<p>I asked a friendly acquaintance of mine (the grandfather of one of my closest friends) who once served as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at UPenn and knows Lee Stetson well if he had any information with regards to the resignation. His response was that he had expected Lee to retire at the end of this school year, but Lee’s sudden departure was as much a surprise to him as it is to everyone else, and he has no idea why it happened.</p>
<p>Even those with influence in the university are being kept in the dark.</p>
<p>I was hoping for some resolution when I clicked on this thread, but no such luck.</p>
<p>Things always find a way to come out–why the university hasn’t come out and put their own spin on the story is beyond me. Not only must it embarrass Stetson, it must be embarrassing to the university in some gargantuan way.</p>
<p>Let’s give Stetson some credit. When he took office in 1980’s and for decades before, Penn was universal doormat of Ivies, by far easiest for admissions and bedeviled by the “penn state” confusion. Standards were raised and artful marketing campaigns launched and Penn now mid-pack in Ivies. He must have done a good deal right, and anyone with a Penn degree earlier than mid-1980’s should be grateful for its “rise in market value.” Unless his conduct, if any, was illegal, I’d say let it go.</p>
<p>I don’t think most of us are concerned with his conduct, but with possible health issues or some action on Penn’s part with which we might not agree.
It is simply very unusual for such a prominent, long-term academician to depart under this strange silence.</p>
<p>Considering how much time has passed since the departure of Stetson, it’s almost a given that this will remain a mysterious and nebulous affair. In fact, just as nebulous and mysterious as the statistics shared by Stetson’s former office; they hardly ever added up or made much historical sense.</p>
<p>The whispers in the corners where such things are whispered have been that Amy Gutmann was not quite ready for prime time as president of Penn. </p>
<p>How she’s handled this – quick, decisive action, keeping the lid screwed on tight here, and thumbing her nose at the press (especially the student press!) – is probably helping improve her image among the movers and shakers more than anything else she’s done so far.</p>
<p>Only problem with the decisive actions is that they seem to reflect the opposite of the new buzzword in the 2007 college world: increased transparency.</p>
<p>It’s possible that the reasons for Stetson’s departure are, in fact, private reasons. It’s possible that there were no nefarious doings or mysterious reasons. If that is the case, then quite frankly, it is no one’s business why he left, and I would commend Penn for valuing the privacy of a former employee.</p>
<p>I think too often in our society we value “transparency” over everything. Transparency is important when it comes to business dealings, governmental decisions, and the like. It does not and should not extend to personal life and decisions, no matter how high profile the person is. Penn took a lot of heat for keeping this quiet. If their reasons for doing so were benign, I am impressed.</p>
<p>And why did everyone jump to the assumption that because we, the public, weren’t privy to specifics, that there must have been wrongdoing? When did we turn into jackals?</p>
<p>It is hard for me to see how acrimoniously slamming the door when someone of Stetson’s stature departs constitutes good leadership. On the contrary, I’d consider the handling of this matter to be another reason that Gutmann may not be “ready for prime time”.</p>
<p>The relevant audience for Penn’s handling of this situation is not, imo, the people in the admissions community. Nonetheless, I do appreciate hearing their views.</p>
<p>What EVERYONE has noticed about this story, except possibly for people in the admission community, is that when Stetson first announced over the summer that he would retire at the end of this school year, he was widely praised for his work at Penn. When there was the sudden announcement that his resignation would be effective immediately, there were not even pro-forma words of praise for him from the Penn administration, but just the no-comment replies to questions and a terse statement that his immediate resignation was best for him and best for Penn. That’s a huge change in position, and any who reads the news with normal critical reading skills might be curious about what caused that change of position. It might be that Stetson’s reason for leaving has nothing to do with how he administered the admission office–but for all anyone of us know it does have something to do with that. That’s the source of the continuing curiosity.</p>
<p>Exactly, the way he left, he was obviously fired, immediately, for something. </p>
<p>You don’t fire people, drop them like a hot potato, for “personal problems”. It had to be something that would reflect badly on the University to have a Dean caught doing it. The only question, which no one can answer without knowing the facts, is whether Gutmann, et al, are correct that the mystery is better than telling the public what is going on.</p>
<p>So members of the admission community would not mind being shown the door quietly and quickly, without a by-your-leave, after dedicating 29 years to the job? </p>
<p>I for one would like to have had a retirement party with cake, at least.</p>
<p>It could very well be that he wasn’t fired. He may have intended to leave at the end of the year, but instead had personal issues that made it necessary for him to leave immediately.</p>
<p>I just think people are reading far too much into this with nothing to base it upon but speculation.</p>