A Cover-up Culture at the U of M? Denial as Administrative Policy?

Link to Video

KMSP-TV has been punching above its weight lately. First they did a story on the Markingson case that I commented on earlier on Community Voices. See: "Send in the Wackos..." Their latest effort in the Investigators series is quite good and thought provoking. Long time newsies will recognize the narrator for this piece, the excellent Trish Van Pilsum.

This new piece is titled "U Insider" where insider is being used in the same way that it is used in the phrase "insider trading." I'd encourage those interested to watch the video - link given above - or at the same location the case is outlined in text form. I've also put up most of the report on my blog The Periodic Table with highlighting of the very best parts...

So what's the short version? (source of all quotations)

1. A university employee was allegedly harrassed into taking a supervisor on an illegal mule deer hunt on a reservation in South Dakota. She was cited, admitted guilt, and paid a fine.

Professor David Schultz, a nationally recognized expert on business ethics at Hamline University, had this to say:

Au contraire?

Unfortunately for that claim, e-mail records obtained by the KMPSP investigators revealed that:

The university apparently dismissed a complaint that the bidding was organized to favor the bidding by the company Skyline owned by Loudon's friend Schalesky:

So why would UofM supervisor Louden try to give Skyline/Schalesky the edge?

But according to Professor Schulz:

3. Have "favors" been done by University of Minnesota employees at the Loudon residence?

So there you have it...

Nothing to see here, move along?

This situation certainly reminds me of the way the U of M has handled the Markingson case. But of course the death of a clinical trials patient is a much more serious matter.

But as an indicator of the institutional culture at the U, this case speaks volumes. The discrepancy between words and actions is obvious. Most of us can recognize why the situation described above is wrong and have witnessed similar behavior in our own lives. To the lay person the Markingson case may at first seem complicated and beyond comprehension, because who is to decide when doctors disagree?