I have a difficult time seeing the logic behind the decision to allow a student convicted of sexual assault the option of obtaining his degree after two years, while a student that ran around in his underwear has had his degree revoked.

I do understand that the disorderly conduct associated with the riot in State College was a bad situation.

But, as William Asbury declares that the university will not tolerate riotous actions, does the decision concerning who may hold a degree infer that the school is more tolerant of sexual assault than disorderly conduct?

Perhaps it is because the assault victim did not pursue the case with the Office of Judicial Affairs. Isn't conviction in a court of criminal law enough? How much pain must the victim endure?

If it is argued that someone must be responsible for prosecuting cases involving Penn State students, then shouldn't there be an advocate for victims of assault to perform this role, without further burden to the victim?

I can't help but wonder about the integrity of a university that awards a degree to a student under such circumstances.