Exide, seller of fraudulent auto batteries, gave money to the University of South Florida ten years ago as part of a settlement in a case the attorney general brought against it.
The money – a bit more than two million dollars – went to a professorship in business ethics … This position would be an extremely selective, high-level appointment that would attract someone able to explain to MBA students why they shouldn’t sell fraudulent batteries.
But, in an echo of a protracted, much-discussed case at Princeton, people are now complaining that the money was not spent in the way the… can we call it a gift? … intended.
Business professor Marvin Karlins and associate business professor Robert Welker made the allegation in a complaint filed Monday with USF’s compliance office.
“Ten years have passed, and there ain’t nobody sitting in that chair,” Karlins says. “They take $2 million, and they sit on it.”
That’s not true, according to USF administrators. They say the annual earnings from a $2 million endowment won’t cover the salary of a top scholar, who might make $200,000 a year.
So the money pays for other academic activities on both ethics and sustainability, the study of environmentally sound and socially responsible business practices.
… In their complaint, Karlins and Welker say it was “specifically ordered that the Exide money would be used to create an endowed professorship for business ethics.”
“To do otherwise is a clear breach of contract,” they say, one that could have “serious legal implications” because USF received state matching funds.
“We also find a certain irony in all this,” they said. “A corporation fined $1.25 million for unethical behavior now finds that USF is using that money unethically.”
One USF business professor accuses the accusers of being unethical because they’re actually pissed about other things, both having recently filed unrelated complaints against the university:
“[T]hey went looking for some dirt. … That’s not ethical in my opinion.”
So you have three unethicalities:
1. The selling of fraudulent batteries.
2. Misappropriation of funds.
3. Vindictive whistle-blowing.
Three so far.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:37AM
Which part of "vindictive whistle-blowing" is unethical?
The vindictiveness or the whistle-blowing?
I suggest that whistle-blowing is never unethical.
In the end, who cares WHY an impropriety was uncovered?
Shouldn’t there have been no impropriety to uncover in the first place?
Methinks some people need a reminder that "muckraker" was originally a derogatory term before it became a fairly honorable enterprise called "investigative journalism" (which only exists as a pale shadow of itself nowadays).
July 14th, 2009 at 10:05AM
Anybody looking for dirt by checking whether universities comply with donor wishes will find plenty. I say yay whistleblowers … and can I point you to some nice rocks to turn over?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:44PM
If its wrong its wrong and there really isn’t much more to it. And I don’t see anything wrong with covering your own a$$.