question: Why is paying a chartable organization money to pay staff/people to allow your child into a college a crime, but donating directly to that college to allow your child to attend not?
comment: If you're talking about the recent scandal, they didn't donate to a charitable organization to get their children in. What happened in the current scandal is various bribes were paid to people at the college, as well as others who helped manipulate or fabricate test results and false academic credentials. That's fraud.
passages: In March 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos appointed Robert Eitel, a former Career Education Corporation and Bridgepoint executive, as a special advisor. In July 2018, DeVos delayed the implementation of a rule intended to help students receive debt forgiveness if they were cheated by their college. In September 2018, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against DeVos, finding the delay of implementation to be unlawful.
  
  Section::::Student debt groups.
   Since the act's passage in 1990, numerous institutions have been found noncompliant and significantly fined. From 2008–2012, 14 higher education institutions were fined for Clery Act noncompliance. Large scale Clery violations resulted in financial fines at institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, Eastern Michigan University and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
  
  Section::::Incident.
   Private institutions are given significantly more authority over their students than public ones, and are generally allowed to arbitrarily dictate rules. In the Kentucky State Supreme Court case "Gott v. Berea College" (1913), it was upheld that a "college or university may prescribe requirements for admission and rules for the conduct of its students, and one who enters as a student implicitly agrees to conform to such rules of government", while publicly funded institutions could not claim the same ability.
   The College of DuPage had a special fund for administrators called an "imprest fund." Any purchase made from the fund that is under the $15,000 is not subject to disclosure to the public or review by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees reportedly failed to review the itemized receipts for $26 million of expenditures that college administrators have spent over 16 months. In October 2014, "The Washington Times" awarded COD its weekly “Golden Hammer Award,” given for waste, fraud, and abuse, in response to its management of this fund.
   Section::::Personal jurisdiction.:General jurisdiction.
   Building on "Rosenberger" CIR brought a second case on behalf of Columbia Union College. The school challenged a Maryland Program which provided private colleges and universities with funds based on the number of students they taught. Numerous Catholic colleges received funding but CUC (run by Seventh Day Adventists) was deemed "pervasively sectarian" or too religious. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that CUC was entitled to equal access to funding.
   the $3,000 donation. The reason for doing so was that the CRA felt that it was
  
  not a gift since a gift is a "voluntary transfer of property without valuable
  
  consideration or benefit accruing to the donor or to anyone designated by the
  
  donor as a result of the transfer."
  
  The CRA concluded that the donation was actually an amount calculated by
  
  Weldon Park—in other words, part of the tuition, receipted as a donation, and
  
  therefore not a voluntary gift.
  
  In fact, in 2001, after becoming aware of "unorthodox or illegal charitable
   A possible development case is illustrated by Jared Kushner's Harvard acceptance. This case is specifically named by Daniel Golden's book "The Price of Admissions: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way Into Elite Colleges - and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates". In the book, Golden highlights the 1998 donation of $2.5 million by Jared's father Charles Kushner. Golden argues that this donation influenced the decision-making process of the admissions committee and ensured Jared's acceptance for 1999. Golden quotes sources from Jared Kushner's high school who did not believe that Kushner could be accepted on merit alone.
   Petitioner taxpayer sought review of the decision of the lower court, which held that expenses paid by petitioner for maintaining his two minor children in day school and boarding school were non-deductible family expenses within the meaning of 26 U.S.C.S. § 24(a)(1).
   Southeastern Community College vs Davis was a landmark case because it helped define the outlines of Section 504 regarding reasonable accommodations and what accommodations would drastically impact a program. It was the first case that brought attention to Section 504 and now any program does not have to make changes that would affect the core of the program or that would have an unnecessary financial burden.
   Section::::Decision.
  
  The Supreme Court upheld the arrangement by finding that it did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the instruction was not held within the school building and received no public funds. William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, reasoned that "this 'released time' program involves neither religious instruction in public school classrooms nor the expenditure of public funds... The case is therefore unlike "McCollum v. Board of Education"."
   In an average year, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, were distributed to Catholic or religious private schools. Taxpayers filed suit, arguing that this violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
  
  Lee Boothby, representing parents who opposed the aid program in Louisiana, said the issue at stake was "our historic commitment that taxpayers not be required to subsidize religious schools."
  
  Section::::Opinion of the Court.
   Applying these rationales to the Board's case, the Court determined that the program, previously found unconstitutional in Aguilar, was neither aiding nor inhibiting religion in an impermissible fashion. Reasoning that the aid was distributed according to secular criteria, and offered to all eligible students regardless of school choice, the system of distributing aid was neutral with respect to religion. The program as enacted by the Board did not give any incentive for anyone to alter their religious views.
   The school was investigated by the federal government between 2011 and 2014 after it offered financial aid to students in its new four-year class offerings without receiving federal approval. Officials at the college claimed it was not required because the programs had not substantially changed the school's educational composition. The federal government agreed to reimburse some funding for the year 2014 but did not immediately make a decision about the prior three years.
   "She urged me to plead my case to the High School Academic Dean, a stern gray haired Brother of Holy Cross, to both loan me the application fee and forward a decent recommendation. I was shaking in my boots. He silently pondered the circumstances yet nodded his head and agreed to accept the personal risk despite the potential anger of my Father . . ."
   SSCCC is registered with the California Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts. SSCCC is required by law to "file with the Attorney General periodic written reports, under oath, setting forth information as to the nature of the assets held for charitable purposes". SSCCC's report for the period beginning April 29, 2015 and ending December 31, 2015 shows that SSCCC's revenue was $0 and that its total assets had a value of $0. The report for January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 shows revenue of $0 and total assets of $0. The report for January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 shows revenue of $0 and total assets of $0. Each of these reports was signed on November 2, 2017 by Courtney L. Cooper, who was at that time SSCCC's "chief executive officer".
   The Journal of Business Ethics reports that fraud losses affect not only small, local charities run by volunteers but also large, well-known charities with thousands of employees. Examples include $1.5 million of employee theft at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, $43 million of improper payments to grantees at The Global Fund, and a $26 million endowment write-off at New York University due to a fraudulent investment manager.
   A federal criminal case was filed against the former president, Dolores Cross, and the financial aid director (the accountable fiscal officer), Parvesh Singh, alleging that they had, on behalf of the university, submitted to the Department of Education (the grant administrator) false declarations of enrollment of students for semesters when, in the specified semesters, the students identified in the declarations had not, in fact, been enrolled. Since the grant-in-aid program's structure required the federal funds received to be applied to each individual enrolled student's account, the two school officers committed their second offense of embezzlement when they unlawfully applied these funds directly to ineligible college costs, such as for paying of personal staff, instead of applying the funds to offset individual students' enrollment expenses.
   On June 18, 1999, the School held its graduation ceremony, at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, financed and insured entirely by the school district and conducted entirely under its direction. Lassonde delivered his speech and distributed handouts as agreed. When he reached the portions that had been excised, he said that portions had been censored, and told the audience that he would distribute the uncensored speech outside the graduation ceremony and give the full speech on Sunday at his church.
   On August 11, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education rejected the college chain's attempt to make its schools non-profit for Title IV financial aid purposes, leaving the schools for-profit for Title IV. In the Department of Education's statement, they said "non-profit institutions must be owned and operated by a non-profit where no part of the net earnings benefit any private shareholder or individual," and it had found, in its review, this was not the case. The CEHE filed suit against the Department of Education on August 30, calling its decision "arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with the treatment of similarly situated nonprofit schools."
   In the case of tuition fees paid to a private 501(c)(3) school or a church school, the payments are not tax-deductible charitable contributions because they are payments for services rendered to the payee or the payee's children. The payments are not tax-deductible charitable contributions even if a significant portion of a church school's curriculum is religious education. In order for a payment to be a tax-deductible charitable contribution, the payment must be a voluntary transfer of money or other property that is made with no expectation of procuring a financial benefit equal to the amount of the transfer.
   Section::::In the media.:CSH actions against faith-based initiatives.
  
  In 2007, CSH sued the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) to block the use of state funds in contracts to faith-based programs for released inmates, claiming that this use is prohibited under the "No Aid" provision or Blaine amendment of the Florida constitution. The initial decision found in favor of the DOC but, on appeal, the case was remanded in 2010 on just the issue of the unconstitutionality of appropriating state funds for this purpose.
   LaForest J's attention then moved to whether the University was a government body. The "Public Purpose" test alluded to in "Dolphin Delivery" is not determinative. The fact the school was created by statute and received a significant portion of its funding from government was insufficient. Nor was the fact it is regulated by government and fulfilled a public service sufficient. LaForest J noted that universities still function as autonomous bodies and the government had no direct power to control the school. Instead, the school is governed by a Board of Governors which is not the representative of government.
   While the Court has prevented states from directly funding parochial schools, it has not stopped them from aiding religious colleges and universities. In "Tilton v. Richardson" (1971), the Court permitted the use of public funds for the construction of facilities in religious institutions of higher learning. It was found that there was no "excessive entanglement" since the buildings were themselves not religious, unlike teachers in parochial schools, and because the aid came in the form of a one-time grant, rather than continuous assistance.
   Section 504 only requires that the school develop a plan for the child (unlike an IEP, which is a legally binding contact).
  
  Section::::Legal basis and relevant statutes.:Supreme Court decision on FAPE.
  
raw_presuppositions: You can donate to a charitable organization to get your child into college. You can donate to a charitable organization to get your child into college.
raw_corrections: It has not happened that a charitable organization got a child into college, instead there were bribes to college staff. It has not happened that a charitable organization got a child into college, instead there were bribes to college staff.