Stetson's sudden departure raises eyebrows

Admissions officials arrived at their offices last Wednesday morning to find a voicemail from then-Dean of Admissions Lee Stetson waiting for them.

The message informed staff that Stetson was immediately resigning, according to three independent sources close to the admissions office.

It was the first that many high-ranking officials in the office heard of the change in Stetson's date of resignation, the sources said. Someone arrived in the dean's office later that day to clear out Stetson's belongings.

The sources, who are all close to various admissions officials, were granted anonymity because the officials were instructed by the University not to speak about the resignation.

Stetson had originally announced in July that he would step down effective June 2008 after 29 years as dean of admissions.

The sudden change, and its handling, has left University administrators and professors suspicious and those in the know even more tight-lipped.

Inquiries to various members of the admissions office were directed to University spokeswoman Lori Doyle, who once again declined to comment.

Those admissions officers who could be reached said they were told by the University not to speak about the departure.

Outside of a terse memo from University President Amy Gutmann's office merely announcing the resignation to senior University administrators, many high-ranking administrators claim they were given no information about Stetson's resignation.

The consensus among Penn officials with whom The Daily Pennsylvanian has spoken is that Stetson's manner of departure is so bizarre that there must be some explanation yet to be uncovered.

"When a University official gets an announcement like that, that's that terse and lacking in detail, the two logical conclusions are: a very serious illness that precludes coming to work or a very serious legal issue that precludes remaining at work," said one senior administrator who has been at Penn for several decades.

Professors and administrators said that when a long-standing senior administrator leaves Penn, there are usually a series of receptions for the departing administrator.

For Patrick Harker's departure from his position as dean of the Wharton School last year, there were several going-away parties, including a cocktail reception and a dinner at the Palestra.

Even among unplanned departures, Stetson's case is a strange one for a university that has seen its fair share of faculty and staff scandal.

The same high-ranking University source, who was granted anonymity because he was not supposed to talk about the departure, said that even in a case such as that of Rafael Robb, who is charged with murdering his wife, more information was released to administrators by the University than has been for Stetson.

Business and Public Policy professor Bruce Allen, who has been at Penn since 1968, said that even less senior administrators generally have at least a small event organized by their staffs when they step down.

Allen had one such event in 2000 when he left the position of vice dean of Wharton's graduate division.

According to administrators and those within the admissions office, no such events were held for Stetson.

What struck Political Science professor Henry Teune the most was an erroneous article in the Sept. 4 edition of the University's official newsletter, the Penn Almanac, which seemed unaware that Stetson's departure had moved up.

"The faculty certainly don't know," Teune said, but "people are all wondering what's happening."

- Staff Writers Anthony Campisi, Emily Babay and Rebecca Kaplan contributed to this report

Comments (36)

Other possibilities: (legal) if there is a sexual element, the student party is an Admissions Office employee (cultural bias) if there ia sexual element, the student party is male But those are just possibilities. Something is going on. Terse statements might be expected if the university perceived that Stetson had resigned precipitously and left them in the lurch or if he resigned precipitiously to take a "better offer." Neither seems to be the case. Well-run institutions give the praising send-off (even if insincere) to departing long-term employees even when those employees have in a sense overstayed their welcome -- it's just easier all around to be civil and go through the.well-oiled motions. But they don't do that if there has been a clear (far beyond a possible problem, "we'll look into it" situation, where someone might be suspended or tranferred pending investigation) legal problem or, as in the case of MIT, the makings of a scandal of some sort. They are being stupid in not greasing the skids unless there really is potential legal liabilit -- it just draws more attention to the matter.

[QUOTE id="7e3583fc-0fca-417b-b988-d9214125dc4c"]This article has no facts in it. Newspapers should not print speculation with no facts.[/QUOTE] Excuse me? How do you support your assertion that there are "no facts" in this article? It seems that you have some conceptual difficulty with what constitutes a "fact" (or perhaps conceptual difficulty in general).

[QUOTE id="7e3583fc-0fca-417b-b988-d9214125dc4c"]This article has no facts in it. Newspapers should not print speculation with no facts.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry for that personal attack at the end of my last comment--but I still do not see how there are "no facts" in this article--perhaps not everything that was written was true (or perhaps it was) but nonetheless there are at least SOME facts in the article.

Those of us who have been here for a while know Penn is as rough as any dark alley. Cover-ups and expert lying is an art here. The only ones being fooled are the drunken rah rah students and misty-eyed alums. Unless you have seen the ugly underbelly of Penn, you have no idea.

It's not the tight lipped refusal to give a reason for the departure but the lack of any compliments or accolades for a job well done for 29 years that is the most unusual. If illness was the reason for the sudden departure or even if there were political differences it seems to me that it would be in the university's own best interests to speak well of him on his departure. The fact that this has not happened makes it seem that if and when the facts come to light, the university does not even want to be seen as having done that much.

This seems most unfair. It seems likely the man wants his privacy.

[QUOTE id="61eb8964-a69a-4959-ab4b-6cd71f28fab3"]This seems most unfair. It seems likely the man wants his privacy.[/QUOTE] Everyone wants privacy when things end in a less than friendly manner. A person in Stetson's position, however, is a public figure who is not likely to get that privacy particularly when the University releases such a terse statement of his departure. There clearly is a reason the University didn't say more nice things about him when he left. Its as if they are afraid that a shoe is going to drop off and they don't want to be seen as being so fond and appreciative of someone who is about to receive negative press. Stay tuned for the shoe to drop. The earlier poster was correct. If Stetson left due to illness, etc... the announcement by the University would've been less terse and more complimentary.

I would have to think both sides are remaining silent on advice of counsel, or by mutual agreement for some period of time. But given the natural interest many will have in whether the admissions process itself was directly affected, there will have eventually to be some statement that at least answers that question.

One can guess that the two sides aren't talking on advice of counsel, or by mutual agreement for some specified time. But since many will naturally be interested in whether whatever the cause was had anything to do with the admissions process itself, I wonder if a statement won't eventually have to be made clarifying that.

[QUOTE id="117d3d2f-332f-44ab-a953-b8bf6b77d239"]One can guess that the two sides aren't talking on advice of counsel, or by mutual agreement for some specified time. But since many will naturally be interested in whether whatever the cause was had anything to do with the admissions process itself, I wonder if a statement won't eventually have to be made clarifying that.[/QUOTE] There doesn't need to be a termination date on a confidentiality agreement b/t the parties. It could very well provide that the parties will not discuss the matter until or unless they : receive permission from the other party or are required to disclose the information by law, such as when the information is required in a judicial procedure. The parties may be able to comment however, once the information gets into the public domain via some other means.

Apparently one of Stetson's relatives goes to Penn undergrad and got in along with a bunch of his/her close friends. Rumor has it that they were unqualified compared to peers at their HS who had been rejected. This is unsubstantiated, but I wonder if there's any truth to it.

I think there is a reason the university is being so "closed-lipped" about the circumstances surrounding Lee Stetson's sudden resignation. Stetson apparently was sleeping with an undergraduate student, and there is a pending lawsuit as a result. I doubt Penn wants that to become public. You heard it here first....lets see how long it takes the DP to be all over this. Brahahahaha. -Someone who knows... Wharton UG 08

It's much worse than that. Stetson was having an affair with a Penn undergraduate student. [QUOTE id="c6b64eab-da9f-42f2-9c72-60bf9c4b9b54"]Apparently one of Stetson's relatives goes to Penn undergrad and got in along with a bunch of his/her close friends. Rumor has it that they were unqualified compared to peers at their HS who had been rejected. This is unsubstantiated, but I wonder if there's any truth to it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE id="18c5f71e-c50c-40e7-8e1a-1e390007e14c"]I think there is a reason the university is being so "closed-lipped" about the circumstances surrounding Lee Stetson's sudden resignation. Stetson apparently was sleeping with an undergraduate student, and there is a pending lawsuit as a result. I doubt Penn wants that to become public. You heard it here first....lets see how long it takes the DP to be all over this.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the staff of the DP has heard the rumors making the rounds. Fortunately, it's their job to sort out what's rumor from what's fact, and only print what can be confirmed from people who have knowledge of the facts. This article advances the Stetson story slightly, but it doesn't throw out rumors or stories heard third-, fourth-, or fifth-hand. Sexual impropriety, admissions impropriety, or whatever, Penn's reputation depends on the truth, eventually, being told for the good of students, faculty, staff, alumni and the institution.

[QUOTE id="c6b64eab-da9f-42f2-9c72-60bf9c4b9b54"]Apparently one of Stetson's relatives goes to Penn undergrad and got in along with a bunch of his/her close friends. Rumor has it that they were unqualified compared to peers at their HS who had been rejected. This is unsubstantiated, but I wonder if there's any truth to it.[/QUOTE] IF this were true it could taint the admission process which would be worse for the University than an affair provided the affair is not linked in some way to the admission process. The affair is a mistake of judgment and maybe a morals issue. An admission process scandal would lead to an investigation which could uncover even more dirt.

More investigation should be done before any publication comes out.A news paper should and must publish facts.

[QUOTE id="c6b64eab-da9f-42f2-9c72-60bf9c4b9b54"]Apparently one of Stetson's relatives goes to Penn undergrad and got in along with a bunch of his/her close friends. Rumor has it that they were unqualified compared to peers at their HS who had been rejected. This is unsubstantiated, but I wonder if there's any truth to it.[/QUOTE] Come on folks.......Stetson upheld the process with such integrity. There is no way he would slip in his relatives if they were unqualified. He cares about students being successful at Penn and it's time the Penn Community showed some compassion and care for him by stopping all this gossip. Let him be...when the time is right, I'm sure we will know what happened and why.

[QUOTE id="7e3583fc-0fca-417b-b988-d9214125dc4c"]This article has no facts in it. Newspapers should not print speculation with no facts.[/QUOTE] Stetson's departure is his own business IF he did nothing to embarrass the university. With all the secrecy surrounding this situation, it makes us all a bit curious.

[QUOTE id="7e3583fc-0fca-417b-b988-d9214125dc4c"]This article has no facts in it. Newspapers should not print speculation with no facts.[/QUOTE] Stetson's departure is his business IF he has done nothing to embarrass the university. As long as the university remains tight-lipped about this situation, people are going to wonder about the reasons. It effects the entire Penn community.

This article is ridiculous. "The consensus among Penn officials with whom The Daily Pennsylvanian has spoken is that Stetson's manner of departure is so bizarre that there must be some explanation yet to be uncovered." Obviously there is an explanation, because there must be a reason he resigned. The key fact here is that it has yet to be uncovered. I would call this article irresponsible speculation but what are you really even speculating? That there is an explanation out there? I think this is a sign that someone should go do a little bit more investigating before they start reporting. It is unfair to Lee Stetson that you are recklessly insinuating that there may be something to insinuate.

More rumors please ... what else is an anonymous message board good for? Some clarification: Setting aside whatever moral issues abound in these issues, what would be the basis of the potential lawsuit, precisely? Provided that the alleged undergraduate student is of age, as Dean of Admissions Stetson was not in a position to wield influence over their academic career -- they were already in. So what's the rub? Is there some quid pro quo for a relative of an existing undergrad? Was their something before said student got in? Furthermore, is this alleged incident connected with Stetson's previously announced retirement in June 2008? If so, what caused the abrupt resignation now? Given relatively little interaction between administration officials of Stetson's position and undergraduates, how did this alleged affair begin? Why would the alleged student be willing to sue the university (which would likely necessitate public testimony) but not make a public statement? If you do know the details -- being sure not to compromise the anonymity of the alleged student/victim -- please share so the rest of the university community can have some sense of what the hell is going on. This is legitimate news, as Stetson is a public figure, and the university community has a need to know.

[QUOTE id="18c5f71e-c50c-40e7-8e1a-1e390007e14c"]I think there is a reason the university is being so "closed-lipped" about the circumstances surrounding Lee Stetson's sudden resignation. Stetson apparently was sleeping with an undergraduate student, and there is a pending lawsuit as a result. I doubt Penn wants that to become public. You heard it here first....lets see how long it takes the DP to be all over this. Brahahahaha. -Someone who knows... Wharton UG 08[/QUOTE] Uh, DUH!! Come on people - get with the program! Of course it's a sex scandal! Interesting that no one is speculating on who the student is or what the ramifications are for them. DP writers - I know you'll find the truth - be sure to publish details, especially about the outcome of the lawsuit! But just out of curiousity, Wharton UG 08, where did you get your info? Why publish it here and not contact an editor?

[QUOTE id="9020bfef-a70e-4143-b3fe-fd854f95504f"]More rumors please ... what else is an anonymous message board good for? Some clarification: Setting aside whatever moral issues abound in these issues, what would be the basis of the potential lawsuit, precisely? Provided that the alleged undergraduate student is of age, as Dean of Admissions Stetson was not in a position to wield influence over their academic career -- they were already in. So what's the rub? Is there some quid pro quo for a relative of an existing undergrad? Was their something before said student got in? Furthermore, is this alleged incident connected with Stetson's previously announced retirement in June 2008? If so, what caused the abrupt resignation now? Given relatively little interaction between administration officials of Stetson's position and undergraduates, how did this alleged affair begin? Why would the alleged student be willing to sue the university (which would likely necessitate public testimony) but not make a public statement? If you do know the details -- being sure not to compromise the anonymity of the alleged student/victim -- please share so the rest of the university community can have some sense of what the hell is going on. This is legitimate news, as Stetson is a public figure, and the university community has a need to know.[/QUOTE] Ok, first of all, that's just plain sick. The man is 60-something years old. Setting that aside, can we say conflict of interest? A person in a position of authority, such as his, should NOT be involved in any type of social or sexual relationship with a current student!!! If the student had already graduated, that would be one thing - we're be back to just being sick. But a current student - completely inappropriate. Not to mention, the man is MARRIED!!!! And the reason for a lawsuit, well, let's see, the fact that the dean of admissions is having an alleged affair with a student. Surely there is some policy written on this somewhere. Or maybe not since it should be common sense! The abrupt resignation is most likely related to the lawsuit - protect Penn's reputation. Of course, this is assuming that the whole student affair thing is the actual truth...

This article has no facts in it. Newspapers should not print speculation with no facts.

Pennsylvania ia an "at will" employer state. Unless Mr. Stetson had an employment contract, he could be fired for any reason whatsoever and Penn is under no obligation to explain its actions. I agree that something triggered such an abrupt administrative action but doubt that the public will ever know the facts, unless Mr. Stetson himself chooses to divulge them. I think if that was going to happen, it would have happened by now.