[Goose]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

I wasn't saying he had no responsibility. By "under the bus" I meant that Stanford made him the solely culpable person in the Athletic Department when, if his assertions are truthful, others in the department were also culpable or at least need to explain their actions.

It is true that the University did not hold anybody else in the Athletic Department responsible for allowing this to happen. It very well may be that they should have. It appears that legally he was deemed the only one that could be proven responsible for taking money to facilitate admissions. That decision was not Stanford's to make. I am pretty sure Muir didn't know what was going on because he was not doing his job. I think that should be grounds for dismissal, but it isn't legal culpability.

[Goose]

Everybody should read the NYT article.  An interesting quote:

Vandemoer wrote that when he handed over a $500,000 check from Singer to a senior administrator, she excitedly called Bernard Muir, the athletic director, over to show him the check. As Muir offered congratulations, Vandemoer said he started to explain who Singer was, but Muir cut him off, saying, “We know Rick.”

Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokeswoman, said that Muir — who did not respond to a direct message seeking comment for this article — knew of Singer, but that he had not met him or spoken with him. Muir sent Singer a thank-you letter acknowledging the gift, which is a standard practice for large donations, Mostofi said.

If the above narrative is factual, I get the feeling that Stanford threw him under the bus.

He was already under the bus by his own doing. All this really shows is that the AD should have known what was going on and either willfully did not or is an idiot. Vandemoer can legitimately claim others were as responsible for the improper deeds as he was. He can not claim he bears no responsibility because nobody stopped him.

I wasn't saying he had no responsibility. By "under the bus" I meant that Stanford made him the solely culpable person in the Athletic Department when, if his assertions are truthful, others in the department were also culpable or at least need to explain their actions.

It is true that the University did not hold anybody else in the Athletic Department responsible for allowing this to happen. It very well may be that they should have. It appears that legally he was deemed the only one that could be proven responsible for taking money to facilitate admissions. That decision was not Stanford's to make. I am pretty sure Muir didn't know what was going on because he was not doing his job. I think that should be grounds for dismissal, but it isn't legal culpability.