Details:
Don’t’cha just love the raft of scandals we’ve had over the past year or so involving those claiming to be guardians and protectors of our moral values? I think this has the potential to go to the top of the list. 
How are they “going down”. There’s a lawsuit in progress. That’s “going down”? Seems to me that, at most, a change in management might take place. There’s too much invested in that place for the owners, whoever that is, to just shut it down.
And what was that student doing stealing a private correspondence off someone’s computer and giving it to other people?
Don’tcha know that only those who are in a constant state of struggle with their own sinful nature can guide the rest of us poor non-struggling non-sinners in what is truly moral and good? They have personally wrestled with the devil so that they can know his stripes (and you don’t have to)! Hallelujah! :rolleyes:
I see the light, brother. I see the light!! Praise JE-sus. Praise His holy name!!! 
A university jet? Perhaps I’m naive, but is this common? Does Harvard have its own Gulfstream V?
I feel sorry for the Roberts…if they have lived through 11 home remodels in the past 14 years, they are clearly insane, and should be pitied, not scorned.
Serious question, here. The OP quotes the linked article with:
How is this fundamentally different from compensating students with grades and credit for aiding campaigns for PIRGs?
If the answer is “One is legal and one isn’t,” that’s certainly a valid answer. I don’t think I see a moral difference, but that’s not quite the question I’d asked.
As always, my question is not intended to be taken in defense of people who are old enough to know better than be fuckwits. I simply have a very skeptical view of the integrity of many people involved with PIRGs.
I read the article as implying these students were either assigned to work on the campaign by the university, or in some manner got credit for it. That would be the illegal part of it, as not-for-profits are prohibited from many forms of partisan political activity.
Students who volunteer for campaigns outside the framework of their schools are exercising their 1st amendment political rights. They are acting legally.
Boyo Jim, while I was at UMASS Amherst, one of the recruiting tools for the MassPIRG was that serving in it would get the students class credit towards graduation. My impression had been was that this was pretty common for all the PIRGs. If it’s changed in the years since I was there, or if it was only Massachusetts that was so effed up, ignore me.
Don’t know any other way to Oral than to go down.
Oh come on, you know somebody had to say it.
I’m just guessing, but as it was some student tech assigned to fix it, it was probably a university computer,so the contents were not private.
That’s not to say the student should have handed it to a third party, but it would certainly be arguable that the student was seeking guidance on how to proceed after discovering it, and turned it over to a university official to get informed advice.
And the professor giving the document to the board of regents was certainly a legitimate course of action, as the document was apparently dealing with misuse of school resources.
Eleven home remodels, and still married? That must be some kind of world record!!
I’m certainly no expert in this field, but perhaps there is a distinction to be drawn between a school that offers credits to students for participating in the political process through volunteerism; and one that specifies the student has to work on a specific campaign for a specific person. In my mind that crosses a line. But again, this is a guess.
“Well,” said the televangelist, “I’ve been telling the people that God sent us into the world to do good.” Glancing at his consolidated financial statement, he continued, “And I have to say, we’ve done real good!!” 
Vocabulary help, please: what’s a PIRG?
People in Religious Groups.
A PIRG is a Public Interest Research Group. Nominally non-partisan, science based examination of issues. Officially, AIUI each state has its own PIRG.
My experience, however is a bit tainted since several of the issues that I remember encountering students campaigning for were based on gross ignorance for any group claiming to be be science-based. (There was a petition a few years ago here in NYS, being pushed by NYPIRG, to make the schools keep a locally generated binder with all the information about toxic chemicals that might be on a school’s ground. Looking over the petition, they were specifically tasking the schools to generate the information, and couldn’t explain why this law would be necessary, since the MSDS forms already required to be present and available upon request to anyone would duplicate all the information, without being locally generated.)
That was my thought, without the winking. Holy flipping Lord, 11 times in 14 years. Who would even want to do that, no matter how much godly money was flowing their way?
Very roughly, nonprofit organizations may advocate for general causes that have political repercussions (e.g., they may advocate for stricter laws against letting dogs run loose), but they may not advocate for specific politicians (e.g., they may not say that a vote for Doobie Jones is a vote for good dog laws). At least, that’s the gist for 501©3 organizations; I’m guessing there’s something similar in effect for other types.
It sorta makes sense. If you forbid any sort of political advocacy, it becomes very difficult to police that line (does a homeless shelter cross it when they suggest that the poor deserve assistance? Can a veteran’s group talk about how veterans are underserved after they leave the military?). But forbidding the participation in specific politicians’ campaigns is a much easier line to police.
There’s a good moral argument, IMO, for getting rid of tax-exempt status entirely. But if you’re not going to do that, and you are going to distinguish between politicians and charities, it makes sense to draw the line where it’s drawn.
As for the ethics of turning over a private document, that’s classic whistleblower material: whistleblowers, IMO, deserve very high levels of protection.
Daniel