To the editor: While I doubt that Georgetown University junior Adam Semprevivo was unaware that his father bribed his way through the admission process, I find it irrelevant to the school’s decision to rescind his admission.
Semprevivo was co-applicant in a fraudulent process. The fact that his parents could afford $200,000 in tuition over three years and hire an attorney to prevent the school from rescinding its admission offer does not mitigate this. Nor should it matter that he has kept up academically.
Semprevivo was part of the application. Georgetown has every right to enforce its decision despite the attempt by his parents to let him off the hook.
Glenn Egelko, Ventura
To the editor: Semprevivo’s attorney David Kenner wishes to rewrite basic law that clearly states one cannot indirectly benefit from the proceeds of a crime.
If a bank robber buys his mother a home with his stolen money, she is not entitled to keep it when he is finally caught, even if she had no knowledge of the source of funds. Likewise, whether these students were truly unknowing of their parents’ actions is debatable, but the colleges’ actions to oust them and strip them of their credits is the right thing to do.
The blame for this lies not with the college, but with the parents who thought stealing a slot for their child — just like stealing money from a bank — was something they could justify. The only victims in this entire scam are the deserving students who lost a slot that was stolen in this process.
Despite the public relations effort to rewrite history and frame these people as “concerned parents” and their children as “unknowing victims,” keep in mind this is no different than any other robbery.
David Higgins, Los Angeles