I understand what you are saying, but a set of parents no longer have a son because of the gross negligence of that football staff. Durkin was the head dude, so yes, he should have been shown the door to begin with. Hell, as far as I'm concerned, he should have resigned on his own. Fuq him.
Correct.
Also consider that in the Regents' recommendation they said that the parties who were found to have made the mistakes (Durkin et al) were "best placed to oversee reforms". This makes sense only if you are considering proximity to the problem as your top criteria. Which, of course, isn't usually the case and "lack of confidence" indicates an outside fix. That's why the CEO is usually fired by the board when he's found to be corrupt or (for us military guys) the Commanding Officer is fired due to lack of confidence in ability to lead.
I see it this way...
1. Regents got their report, which showed lack of oversight and other glaring issues.
2. Regents were basically dead set on retaining Durkin and made their recommendation as such.
3. By recommending retention, the Regents tied the University President's hands and took the "for cause" firing out of play. Keep in mind also that the Regents don't operate the Univerisity, but they do hire/fire university president.
4. Dr. Loh (University President) tells the Regents that he doesn't agree with the course of action. During this meeting Loh tells the board that they're not considering ALL of the risks involved and that there will be a sh*t storm to follow both politically and in the media (which is exactly what happens).
5. Regents then strongly advise Loh to abide by their recommendation (and since they have hire/fire authority over him, basically hold the gun to his head).
6. Loh has the AD tell Durking he's retained, and then informs the Regents of his "intent to retire" at the end of the academic year (June), which basically puts a cork in the end of the gun. Touche'. You take "for cause" option away from me? I now take it away from you.
7. Loh meets with key student and academic leaders, talks with people in power (i.e. governor, etc), determines that change in leadership is required in order to reform the program, and follows his gut.
