[Goose]

The key difference is whether other people knew of the scheme to designate individuals as sailing athletes in exchange for donations, even though they were not sailing athletes.

BC

True. However, it can be argued that the AD did not exercise due care in ensuring that all donations were "clean". Ignorance is a good legal defense, but willful ignorance is not the standard that Stanford should use to judge its employees. It does not appear that the AD was at all interested that such a sudden and unusually large donation would show up for a sport that is often on life support. Not that he should have just rejected it, but he should have asked some questions IMHO, like what is this donor's connection to Stanford sailing and was this donation related to a particular athlete. He didn't do that, and he certainly should have.

[Goose]

The key difference is whether other people knew of the scheme to designate individuals as sailing athletes in exchange for donations, even though they were not sailing athletes.

BC

True. However, it can be argued that the AD did not exercise due care in ensuring that all donations were "clean". Ignorance is a good legal defense, but willful ignorance is not the standard that Stanford should use to judge its employees. It does not appear that the AD was at all interested that such a sudden and unusually large donation would show up for a sport that is often on life support. Not that he should have just rejected it, but he should have asked some questions IMHO, like what is this donor's connection to Stanford sailing and was this donation related to a particular athlete. He didn't do that, and he certainly should have.