"Fundraising."

Despite its tax status, Stanford is not a struggling nonprofit but one of the world's major universities. Why would anyone donate to a particular athletic program unless they expect some kind of quid pro quo? Either this coach was incredibly naive or the practice is so commonplace that no one thinks twice about it (where is the Stanford legal department in all this?)

That said, I also can well imagine that this coach has become the scapegoat for some widespread questionable practices that have never been questioned.

It's unfortunate that Stanford, like so many other universities, seems to value athletic prowess as highly as it does. Can't they at least try to pretend that academics come first?

Frozen:

I think you nailed it. The practice of the wealthy buying their children's' way into universities where they have no scholastic business was and, is commonplace. The entitled think nothing is wrong with it because, after all, they want it.

Not sure why the athletic director is still employed at Stanford... he apparently knew Rick Singer well...

I agree. The real problem here is the outsize importance given to athletics. Why are Stanford and comparable universities setting aside hundreds of places each year for recruited athletes, anyway? The practice is an invitation to corruption, yet when Stanford tried to drop varsity status for a couple minor sports last year the level of outrage was through the roof. I don’t get it.