Writing an op-ed to The Oklahoman? Here’s a step-by-step guide
An op-ed isn’t just an opinion—it’s a chance to shape conversations. Here’s a step-by-step guide
When the Oklahoma State University foundation scandal broke into public view, it wasn’t because the board of regents stepped forward with transparency. It was because the state treasurer’s office released the audit to the public. Until then, the board had gone dark — retreating behind closed doors, hiring an outside public relations firm and offering no meaningful explanation to donors, students or the public.
This silence wasn’t incidental. It was strategic.
In the wake of this scandal, headlines have focused on financial irregularities, donor distrust and the abrupt dismissal of the university president. But beneath the surface of this institutional drama lies a deeper, more troubling omission — one that speaks volumes about power, accountability and the selective nature of institutional blame.
Kayse Shrum was apparently forced to resign as president, and Elizabeth Pollard also resigned as director of the OSU Innovation Foundation. Both Shrum and Pollard reportedly each issued statements saying they followed laws, policies and legal counsel advice when moving money from the OSU Medical Authority to the Innovation Foundation and its associated institutes.
Presumably this legal advice was provided by OSU’s and/or the board’s legal counsel. Yet nowhere in the public record — no audit summary, no news release, no investigative coverage — do we see any meaningful scrutiny of that legal advice or the role of the counsel which gave it. The silence is deafening.
In any governance structure, legal counsel serves as both shield and compass. Their guidance shapes decisions, mitigates risk and crucially defines the boundaries of lawful conduct. If the president followed legal advice in good faith, then the question is not merely whether she erred, but whether the advice itself was flawed, incomplete or self-serving. Was it tailored to protect the institution, or to protect the board?
The optics suggest scapegoating. A president is removed, reputations are salvaged and the legal apparatus that enabled the decisions remains untouched. This is not accountability, it’s choreography.
Oklahomans, students, donors and alumni deserve better. We deserve transparency not just about what went wrong, but about who shaped the decisions behind closed doors. If legal counsel’s advice was central to the president’s actions, then that counsel’s role must be examined with the same rigor applied to financial audits and administrative reviews. Otherwise, we risk reinforcing a culture where legal advice becomes a convenient alibi, and leadership becomes disposable.
It is a call for integrity. Institutions must be willing to look inward, even when the mirror reflects their own legal scaffolding. Until then, the lessons of this scandal will remain incomplete, and the precedent it sets, deeply corrosive.
Vance Winningham is an attorney whom Oklahoma State University has designated as a Distinguished Alumni Award recipient.
