From the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N
Although this issue has been discussed at length and ad nauseum, there are still people who come on this site asking us why we don't just let it go. They feel that with the charges against Eric Scott being dropped, the story should go away.
First, let me make one thing clear: I am EXTREMELY HAPPY that the charges were dropped! Not only because it saves UCLA further embarrassment but also because no one should be charged with a crime if they have done nothing wrong.
The issue for me and others here, however, revolves around the hiring process and the amount of information divulged (or withheld) throughout that process. We are no longer talking about Eric Scott's fifth arrest, it is now irrelevant and he has been cleared of all charges.
Here are the facts we know and what has been said in the media:
1. Karl Dorrell said that he knew about some of Eric Scott's trouble past but not about the convictions.
2. Dan Guerrero said that he knew nothing about Eric Scott's past record.
3. Eric Scott was arrested four times and convicted three times of misdemeanors.
4. This was not brought up by the background check that was performed.
Here are the things we do NOT know:
1. What did Eric Scott disclose on his application?
2. Was he required to disclose information about his record? (our research showed that he was, but we do not know what application he actually filled out)
3. How much did Karl Dorrell in fact know about Scott's record?
4. How much of that information did Dorrell disclose to Guerrero?
The whole argument of giving Scott a second chance would be accepted by people here IF it was stated as such from the beginning. However, it was publicly stated that no one knew about his record, hence there is no second chance to be offered. We are left with many questions and feel that our claim of a clean program may be in jeopardy. The following chart, which I have used several times in previous comments, describes my personal thinking (and may prove that I am a nerd):
Obviously, if Eric Scott lied on his application, he should be fired. That probably did not happen since he is still employed, but we cannot be sure. I see only one path to redemption, the path of ignorance and incompetence. All others stink of U$C-style cover-ups. And that is what bothers me and others who have high moral standards for UCLA.
ps: if Eric Scott had white, purple or green colored skin, I would still feel the same way.