Editorial: Clouded judgment

Refusal to discuss revisions to the guest policy mark incomplete commitment to transparency.

When a task force commissioned by Acting President Richard Englert released its report detailing how the findings of the Freeh Report could be applied to Temple, one of the most central tenets was the need for transparency.

To best serve the protection of minors, such absolute transparency was deemed vital. Otherwise, it was conceivable that the needs of such vulnerable parties could be subjugated to a powerful institution seeking to protect its own image. Temple, wishing to prevent such an occurrence, did the honorable thing by promoting such openness.

With that in mind, it becomes strikingly ironic that the university has since chosen to muddle the vision of those who look to inspect the effects of the policy changes enacted to serve the best interests of minors.

The Temple News has reported previously on a change in University Housing and Residential Life policy concerning overnight guests who are not Temple students. Such a blanket policy was in fact said by the task force to possibly have a negative impact on the recruitment of students and student-athletes.

As reported by Joey Cranney on Page 1, this guest policy revision is currently under review and may potentially be amended to better balance protection and safe, traditional visits. In the meantime, The Temple News has sought to learn how exactly the university is handling current visits affected by this policy – namely, recruits.

Requests to interview university officials on this matter were denied — including Associate Vice President and Director of University Housing and Residential Life Michael Scales and Athletic Director Bill Bradshaw, as well as five coaches.

This, unfortunately, begs the question: Just how serious is Temple about maintaining absolute transparency if it refuses to talk about the policy and its current repercussions?

The Temple News sincerely hopes that the university will back up its claims of transparency with true openness in the future, rather than attempt to cloud the vision of those who wish to question decisions that so directly affect students’ lives.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.