EDITORIAL:Loangate: A breach of trust
Editorial Board
Issue date: 4/6/07 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 1
Outgoing Senior Vice President Anthony Caneris said in his farewell speech that sometimes administrators have to break the rules in order to successfully manage a university. This practice was pushed to the limit last week when New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo revealed that Drexel University received a $100,000 "kickback" from Education Finance Partners.
The University made EFP, a California-based lender, it's "sole preferred private loan provider" without disclosing the commission to students. The lender made similar deals with at least 60 other colleges in what we've collectively termed "Loangate."
Our response to administrators: have you no decency?
Just because EFP may offer quality loans doesn't give the University the right to steer unknowing students to them without providing information on alternatives. It's unethical. Students trust and expect the University to provide accurate and beneficial information to them. It's practices like this that causes us to question how else the University may take advantage of student trust to make an extra buck.
Last year, the media revealed that the University hired a lobbying firm that employed a spouse of one of U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter's aids. The senator slipped several earmarks into spending bills that channeled $20.9 million into the University.
The University paid American Defense International nearly $1,000,000 over a five-year period to rattle its federal tin cup. That's a significant investment our administrators wouldn't make unless they knew they would get a hefty return.
Specter had the decency to refer the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee. In Loangate, several colleges either returned the money or disclosed the arrangement to students on the vendor list.
The University did neither. Instead, it insists that the money is used for student scholarships. If that is true, what protection ensures that students receive the most competitive loan rates available from EFP? Especially when it's the only lender on the list?
No amount of scholarship money would undo the millions of dollars student lost in loans to meet the cost of attending this expensive University.
Our school has not been subpoenaed or charged with any crime, but with the precedent of Spectergate and Loangate, one wonders whether we're a breeding ground for scandal.
The University made EFP, a California-based lender, it's "sole preferred private loan provider" without disclosing the commission to students. The lender made similar deals with at least 60 other colleges in what we've collectively termed "Loangate."
Our response to administrators: have you no decency?
Just because EFP may offer quality loans doesn't give the University the right to steer unknowing students to them without providing information on alternatives. It's unethical. Students trust and expect the University to provide accurate and beneficial information to them. It's practices like this that causes us to question how else the University may take advantage of student trust to make an extra buck.
Last year, the media revealed that the University hired a lobbying firm that employed a spouse of one of U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter's aids. The senator slipped several earmarks into spending bills that channeled $20.9 million into the University.
The University paid American Defense International nearly $1,000,000 over a five-year period to rattle its federal tin cup. That's a significant investment our administrators wouldn't make unless they knew they would get a hefty return.
Specter had the decency to refer the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee. In Loangate, several colleges either returned the money or disclosed the arrangement to students on the vendor list.
The University did neither. Instead, it insists that the money is used for student scholarships. If that is true, what protection ensures that students receive the most competitive loan rates available from EFP? Especially when it's the only lender on the list?
No amount of scholarship money would undo the millions of dollars student lost in loans to meet the cost of attending this expensive University.
Our school has not been subpoenaed or charged with any crime, but with the precedent of Spectergate and Loangate, one wonders whether we're a breeding ground for scandal.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Barry Fox
posted 4/09/07 @ 10:05 AM EST
I completely disagree with the position of this editorial. Drexel is not a public institution, and as such has the right to make arrangements with suppliers that provide a business advantage to the university. (Continued…)
barryf
Barry Fox
posted 4/09/07 @ 11:30 AM EST
I completely disagree with the position of this editorial. Drexel is not a public institution, and as such has the right to make arrangements with suppliers that provide a business advantage to the university. (Continued…)
Leonardo Urbano
posted 4/16/07 @ 7:40 PM EST
Amen to Barry Fox.
S C Victors
posted 5/09/07 @ 10:40 AM EST
As long as kickbacks are an accepted practice among our public servants and those entrusted with education, corruption will continue flourish. How can Drexel teach democracy and what this nation once stood for without also telling what it has become? Perhaps this will be decided in our courts, but just look at what the Mississippi judicial bribery trial revealed last month in federal court- judges and justices taking money and perks in the form of loans from those in their courts in exchange for influence. (Continued…)
Post a Comment