OPINION: USC, stop labeling yourself as the victim

Once again, USC administrators responded poorly to a scandal that made national headlines. After the FBI announced the indictments of seven USC employees involved in a college admissions bribery  scheme, the president’s office rushed to release a memo to the USC community asserting —underlined — that “USC is a victim” in this fraud “perpetrated against the university.”

This reaction makes sense from a public relations standpoint: It sends the message that USC is just as upset as everyone else. However, in labeling itself a victim, USC wrongfully denied fault and dismissed the frustration of the actual victims — students who actually earned their place at USC.

First, it is important to establish that generally, one’s claim to victimhood decreases as their culpability increases. It was USC employees — institutional representatives of the school — who allegedly assisted in fraudulent activities. It was USC that had lax enough procedures that allowed a student to apply and get admitted through USC athletics, although they had never played the sport they claimed to excel in.

The affidavit highlights multiple letters of concern sent from high school counselors about questionable acceptances. Those letters were dismissed by USC’s senior athletic administrators. Rightfully, the individuals who participated in the cover-up were fired, but to imply that senior associate athletics director Donna Heinel, who allegedly accepted nearly $1.3 million in bribes, wasn’t acting as an arm of the institution is simply false. A rogue arm, sure, but still connected to the body.

There was also negligence on a larger scale. A student fraudulently admitted to the University as a football recruit attended a high school that didn’t even have a football team. The fact that nobody caught that blatant lie indicates that in the best case scenario, there was widespread ignorance.

USC’s claim of victimhood is based on the argument that, because the highest levels of the institution were deceived by negligent lower levels of the institution, the University is not just innocent of the crime but a victim of that crime. That’s like the assertion that Chipotle was a victim of the norovirus outbreak spread by its food because Chipotle’s employees didn’t tell the company the food was contaminated before it was distributed.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the institution is only represented by the Office of the President. It implies that as long as Interim President Wanda Austin wasn’t aware of the fraud, USC committed no wrongdoing. But that contradicts the point of an institutional hierarchy. It’s top-down, with those on top being at least partially responsible for the conduct of the people below them. USC’s claim of victimhood is dishonest — it dodges responsibility and sends a regressive message that the University could not have done anything to prevent this.

Furthermore, saying the fraud was “perpetrated against the university” is a flat-out lie. This was a crime perpetrated against honest and low-income people. This was a crime intended to steal the actual merit of those without extraordinary means, and carelessly distribute that hard-earned merit to those who deserved none. Today, there is a large number of people who were denied a USC education because the University helped someone steal it.

USC missed an opportunity to acknowledge and apologize for its role in perpetuating American elitism, choosing instead to deflect blame onto its accomplices. As students, we are calling for a simple recognition of USC’s role in the corruption and an apology to the innocent people it hurt. The recently released plans to mitigate the crisis are promising, and they are the right thing to do. However, they shouldn’t be built on the deceptive notion that USC couldn’t have done better.