I don’t understand the latest chapter in Columbia’s anti-Semitism scandal at all. I don’t understand how anyone connected to the university can look at themselves in the mirror after this. I don’t understand how alumni and donors can tolerate it. Most astounding of all, in its shameless embrace of The King’s Pass, Columbia University has managed to make Harvard look like an ethics exemplar by comparison.

No, I don’t understand.

Let’s recap how we got to this disgusting point in the sordid tale, shall we? On June 15, Ethics Alarms reported on the classic Pazuzu Excuse issued by Columbia College Dean Josef Sorett, who told the university community in a lame apology that the ugly sentiments he had expressed in a secret (they thought) texting orgy including him and three other deans, mocking the Jewish perspective being discussed in a panel about anti-Semitism on the campus, didn’t reflect their true “views.” Ethics Alarms declared Sorett an Ethics Villain in a subsequent post ten days later, when he suspended the three deans he was texting with (among its other charms, the exchange included vomit emojis to describe an op-ed about anti-Semitism authored by Columbia’s campus rabbi). In his announcement of their punishment (for conduct he had engaged in as well as ratified by his full participation), Sorett admitted that, yes, he was part of the discussion, a rather crucial detail that he had somehow managed to gloss over in his earlier apology.

Now we learn that Nemat Shafik, the Columbia University president, announced that other three Columbia administrators involved in the text message exchange have all been permanently removed from their jobs: Cristen Kromm, formerly the dean of undergraduate student life; Matthew Patashnick, formerly the associate dean for student and family support; and Susan Chang-Kim, formerly the vice dean and chief administrative officer. But Sorett will stay on as dean of the college.

Incredible. This is a King’s Pass for the ages. That key rationalization on the list, in case you’ve missed it, #11, describes the destructive behavior when an organization excuses serious unethical conduct because the person involved is “so important, so accomplished, and has done such great things for so many people that we should look the other way, just this once.” What does Sorett have on his superiors, naked photos of them frolicking with Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump? His previous disgraceful conduct in this episode, not only the texting but his cowardly excuses and throwing his colleagues under the metaphorical bus, make it impossible to believe that the creep is worth Columbia humiliating itself to keep around. If anything, as the senior officer engaging in conduct “antithetical to our university’s values and the standards,” in Shafik’s words, Sorett should be held more accountable than the other deans, not less. Nevertheless, he will keep his job.

According to the university provost, Angela V. Olinto. “Dean Sorett and I will work together to mend relationships, repair trust, and rebuild accountability.” Oh! All good then!

The New York Times reports that “the decision to keep Dr. Sorett in his position is likely to anger some alumni and community members.” Gee, ya think? How perceptive of the Times. More than 1,000 alums signed a petition demanding that Sorret be fired along with the other three, as they “are not fit to serve as deans of Columbia College and should be removed from their positions immediately.”

That seems like a reasonable position, but somehow Sorett, weasel, coward and ethics villain that he unquestionably is, has been deemed worthy of a pass, devaluing Columbia in the process. I suppose after Columbia has revealed its rotten values, being dean won’t be worth much, so there’s that.

Here’s the memorable clip from “A Man For All Seasons” alluded to in the headline…