I interpreted Ward’s response as more of an awareness of the full picture which could possibly have a remedy. Not sure it’s prudent to assume that the worst was intended - Marlowe’s zero sum game, for instance.
The reality is that these little tip-offs happen all the time. Someone in need of funding who particularly impresses an advisor, for instance, might get an early heads up on something coming down the pipeline - might even get extra help in completing the paperwork. Advisors use their personal discretion frequently to help out both kids and employers that they’ve formed a relationship with. While there should be fair protocols, an organic component is not only a good thing - it’s actually inevitable. While funding is a sensitive issue because equity and attention to need should be adhered to, in reality funding can come in unexpected waves from unexpected sources. So this time it’s the donor’s kids. Next time (or the time before) it was some kids with significant need. No one complains if they are on the receiving end of such extra attention. Only when they are NOT do we hear complaints about lack of fairness 
In this particular case, it was clear that the ex-advisor-turned-leaker simply didn’t have a relationship with those SIC kids. He/she stated as much in the e-mail. This attempt by Ward (the deputy director) to use unfamiliar staff to push a PR stunt was poorly thought-out and the overall form letter sounded awkward at best. Why not reach out to these kids and establish a personal relationship with them first rather have your underlings send along some after-thought CYA form e-mail? In the future - particularly due to the unflattering spotlight on the Career office, I’m betting this stuff will be handled by the director or deputy and not just staff. But will it cease altogether? As we say in MN: Nope.