Taking Benjamin Ladner at his word that he is dedicated to learning and the pursuit of knowledge, the Ethics Scoreboard hereby invites the suspended American University president to donate his brain to scientific research, and to do so as soon as he can conveniently part with it. Then researchers might discover at last what damaged lobe or synapse it is that causes so many corporate executives to help themselves to their companies' resources in order to live the life of Bourbon monarchs, and not feel the least bit of shame or guilt in the process. For whatever the defect is that led to the looting at Tyco and the other companies that made the S.E.C.'s most wanted list, or at the savings and loans of two decades ago, Ladner has it too. But if anything his malfunction is worse, even though, in dollar terms, his greed is more moderate. President Ladner runs a non-profit educational institution, and the money that he has wantonly squandered on luxuries was supposed to be spent enriching young minds. Ladner, you see, believes that a mind isn't such a terrible thing to waste as long as his personal chef is experiencing rewarding professional growth.

An anonymous letter delivered to American University's half-asleep board triggered an investigation of the spending habits of Ladner and his wife, and revealed over a half-million dollars of personal or professionally questionable expenses billed to A.U., including a family engagement party that cost hundreds of dollars per person, "professional development" trips for the couple's personal chef to Paris, London and Rome, and a garden club luncheon costing $5,000 hosted by Mrs. Ladner. Also contributing to the disputed $500,000 were exorbitant travel expenses, including a $22,345 first-class jaunt by Ladner to Nigeria, more than $6,000 in club dues, nearly $54,000 in drivers' costs, more than $220,000 in chef services, more than $100,000 in services from the social secretary, purchase of luxury items such as antiques and cashmere, and nearly $44,000 in alcohol.

Incredibly, Ladner defends all of these expenses and more, which he feels, along with his $800,000 a year compensation package, are part and parcel of being a university president. As in the controversy surrounding the astounding salary and bonuses given to former New York Stock Exchange head Dick Grasso, there has been the usual bickering over whether an employee should be taken to task for taking what is offered to him, however excessive. Predictably, some university trustees are defending Ladner's spending habits as well, using the tried-and-true Mussolini argument, loosely translated from the Italian as "So what? He makes the trains run on time!"

Here's why medical science need to look at that brain. American University, like all institutions of higher learning, literally begs for financial assistance from alumni and other donors on a regular basis. The cost of a year's tuition at the college is about $28,000 (or in terms President Ladner might understand, about $6,000 more than a comfy trip to Nigeria, with in-flight movie), and if college educations aren't going to be restricted to the very rich, money needs to be spent wisely and well on what colleges are there for: education, and not garden club lunches, cashmere sweaters, or birthday dinners for the university's president and his family, one of which consisted of pan-seared foie gras, BeauSoleil oyster, sabayon, caviar, and white truffle risotto, all charged to the school, natch. A leader of a non-profit organization needs to be able to distinguish between expenses that are necessary for him or her to accomplish the organization's mission, and those that put the leader's personal welfare and interests in conflict with it. This shouldn't be too hard, one would think. Ladner is a well-educated man, and yet a reasonably astute eighth grader could figure out that when you lead an organization that depends on charity for money, insisting on always staying at 5 Star hotels, eating exclusively at gourmet restaurants and paying top price for airplane tickets not only looks bad, but is bad. It is selfish, it is irresponsible, it is unfair, and it is reckless. And yet Ladner didn't see this, or if he did, he didn't care.

Such an advanced state of ethical numbness, whatever research determines is the cause, makes Ladner over-qualified for the title of Ethics Dunce, but disqualifies him to lead a university, or any organization that requires fiscal responsibility, which is to say, any organization. As this is written, students are protesting, trustees are arguing, donors are withdrawing support, and Ladner is explaining. That's not what he should be doing now.

He should be packing.

Lorrie Heasley