Trump's SAT Scores, Big Law and White Privilege
What's stunning is not that Trump was probably a mediocre student, but that he felt comfortable enough to lie about it—50 years later.
March 06, 2019 at 05:04 PM
4 minute read
In the scheme of things, I know this is a big fat nothing. Yet, it irks me that Donald J. Trump has been able to censor information about his high school and college grades and SAT scores.
I doubt the average Joe or Joanne cares whether Trump scored 900 or 1,600 on his SATs or graduated with a “C” or “A” average, but if you're a lawyer—particularly, a Big Law type—I think this issue might strike a chord. And if you're halfway attuned to matters of race and fairness, you should be as hot and bothered as I am.
But before I go there, here's the backstory. In his recent testimony before Congress, Michael Cohen made an interesting reveal: Trump had ordered him “to threaten his high school, his colleges and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores.”
And Cohen did just that. First, he got the headmaster at New York Military Academy to “find Trump's academic records and help bury them,” according The Washington Post. (Trump did this in 2011, when he baited Barack Obama to “show his [school] records,” suggesting that Obama was a “terrible student.”)
Cohen also turned his guns on Fordham University, where Trump spent his first two years of college, and the University of Pennsylvania, where he got his bachelor's degree. The Post reports that a Fordham spokesman confirmed that Cohen had sent a letter threatening a lawsuit and criminal charges (plus jail time!) if Trump's grades and scores came out. The College Board and Penn declined to comment to the Post.
What's stunning is not that Trump was probably a mediocre student (duh, rich kids don't usually go to a local college like Fordham unless they screwed up in prep school), but that he felt compelled to lie about it—50 years later. And his lies were dumb and easily caught: Trump claimed last year that he had “heard” that he “was first in my class” at Wharton's undergraduate program, though his name was absent on the school's dean's list or the list of graduates who got academic honors, reports the Post.
We all know Trump lies extravagantly, so why should these lies about his academic record bother me?
Well, I guess it's because I can't but help put it in the context of the legal world, where grades and academic provenance determine your admittance into the pearly gates of Big Law. As every aspiring lawyer knows, or should know, the grades you get as a 1L and whether you go to a T-14 law school are life-changing, separating the cream from the rest of the profession.
God knows I've often railed about elite firms' fetishes with high grades and how meaningless it all is. Yet there is something clean and predictable about where the cut is made.
Which means that Trump would never make the cut at the most selective firms (although there are always exceptions made for those in the real estate group, it seems). And by that same logic, the idea of lying about something as sacrosanct as grades would mean the end of his career.
Anyway, that's what I'd like to believe. Yet, I wonder if Trump's style of lying—the boldface assertion that he's brilliant—is something that white men of wealth can get away with more readily.
Remember, Trump cast himself as the smart one, the deserving one, the White One, by contrasting himself with Obama. He not only asserted that Obama was born in Africa but used the trope that Obama was simply an affirmative-action baby. How else could a black guy get into Columbia University and Harvard Law School, then assume leadership of the Harvard Law Review?
It pains me to say this, but I remember even some of my liberal friends—the ones who were ardent Hillary supporters in 2008—questioned how Obama got on Harvard Law Review. Channeling Trump, consciously or not, one friend said, “Yeah, I'd like to check his transcript!”
So why aren't more people asking the same question of Trump now? I, for one, am curious.
Is the revelation that Trump went to such ridiculous lengths to hide his academic and intellectual inferiority enough for us to stop giving white privileged men the presumption of superiority?
Yeah, I know. Dream on.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readFreshfields Hires DOJ Official, Squire Taps Paul Hastings Atty for US Antitrust Head
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250