George Will: All-too-real parable of ‘privilege-hoarding’ | TribLIVE.com
George F. Will, Columnist

George Will: All-too-real parable of ‘privilege-hoarding’

George Will
1605953_web1_gtr-a5-richkidscolleges-032419
Despite a national college admissions scandal, there are still plenty of wealthy parents who get their kids into school the old-fashioned way — by spending lots of money legally. The USC campus in Los Angeles is shown after the announcement of "Operation Varsity Blues."

WASHINGTON

Nestled on the Front Range of the Rockies, the city of Crystal was a largely upper-middle-class paradise, chock full of health-conscious and socially conscious — meaning, of course, impeccably progressive —Coloradans. Then in slithered a serpent in the form of a proposal for a new school, to be called “Crystal Academy,” for “accelerated and exceptional learners.” Suddenly it was paradise lost.

This “deliciously repulsive” story (one reviewer’s scrumptious description) with “Big Little Lies” overtones (the same reviewer) is told in Bruce Holsinger’s compulsively readable new novel “The Gifted School.” It is perfect back-to-school reading, especially for parents of students in grades K-12. And it is wonderfully timely, arriving in the aftermath of Operation Varsity Blues — who knew the FBI could be droll? — which was the investigation into a very up-to-date crime wave, the scandalous goings-on among some wealthy parents who were determined to leave no ethical norm unbroken in their conniving to get their children into elite colleges and universities.

In Holsinger’s book, school officials, speaking educationese, promise that as 100,000 children compete for 1,000 spots — the dreaded 1% rears its ugly head — there will be “a visionary, equitable, and inclusive admission process.” Four mothers who have been friends forever, but might not be for long, begin becoming rivals in what they regard as a nearly zero-sum game, as they plot to game a process that looks alarmingly fair.

Their children are embarked on a forced march to demonstrate that they are “gifted,” a word “that slashed like a guillotine through other topics.”

Because Crystal Academy is to be a magnet for students whose transcripts are clotted with AP (advanced placement) courses, it is definitionally elitist, and consequently an awkward fit for good (and affluent, and credentialed) progressives who are determined to lie and cheat in order to maximize the already considerable advantages of their family cultures. Students’ submissions for a school’s science fair become the parents’ projects.

The parents in Holsinger’s book insist that their corner-cutting, truth-shading, thumbs-on-the-scale maneuverings and brazen lies are, as people usually say, “all for the children.” All, that is, except for the large dollop that is for the bragging rights of parents who have hitched their status anxieties to their children.

Now teaching English literature at the University of Virginia, Holsinger previously was at the University of Colorado, and he says Crystal is a “reimagined Boulder.” He probably did not have to strain his imagination. He told The Wall Street Journal that you take “over-parented kids, over-invested parents, a cutthroat [college] selection process, and the rest kind of writes itself.”

He has deftly written a satire that arrives when it is needed most — when it is difficult to distinguish from sociology. As America becomes more cognitively stratified, with rewards increasingly flowing to the well-educated (or expensively credentialed, which is not the same thing), the recent college admission scandal has become, Holsinger says, “one of the great cultural parables of our time.” It is a parable about, in another Holsinger phrase, “privilege-hoarding,” as American life uncomfortably imitates his art.

George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.