Staff Reports
Kamala Harris appears to have perfected the art of political maneuvering, and her latest gambit may just be the most eyebrow-raising yet. It turns out that the Vice President’s rise through the legal ranks could be attributed to a rather questionable assertion about her background when she applied to law school—a move that has led some to wonder whether she was playing the victim card long before it was trendy.
Harris enrolled at Hastings School of Law thanks to the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP), a program designed to assist those from economically or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. The irony here is thick: while the program’s purpose is to empower the underprivileged, Harris’s actual upbringing was anything but disadvantaged. Born to two college professors, she spent her formative years in a comfortable, well-educated environment, complete with international exposure, leading one to question the integrity behind her LEOP application.
Did Kamala Harris Lie to Get Into a Law School Program for Impoverished Students? https://t.co/pTLJVr39US
— Ron Brady (@Romeobravo30) October 23, 2024
The story of her childhood—a seemingly “struggling girl” narrative—is debunked when examining her family’s bona fides. Her mother was a prominent breast cancer researcher, and her father was an economics professor at Stanford University. This grooming in a well-to-do household begs the question: how did she qualify as “disadvantaged” when she comes from a lineage of privilege? While other applicants may have faced real adversity, Harris seemingly walked a rainbow-fueled path straight to Hastings, waving her Ivy-league-daughter flag the entire way.
Her childhood was also peppered with travel and cultural experiences that would make many envious. Reports indicate that her mother took her and her sister on visits to India, likely to instill in them a sense of heritage. But let’s be real: middle-class kids don’t typically jet off across continents for family bonding sessions, and certainly, impoverished individuals don’t have that luxury either. Given this background, the narrative of her as a victim of circumstance starts to unravel quicker than a cheap sweater.
Critics argue that Harris’s maneuvering for admission may have simply been a strategic alliance with the political ideologies embraced by the LEOP selection committee rather than a product of genuine hardship. The suggestion is that she gamed the system, relying on both her well-crafted narrative and the sympathetic ears of those working within these programs. There is a bit of harsh irony that this champion of equality and inclusivity—a woman who enjoys political clout derived from her privileged beginnings—has managed to profit from the very systems she decries.
The fact remains, Harris achieved a key milestone in her legal career not through traditional merit, but by exploiting a program meant for those truly in need. As she continues her campaign for higher office, one has to wonder if she’ll attempt to erase these threads of convenience from her public narrative. After all, in the theater of politics, it’s always best to present a story that fits the moment—even if it requires a little embellishment along the way.
