I thought that once President Ladner was dismissed from the university and his severance package was decided that the situation would have finally reached its conclusion. Now the Senate Finance Committee has requested documents regarding Ladner's dismissal and the investigation.
Students have been petitioning members of Congress to review the Board of Trustees and their operating procedures. Apparently Congress is the only body that holds power over this group so there's no one else to appeal to. Other students would just like the controversy to fade away.
A few days ago I was one of those students. I didn't understand why anyone at AU would continue to make this a bigger issue and give the Washington Post a chance to write about us again and destroy the reputation of a university that I enjoy going to. I thought, Ladner is gone; his severance package seems a little high but maybe we can just accept it and move on. Besides, if we're concerned about scaring away donors and applicants, shouldn't we try to restore the image of the school as soon as possible?
In reality, I'm selfish.
It will take time to investigate the actions of the board and even more time to restructure its procedures. This process might not be finished by the time I graduate.
Personally, I want to graduate and have people think more highly of my diploma than they would of one from a different school. I don't want to tell people where I went to college and have them immediately think of corruption and scandal. In other words, I'm willing to tolerate just a little bit of unethical behavior because it would benefit me in the more immediate future.
Sound familiar?
We condemned Ladner for using questionable means for personal gain, and yet we're doing the same thing when we tolerate unacceptable operating practices from the Board of Trustees. If we were willing to fight for Ladner's removal, we should follow through to see the decision-making process changed.
Ladner shouldn't be the scapegoat for a much larger problem. He didn't fail American University, the Board of Trustees did. The problem wasn't that he spent too much money on personal expenses; the problem was that the board didn't stop him.
The student body only has a voice if someone listens. The board can make decisions with or without our consent. And yet, 90 percent of the school's operating costs are paid for with our money. We can yell and protest, but in the end the board will decide what kind of system the school's leadership will operate under.
That's why students should ask more questions about the board's procedures. There needs to be more transparency. The biggest problem is that most of us don't know how decisions are being made.
The severance package is questionable. If what Ladner did was bad enough that he would have been fired "for cause or dishonesty" had he not accepted the board's offer, why was he given so much? I don't understand why someone who used university funds inappropriately was rewarded with almost $3.8 million.
Many students here work hard to get good grades in order to retain scholarships and some work two jobs in order to pay for school. That $3.8 million could give 760 students $5,000 each.
I'm not denying that Ladner accomplished a lot of good things during his time as president. AU rose in college rankings and he raised money that went to significant campus improvements. Despite this, it was not wrong for the board to fire him and it is wrong to give him that much of a financial award.
If we really believe that integrity is an important leadership quality, we should do whatever it takes to resolve the bigger problems in the system. Otherwise it looks like people supported Ladner's dismissal just because they didn't like him in the first place
