In December, Principal Hitchcock forwarded to all students a letter that she had sent to the Board of Trustees. This letter was in response to an article published in the Albany Times Union concerning her actions at her previous post at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany. These allegations of unethical conduct, which first surfaced early last year, stemmed from a New York Times article.
In her letter, Hitchcock defended her innocence of any such allegations. She wrote that “at Albany my sole motivation was to seek and secure the best interests of that University” and that “none of the suggestions to the contrary reported in the media has any foundation in fact and a full and impartial inquiry would show that to be so.” In response, the Board of Trustees wrote that it appointed Robert Fiske Jr., a New York lawyer, “authorizing him to take all appropriate steps to assure that a fair and complete inquiry is conducted as expeditiously as possible into the recently repeated and publicized allegations against Dr. Hitchcock.” Shortly before being named principal of Queen’s and after taking leave from her post, Hitchcock was notified that an investigation was underway by the New York State Ethics Commission into her dealings with a developer. Having considered this new information, the University still chose to name Hitchcock to the position. At this time, the University should have conducted its own follow-up investigation rather than waiting it out until another article was published, further tarnishing the Queen’s name and, if found innocent, Principal Hitchcock’s.
At the time, these allegations were linked to anonymous sources and considered baseless because of the ambiguity surrounding the situation. However, in the recent Times Union article, the two top officials at SUNY Albany who raised the allegations were named. Prior to its revision, a loophole in New York State law stated that if an individual is no longer employed by the state, any current investigations immediately cease, which was the case with Hitchcock. The only way to resume the investigation is if it is approved by the Governor. Now, the University is footing the bill to hire a high-profile lawyer to convince the Governor to allow an investigation to be concluded.
This ongoing controversy does not bode well for Queen’s and calls into question its ability to prepare “leaders and citizens for a global society.” For this reason, we feel that the University has taken the appropriate steps in appealing to the Governor, in an attempt to exonerate Hitchcock. In the event that this appeal is denied, however, we would not agree if the University decides to conduct an internal inquiry. Not only would it be costly, but it would also lack the kind of impartial authority the Ethics Commission has.
While the letter appears to be a genuine appeal from Hitchcock for our , ambiguity continues to cast a shadow over the issue and students are still left with many unanswered questions. It appears that Principal Hitchcock is doing everything in her power to clear her name, and it is unfortunate that she was not given the opportunity to do so due to a loophole that has since been changed. For this reason, we hope that the Governor allows the Ethics Commission to conclude its investigation.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].