The advisor had previously been telling kids that there were no funds, and now suddenly these new funds come in. How does that make the previous advice, if given in good faith, a lie? Was there a way of identifying the kids who had been given the previous advice and setting them straight? If there was such a way, then that should have been done. I assume it was not possible. The article doesn’t allege that these new moneys were being kept secret or being restricted for use to the SIC group, only that the office saw a p.r. opportunity in specially bringing the new funds to their attention. I don’t approve of that action. It may very well reflect the dark side of the cultural changes that have been occurring at the University. However, I would want to know how significant such an event is or would have been within the functioning of the entire program. Is it really true that the rich kids disproportionately benefit from it? I doubt that, and I doubt that if any of the favored recipients of this letter had acted on that advice, the overall effect would have been very great. The existence of the preference given to the Odyssey kids is relevant in judging the fairness of the program as a whole. I agree, however, with Snark and Dun that none of this makes the sending of that letter right.