Rutgers administration fails in its responsibilities

Shane Wade
Opinion Editor

Victories happen when people hold authority figures responsible for their actions.
One of those victories occurred last week when Rutgers University fired its men’s basketball coach, Mike Rice, when ESPN aired video footage of his abusive treatment toward players.
According to conflicting reports by Rutgers’ administration, knowledge of the abuse became apparent in late November, when former assistant coach Eric Murdock provided the initial video footage of Rice’s abusive behavior to university officials.
On Dec. 14, 2012, the video was reviewed by an athletic committee. Witnesses included members of the university’s board of governors, the athletic director, assistant coaches and players.
Although Rice was fired, there are more victories to be earned here.
Administrators who were aware of Rice’s abusive behavior had a responsibility to speak up and take action, even if it cost them their jobs. Rutgers’ athletic director Tim Pernetti acted retroactively, resigning a couple days after Rice was fired, despite knowing of the abuse for months.
Instead of openly addressing the problem after the Dec. 14 meeting, the administration chose to temporarily suspende Rice for three games, fine him $50,000 and send him to much-needed anger management counseling.
John Lacey, a lawyer unaffiliated with the university, wrote a lengthy report for Rutgers last year addressing allegations of abuse, alerting officials to Rice’s hostile treatment of players, but also praising Rice’s “passion” for the players.
Even though Lacey reported the abuse to university officials, his conflation of “passion” and “abuse” further serves to highlight the failing evident within this case of abuse.
If a lawyer cannot make such a distinction, what does that mean for our society at large? Is Lacey incompetent or are we fostering an environment that desensitizes individuals to the extent that they do not recognize abuse?
The testimonials coming from Rutgers officials are all self-serving; they continually seek to shirk responsibility. Rutgers president Robert Barchi claims he did not watch the tapes showing the abuse, but rather relied on descriptions. Such a claim is hardly believable or legitimate, particularly when, at the time, Rutgers’ basketball program was entering the Big Ten Conference.
What kind of university president hears allegations of abuse, has video evidence available and refuses to view it?
There can be no complacency when it comes to abuse, no matter who is the target. Those who witnessed abusive treatment have a responsibility to let it be known and vehemently fight against it within their legal limitations.
University presidents have the ultimate responsibility; they are the authority in all university matters. At the end of the day, they are responsible for the reputation of the school. Our duty to be good Samaritans is not and should not be forfeited when we adopt the persona of an official representative.
The larger implication here is that authority figures are given blanket freedom to act as they please without conditions. Just as in the case of child molestation at Penn State, those who have the power to act, defend the innocent and rebuke those above them failed to speak truth to power.