Editorial: Keeping us in the dark
The need for honesty and openness from the University

March 28, 2007

As many students now know, Roderick Vosburgh, a history professor at La Salle for several years, was arrested Feb. 27 in connection with a national child pornography sting orchestrated by the FBI. Vosburgh was officially charged with destroying records and computer records to obstruct a federal investigation, according to a March 3 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer. In accordance with the stipulations of his bail, Vosburgh is currently not permitted in any environment where children under the age of 18 may be found. As a result, he has not returned to campus, and all of his classes have been taken over by other professors in the History Department.

Reeling in the wake of this unfortunate event, it is conceivable that students and staff were left to wonder why the La Salle community was not informed of this situation prior to the release of the March 21 issue of the Collegian. Specifically, one might wonder why the University did not disseminate this information itself. In hope of finding an answer to this query, members of the Collegian editorial board recently sat down with Joseph Donovan, the Assistant Vice President for Marketing and University Communications. During this conversation, the board learned from Donovan how the University went about dealing with Vosburgh’s arrest: certain officials of the University got together to discuss how the school should respond, and the prospect of internally disseminating the news was brought up, but was rejected for several reasons.

First, and perhaps most significantly, the University’s legal counsel assured them that they were not required by law to report the arrest to the campus community. The Clery Act states that schools are only required to report crimes considered to be a threat to students and employees. Since Vosburgh was incarcerated from the time of his arrest until his hearing March 2 and was then prohibited by a court order to set foot on University grounds, he was/is not considered a threat to the La Salle community. Furthermore, Donovan added that since there is no indication that a student was directly affected by the crime Vosburgh is charged with, the arrest is not classified as a need-to-know occurrence.

Indeed, the school does not legally need to report the arrest, but it is questionable whether or not they should have reported it to the students anyway, since Vosburgh was a well-liked faculty member who was in a position of authority as a teacher and role model. Although it cannot be proven that Vosburgh was a threat to any students, it seems that students could still be affected by the news. Hearing that a professor was arrested at all, let alone in connection with a child pornography sting, could conceivably do psychological damage to a student who admired Vosburgh, as many did. Why is it that the school didn’t tackle this situation head-on, avoiding being forthright with the Lasallian community, and did not specifically offer counseling to those who might seek it as a result of the situation at hand?

Second, Donovan pointed out the tough line University Communications has to walk when reporting these types of occurrences. In response to the Collegian’s stance, he questioned where one would draw the line concerning legal matters that happen off campus. Should the school let the campus know if a professor gets arrested for a D.U.I. off campus? How about a charge of domestic abuse? In line with this, Donovan mentioned that there’s always the touchy subject of tarnishing a professor’s name. Currently, Vosburgh is just charged with a crime, and has not actually been convicted of anything. Donovan questioned whether or not disseminating information to the entire campus would be fair to Vosburgh at such an early stage in the judicial process.

It surely is a tough problem to deal with. In talking over hypothetical situations with Donovan, it became clear that setting a standard for what information a school should and shouldn’t report can be very murky. However, while we cannot come up with a set standard, we do believe decisions can be made on a case-by-case basis. The day after receiving a D.U.I., a professor could be back on La Salle’s campus; meanwhile, someone like Vosburgh is charged with a crime that is deemed so severe by the law that he is currently not allowed on the premises at all.

Furthermore, Donovan confirmed that the University cooperated with the FBI and allowed them to come on campus to check any computer that he was known to have used. While the school does not know if the FBI found anything, the very fact that the FBI came on campus seems to speak to the fact that this occurrence is one that should reported, the severity, breadth and depth of it reaching up to Federal levels.

The University should constantly strive to keep the best interest of the students in mind when attempting to walk the line of what and what not to report. Although laws might not mandate that the University tell the La Salle community something, it does not mean they should not. In making these decisions, we believe the school should consider how the community will respond, especially if they can find out from an external source, because that may alienate the school community. The Collegian appreciates the tough stance the University is in in such situations, but the rights of students to fully understand situations that affect their academic careers and personal lives trumps all else.