Cali Taxpayers Demand That P.Diddy's Son Return Deserved Athletic Scholarship

Business Insider is reporting that California taxpayers want Justin Combs, son of P. Diddy, to return a $54,000 merit-based athletic scholarship to UCLA that was awarded to him to play cornerback for the Bruins football squad.  The taxpayers want the university to redistribute this $54,000 to students who are in greater need of financial assistance. 

On an emotional level, California taxpayers have reason to be outraged that Combs, the son of a mufti-millionaire, will be getting a free ride to attend UCLA. 

For working class families, getting their kids to go to college is a luxury they must afford.  In this hyper-competitive economy, a college degree is essential just to be considered for a job. And yet, students are becoming more fearful of taking out student loans given the dearth of post-graduation job prospects.  Meanwhile, parents are struggling to find work in a recession-based economy so that they can help their kids pay for soaring tuition costs throughout the country.

All of this is a vicious Catch-22.  Given these unfortunate circumstances, why should a millionaire's son win a merit based scholarship?  Shouldn't he be singled out as an example of the rich getting $54,000 richer?  In this case, definitely not. Combs deserves the scholarship. 

According to Business Insider: "At the Upstate New York prep school where Combs recently graduated, he maintained a 3.75 GPA while playing cornerback for the football team."

A young man's merits should not be marginalized simply because he comes from wealth.  Still, you have to wonder if there can be some kind of future compromise drawn out. For instance, if a school's tuition is less than five percent of a student's family's income, that student is not entitled to monetary scholarship.  A student who falls into this category would, of course, be entitled to the scholarship title and all other benefits the scholarship entails, though. 

This type of compromise—a term sorely amiss in our current "99 percent versus the one percent" battle—may represent a fair shake between all parties involved.