As corporate scandals in the national news increasingly call to mind the business ethics of the Gilded Age, the recent furor over a security breach in admissions at the nation's top business schools is warranted ("Tuck considers apps from accused hackers," March 29). Applicants to the Tuck School of Business who took advantage of a flaw in the programming of an external admissions website to view admissions decisions early clearly violated ethical standards and deserve to face consequences, even if their actions may have been legal.
However, the Harvard Business School's choice to deem the offense worthy of automatic rejection is a knee-jerk reaction predicated in image-based politics. In an attempt to appear as a stalwart bastion in a sea of moral ambiguity, Harvard sacrificed the opportunity to make a sound and reasoned appraisal in order to exploit the situation to enhance its prestige. Other schools impacted by the vulnerability felt pressured to follow Harvard's lead and also rejected the guilty applicants. On the other hand, Tuck Dean Paul Danos' choice -- to consider the hacking as a strong negative factor in admissions decisions, though not one worthy of automatic rejection -- was carefully deliberated and displays an appreciation for the nuances of the incident. Danos made the right call by considering the recommendations of a panel of Tuck faculty and staff instead of rushing to a decision. The situation is analogous to applying to a college as an undergraduate with a criminal record -- past transgressions should count, but should not preclude admission entirely.
This is not to say, however, that Tuck is taking this transgression lightly. It will weigh strongly against the guilty applicants who, should they be admitted, will be monitored and counseled while at Tuck. We believe that this policy combines a pragmatic assessment of the nature of the offense with accountability to an ethical standard free from considerations of image. It is vital that unethical behavior not go unpunished. It is equally vital, however, that reprimanding authorities make careful and rational decisions. Subjugating reasoned deliberation to political posturing only distorts the issues at hand.
The real tragedy, of course, is that a politicized atmosphere exists at all -- that company heads must be constrained by law and criminal investigations to follow ethical standards is highly damning of today's business practices. Though the applicants bear responsibility for their conduct, the real fault lies in a business and academic culture that promotes getting ahead by all means, including exploitation of the system and downright criminal activity. We hope that these applicants learn their lesson, and provide a positive stimulus to business ethics in America today.
