSPECTIVE FROM THESE DONORS.

HAS ANYBODY SAID, LOOK, YOU KNOW

WHAT, THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE

SELF-FUND, WE'RE SUPPORTING THE

INSTITUTION.

WE'RE CREATING OPPORTUNITY FOR

OTHER PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE

WOULDN'T HAVE IT.

>> OH, YEAH, THAT'S THE

TRADITIONAL DEFENSE OF THESE

PREFERENCES, THAT THE MONEY THEY

GIVE SOME OF IT GOES TO FUND

FINANCIAL AID FOR NEEDY

STUDENTS.

AND I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF

FINANCIAL AID, I JUST DON'T

THINK THAT COLLEGES SHOULD

PROSTITUTE THEIR ADMISSIONS

PROCESS IN ORDER TO RAISE THAT

MONEY.

LOOK, THESE ARE GREAT

INSTITUTIONS, THE ELITE

COLLEGES.

THEY DO CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH.

THEY HAVE WONDERFUL PROGRAMS IN

THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES AND

PEOPLE WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE,

JUST LIKE THEY CONTRIBUTE TO

OTHER EXCELLENT CHARITIES.

THERE HAVE -- THERE ARE COLLEGES

THAT HAVE RAISED PLENTY OF MONEY

WITHOUT SACRIFICING ADMISSIONS

QUALITY.

CAL TECH COMES TO MIND.

I DID A CHAPTER ABOUT THEM IN MY

BOOK.

THERE IS ALSO VARIOUS COLLEGES

WHERE LEGACY PREFERENCES HAVE

BEEN ABOLISHED.

USUALLY IN STATES WHERE

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS BANNED BY

REFERENDUM OR COURT RULING, YOU

KNOW, THOSE COLLEGES FIND IT

DIFFICULT POLITICALLY TO DEFEND

HAVING LEGACY PREFERENCE, WHICH

BASICALLY HELPS RICH WHITE KIDS

WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION FOR MINORITIES.

IN THOSE COLLEGES, THEY'VE

SEEMED TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE

FUND-RAISING JUST FINE.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO

SOMETHING YOU TALKED ABOUT AT

THE BEGINNING.

YOU SAID THIS PROBLEM IS

ACTUALLY GETTING WORSE.

PART OF THE REASON YOU SAID IT'S

GETTING WORSE IS BECAUSE INCOME

INEQUALITY HAS INCREASED SO

DRAMATICALLY AND SO MANY PEOPLE

HAVE SO MUCH MONEY, AT LEAST THE

KIND OF PEOPLE WHO REALLY WANT

ACCESS TO THESE MARQUEE SCHOOLS.

SO WHAT IS THE -- WHAT'S THE --

WHAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT?

>> FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE RIGHT.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT REALLY THE

FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THEIR KIDS

THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.

I MEAN, THESE ARE KIDS FROM

FAMILIES THAT ARE WEALTHY ENOUGH

SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL BE SECURE

FOR LIFE NO MATTER WHERE THEY GO

TO COLLEGE.

I THINK IT IS ABOUT THE BRAND.

IT'S ABOUT FEELING LIKE AN

INSIDER, ABOUT BEING PART OF AN

EXCLUSIVE CLUB.

I MEAN, THERE IS STILL A WAY IN

THIS COUNTRY IN WHICH THE IVY

LEAGUES REPRESENT HAVING MADE

IT, YOU KNOW?

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUPREME

COURT, MOST OF THE MEMBERS WENT

TO LAW SCHOOL AT A BRAND NAME

UNIVERSITY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE U.S. SENATE,

A LOT OF SENATORS COME FROM

ELITE UNIVERSITIES.

THERE IS A SENSE IN WHICH THE

HALLS OF POWER -- THE CORE OF

AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT IS SOMEHOW

IN THESE SCHOOLS.

EVEN IF THEY AREN'T ANY BETTER

EDUCATIONALLY THAN A LOT OF

OTHERS, AND EVEN IF THEY DON'T

LEAD TO GREATER INCOME THAN A

LOT OF OTHERS.

SO I THINK THAT'S THE INCENTIVE.

IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU DO ABOUT

IT, THERE'S KIND OF TWO

CATEGORIES OF WHAT YOU DO,

RIGHT?

ONE WOULD BE THE TWEAKS IN

RESPONSE TO THIS IMMEDIATE

SCANDAL AND ONE WOULD BE DEEPER

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES.

THE TWEAKS WOULD INCLUDE, AS I

MENTIONED, CLOSER SCRUTINY OF

ATHLETIC RECRUITS TO MAKE SURE

THAT THE COACHES ARE ON THE UP

AND UP AND PUTTING FORWARD

PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO

PLAY ON THOSE TEAMS IN COLLEGE.

ANOTHER -- ANOTHER TWEAK WOULD

BE CRACKING DOWN ON THESE

INDEPENDENT COUNSELORS BY

LICENSING THEM OR REGULATING

THEM, RATHER THAN LETTING THEM

JUST BE A ROGUE FORCE DESIGNED

TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF THE

WEALTHY.

THOSE KINDS OF CHANGES MIGHT

HAPPEN.

THE DEEPER CHANGES THAT COULD

REALLY REFORM THE SYSTEM WOULD

BE THINGS LIKE ELIMINATING

LEGACY PREFERENCE, LIMITING

ATHLETIC PREFERENCE TO SPORTS

THAT MOST KIDS ACTUALLY HAVE A

CHANCE TO PLAY.

THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND I -- BUT I DOUBT THERE'LL BE

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE BECAUSE

WEALTHY FAMILIES AND CELEBRITY

FAMILIES HAVE A LOT OF CLOUT IN

OUR SOCIETY, AND THIS CURRENT

SYSTEM BENEFITS THEM AND THEY

BENEFIT FROM IT ACROSS PARTY

LINES.

SO, YOU KNOW, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND

REPUBLICANS BENEFIT FROM THE

CURRENT SYSTEM.

THEY WANT TO GET THEIR KIDS INTO

ELITE SCHOOLS, AND SO WHAT I

CALLED IN MY BOOK "THE LEGACY

ESTABLISHMENT" IS A POWERFUL

FORCE AGAINST MEANINGFUL CHANGE.

>> WE SHOULD DISCLOSE YOU AND I

BOTH WENT TO HARVARD.

I JUST WONDER IF YOU HAVE KIDS

WHO ARE INTERESTED IN GOING TO

THESE SCHOOLS, THEY WOULD THEN

BE LEGACIES, SO WHAT DO YOU DO

ABOUT THAT?

DO YOU JUST SAY YOU CAN'T?

>> ME PERSONALLY, MY SON DID NOT

GO TO HARVARD.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE -- I HAVE

STEP-GRANDCHILDREN.

THEY'RE TOO YOUNG TO BE MAKING

THESE DECISIONS YET, BUT I DON'T

THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T

EXPECT PARENTS TO VOLUNTARILY

SACRIFICE THE PREFERENCE THAT

THE SYSTEM OFFERS, SO, YOU KNOW,

I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WENT TO AN

IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL.

IF THEIR KID IS A TOP STUDENT

AND WANTS TO GO TO THE SCHOOL

THAT THE PARENT WENT, I DON'T

SAY, OH, YOU CAN'T DO THAT

BECAUSE YOU'RE USING LEGACY

PREFERENCE.

LEGACY PREFERENCE IS PART OF THE

SYSTEM.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM NOT TO

TRY TO MAKE A BIG DONATION.

NOT THAT I HAVE MANY FRIENDS WHO

CAN AFFORD A BIG DONATION, BUT,

YOU KNOW, LEGACY PREFERENCE IS

PART OF THE SYSTEM, AND IF A

STUDENT IS YEARNING TO GO WHERE

THEIR PARENTS WENT AND IT'S THE

BEST FIT FOR THEM, YOU KNOW, SO

BE IT.

I WENT ENCOURAGE THEM IF THEIR

CHILD IS NOT ACADEMICALLY ABLE

OR STRONG ENOUGH TO BE THE BEST

CANDIDATE FOR THAT SCHOOL.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO FIND

THE SCHOOL THAT'S THE BEST FIT.

IT MIGHT BE THE PARENTS' SCHOOL

THAT'S THE BEST FIT, BUT, YOU

KNOW, IT MIGHT WELL BE SOME

OTHER SCHOOL.

>> DANIEL GOLDEN, THANK YOU SO

MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> THAT WAS A DETAILED LOOK AT

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND

COMPLEX AREAS OF AMERICAN LIFE.

THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM

TONIGHT.

THANKS FOR WATCHING "AMANPOUR &

COMPANY" ON PBS AND JOIN US

AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.