Kamala Harris went to college at Howard University, which was easy to get into. But despite Howard being a fairly easy school, she didn’t manage to graduate with honors, even though many students at Howard do graduate with honors. To get into law school, she then took advantage of an affirmative action program for “disadvantaged children,” even though she was not “disadvantaged.” She should not have needed affirmative action to get into that law school, which is a middling law school. (The typical student admitted to Howard University back then had a fairly low SAT score of around 900 — out of 1600. That’s hundreds of points below the average score at most major state universities. Even today, the average SAT score at Howard is still a couple hundred points lower than a flagship state university like the University of Florida.)
As Red State explains, Harris didn’t even get in to law school on her own merits:
She wasn’t an honors student at Howard. There is no information on what Kamala Harris scored on her LSAT. We do know that she didn’t pass the Bar on the first try when 80 percent of her classmates did pass. So how did a run-of-the-mill student, and daughter of a “privileged” upbringing get into Hastings School of Law? Easy — she fudged her application. Harris was admitted under a program called LEOP. According to the University:
UC Hastings created the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) in 1969 to make an outstanding legal education accessible to those who come from disadvantaged economic and educational backgrounds.Students are encouraged to submit a “separate LEOP statement describing the adversity they faced and its impact on their academic preparedness for law school. Diagnostic reports documenting disabilities and/or accommodations can be submitted as addenda.”
In a Politico article from 2021, the author describes Harris at Hastings:
In the fall of 1986, Harris arrived on campus at Hastings a week before most of her classmates. She was part of the pre-orientation Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP), which had been founded in 1969 to help law students from disadvantaged communities navigate the stringent demands of the first-year curriculum. Harris had come to a predominantly white institution after four years at a historically Black university. Beyond introducing students to Socratic pedagogy, case-briefing and exam-taking, the pre-orientation also gave students of color a sense of community and a hamlet of solidarity in a cut-throat environment.
Harris, the daughter of two college professors, who grew up attending private schools in Canada, was not, in the least, economically or socially disadvantaged. But there she is, claiming she was.
After graduating from law school, Harris relied on her race (and sleeping with San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown) to get ahead. To make up for her laziness and lack of creativity, she plagiarized on a vast scale. She copied fictional stories, Congressional testimony, government reports, Wikipedia, and other sources, and passed those writings off as her own, without attribution, according to the Washington Free Beacon.
When she testified before a House committee, she stole the testimony of a prosecutor who had recently testified before a Senate committee, passing it off as her own ideas: “Virtually her entire testimony … was taken from that of another district attorney, Paul Logli of Winnebago County, Illinois, who had testified … two months earlier before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both statements cite the same surveys, use the same language, and make the same points in the same order, with a paragraph added here or there. They even contain the same typos, such as missing punctuation or mistaken plurals. One error—a ‘who’ that should have been a ‘whom’—was corrected in Harris’s transposition,” reports the Washington Free Beacon.
Moreover, “as California attorney general, she didn’t just copy boilerplate language without attribution. In one of the lengthier passages reviewed by Free Beacon, she lifted a fictionalized story about a victim of sex trafficking—and presented it as a real case,” thus taking credit for an imaginary rescue of a victim.
As a San Francisco district attorney, Kamala Harris treated victims of violent crime shamefully. Kamala Harris let murderers avoid serious punishment, and her blunders resulted in additional killers roaming free — even as she prosecuted harmless pot users.
