News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Aug. 31, 2006
L. Scott Ward, a professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, faces legal trouble after he was arrested on Sunday when police uncovered video recordings of him involved in sex acts with boys, according to an affidavit filed in a Virginia court.
Penn officials said Tuesday that Ward would never teach again at the university. But some are asking what took them so long, since this was not the first time, but the third, that Ward had been charged in sex scandals involving minors.
Catherine Bath, executive director of Security on Campus, a nonprofit organization concerned with campus safety, told The Philadelphia Inquirer that it seemed that Penn “was giving him a chance” despite his history. “But do you really want known child molesters on your campus?” she asked. “I would say no.”
“It seems like an odd situation,” said Jason Johnston, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “I’m not surprised people are having negative reactions.”
In 1995, the marketing professor was acquitted of “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse” after an 18-year-old male alleged that he had sexual contact with Ward between 50 and 100 times from the time he was 13 or 14 years old. Four years later, in 1999, Ward was accused of soliciting sex from a state trooper who had posed as a 15-year-old boy. In that case, he pleaded guilty without admitting that he tried to promote prostitution and corrupt minors. Ultimately, he was given five years of probation and fined $2,500. Ward is currently being held in a Virginia jail and could not be reached for comment. His lawyer did not return calls for comment on Wednesday.
Ann Franke, president of Wise Results, a firm that advises colleges on legal risks, said that when a professor is acquitted of a crime, a university has the option of dropping the matter or initiating its own discipline, which she said was likely what happened after Ward’s 1995 acquittal. “It’s entirely a judgment call,” she said.
“The errant professor should surely have been dismissed years ago,” said Jeffrey M. Duban, a lawyer who defends university faculty members in tenure and promotion disputes. “Faculty and students are let go for far less.”
But Duban said that by having kept Ward on staff after the 1999 incident, “the university increased its own exposure and potential liability....” “[A]ny employer who either knows or should have known that an employee has engaged in criminal activity is vicariously liable for that activity under the theory of negligent hiring...” Negligent hiring involves the failure of an employer to properly screen employees.
Franke believes it’s important that Ward served five years of probation after the 1999 incident. “It’s interesting to me that the new charges fall outside of that window,” she said. “Administrators could have been relying on the supervision of criminal justice authorities up until that point. And then this new situation came along.”
Lori Doyle, a spokeswoman for the University of Pennsylvania, said Wednesday that administrators were not in the position to “second guess decisions made back in 1999.” At the time, the university released at statement that said, “Based on the policies of the University of Pennsylvania, Scott Ward remains as a member of the standing faculty in the marketing department.”
Doyle said that the university first learned of Ward’s latest arrest on Monday. “We have made arrangements to ensure that he will not be teaching at the Wharton School or elsewhere at the university this semester or in the future,” she said.
Ward’s tenure officially ended on July 1, 2005. “[He] is not a tenured faculty member at Penn, which is why we were able to prohibit him from teaching classes so expediently,” said Doyle.
Franke, who has worked on higher education cases involving sexual predation, said that from her experience, sexual pedophiles “are absolute masters at deception and manipulation.” “In short, most of us are susceptible to the lies of great con artists, and expert pedophiles are great con artists,” she said. Franke noted that the latest charges against Ward have not been proven.
Duban said that having seen similar cases throughout his years of representing professors, what he characterizes as Penn’s mistake was not a unique one.
“Why he was not [fired sooner] is a matter somehow buried in the bowels of administrative decision making — which is to say that university administrators often have their heads up their asses when it comes to doing what is right, instead of what is expedient,” said Duban. “For reasons best known to university administrators, it was more expedient to let it ride than do what was needed.”
Doyle said that university administrators had no further comment on the situation.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
If Ward was aquitted in 1995, on what grounds could the university have dismissed him at that point?
Not a Legal Scholar, at 8:55 am EDT on August 31, 2006
I agree with the first comment. When acquitted in 1995, the school could not really discipline since the legal system found him “innocent". However, in 1999 he was not acquitted, but found guilty. At that point it was, as they say, a “no-brainer". He should have been released of his duties at the college.
S.D., at 10:15 am EDT on August 31, 2006
I don’t want to break it to you folks, but it is possible for an employer to terminate someone for acquitted conduct.
Even a state employer, since the standards of proof are lower. In this case, however, it can be argued that even if he was a pedophile he posed very little risk to students who are older. So, unless he was assaulting grown women, the university can argue that merely having a criminal on staff isn’t negligent.
Larry, at 10:50 am EDT on August 31, 2006
My comment is on the reporting: to imply that allegations of sex with a minor merely amounts to a scandal downplays the effect of that crime on the minor. This is a criminal act and a horrific one at that.
Shelley, at 11:15 am EDT on August 31, 2006
It’s not a scandal unless people are scandalized: unless there is a great deal of shocked discussion. And it is shocking, even scandalous, that a person MIGHT be fired for a crime of which he has been acquitted.
SKS, at 1:16 pm EDT on August 31, 2006
SKS, Why is it shocking or scandalous to fire someone for something he was acquitted of. In a criminal trial there is not only a different level of proof required, but different evidence is admissible than in whatever due process is required for discharging a faculty member. As a practical matter, the trial process might result in disclosure of information that indicates that more likely than not a person didn’t do it, but there is no reason that someone should be able to keep their job if they take the 5th amendment in a civil proceeding when asked whether they committed a specific crime or not.
Moreover, in the rare event that someone is acquitted on grounds on the grounds that they were insane, there is no reason that a university must keep an insane person on staff.
And the list of hypotheticals goes on and on.
(It probably would violate due process to rely on a failure to testify at a trial to discharge someone.)
Larry, at 2:40 pm EDT on August 31, 2006
I agree with S.D. generally, but differ on one point. Ward was not “found innocent” in 1995. Our judicial system does not find anyone innocent, it finds one “not guilty;” meaning a failure to prove guilt. An employer, as pointed out earlier could initiate procedings with lower threshholds and terminate with cause. One often finds this distinction alive and in the criminal courts vs. civil courts, so that an individual found not guilty criminally could be held accountable civilly (remember O.J?).
David, at 2:46 pm EDT on August 31, 2006
Several of the comments questioning whether a college or university may dismiss someone with a history of pedophilia if he’s acquitted of a crime reminds me of those bishops who just transferred child-molesting priests to other parishes. Anyone who excuses a pedophile professor had better not adopt a holier-than-thou attitude about pedophile priests.
Damon Hickey, Director of Libraries at The College of Wooster, at 4:05 pm EDT on August 31, 2006
Mr. Hickey, You asked “Why are pedophile professors better than pedophile priests?” I have a simple answer: pedophile professors likely cannot use their positions to molest children. I know you don’t like to hear this, but professors generally don’t run daycare centers and deal with alter boys. This isn’t a matter of “excuse” but rather a matter of what the risks to the student body are. In fact, since many professors see undergrads as “fair game” to have “consensual,” “mature” and legal sexual relations with, they arguably do less harm.
So, such a person might be able to make a contribution to society.
To my knowledge, no priests were acquitted of any sexual assaults and later reassigned to a parish with kids.
Larry, at 8:45 pm EDT on August 31, 2006
Larry
Are we to conclude then that pedophile professors are BETTER thanpedophile priests?
Max Jerrell, at 9:45 pm EDT on August 31, 2006
Yes, David, you are correct. My oversight. If a person loses their job due to being charged with a crime and then is not found guilty of that crime, can they sue the accuser for defamation of character and ‘pain and suffering’ for being “wrongly” charged?
S.D., at 9:55 am EDT on September 1, 2006
Shelley, you are right if you are saying that a criminal sexual act with a minor (that is basically any sexual act with a minor, of course) is horrific in its impact upon the minor. You are, however, wrong if you say that the (legally) unproven allegation has scarred the minor.
I cannot say whether or not Ward did abuse the child in the 1995 case, but I suspect you cannot either. The justice system decided there was insufficient evidence to support the child’s claim. Until we know otherwise, it remains an accusation, not a fact.
Damon, I am with you. Pedophiles are. Period. This is not to say that one pedophile might control his (usually males) impulses better, and thus be better adjusted to life within what passes for society these days, but the impulse that drives it remains. Thus, here I must disagree with Larry. What does it matter whether or not a pedophile uses his position to get his victims? I am rather more concerned that there are victims in the first place, quite honestly, and I suspect that, despite access, pedophiles in the priesthood are not the only pedophiles to successfully engage their desires.
Ugh. I need a shower after writing that.
Andrew Purvis, at 12:25 pm EDT on September 1, 2006
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job
Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job
Augustana College is a private, selective liberal arts college located on a 150-acre campus near the Mississippi River in ... see job
Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job
Posting Description: Environmental Geographer Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences University ... see job
Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College ... see job
The Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law and the School of Public Health seek outstanding candidates for a joint senior ... see job
Posting Description: The Department of Ethnic Studies in the University of Colorado at Boulder invites ... see job
Position Summary: Unclothed Models needed for Drawing and Painting courses at the Lewis Center for the Arts. ... see job
Cazenovia College is an independent four-year coeducational college located in the lakefront historic village of Cazenovia, ... see job
Too Slow
I won’t go so far as to say that someone accused and acquitted should be fired; after all, the legal system has decided there was no wrongdoing, and the act was not academic in nature. However, when the 1999 case was decided, it should have been over.
I see the anti-tenure crowd warming up already, glad to have another exceptional case in the media. Ah well. Teapot Dome proved that no U.S. president could ever be trusted, right? Lord knows one of 43 (29 at that time) is representative, and certainly a professor such as Ward (what’s up with that name?) must also represent the entire profession and all tenure.
Andrew Purvis, at 8:50 am EDT on August 31, 2006