It’s clear to me that the message that a sufficient amount of money let’s you subvert the rules weakens trust in society and increases justification for an every man for himself strategy.
Assuming just $10m for 2 of his children to be admitted? That’s enough to fully fund the education of ~50 low-income students [1].
I personally believe we should turn these quiet donations into a public bidding process instead to maximize what colleges can receive and ensure it’s done in as fair of a way as possible, but that’s separate.
[1] It’s important to distinguish that the donations went to the university, not a corrupt official at the university. This is actually productive.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-16/qatar-pr...
https://theunionjournal.com/qatar-prince-awarded-usc-masters...
It's a shame how easily the reputation of the US higher education is being ruined. If an entity that already has billions of dollars in endowments can be corrupted, what chance does society have?
It's important to distinguish that these are not donations, they are payments in exchange for admission into the school. But good thing that they can be considered donations, so that it's gives the "donor" a tax benefit, another subversion of the rules available for those with money.
I think all donations should be anonymous, and there should be no tax benefit for donating. That's the only way to prevent quid pro quo and the inevitable plausible deniability defense. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with anonymous donations, unless they are intending to get something in return.