Columnist Dean Juipe: Harter rules and she's not coming clean

IT'S A dictatorship of sorts, with the ruler in the enviable position of enjoying absolute power.

If Carol Harter doesn't care to discuss the Charlie Cavagnaro incident, she simply won't do it.

Repercussions? There won't be any, what with the Board of Regents figuratively cowering and seemingly under her domineering control.

At UNLV, what Mrs. Harter says, goes. The university president didn't arrive in Las Vegas with that much clout, that much authority, but during her three-year term she has evolved into the role of empress.

She'll face the board Thursday in Reno but don't look for any enlightenment when it comes to the still-smoldering Cavagnaro issue and whether he may have said a few things unbecoming an athletic director.

Harter's position is that this is a personnel matter, and, as such, it is not fit for public review. The fact that many in the community find that excuse far too shallow is of no great concern to her.

With the regents unwilling to pressure her beyond a token minimum, Harter may offer a few vague responses in Reno without ever brushing up against the heart of the matter. Those who continue to object to her stonewalling have no recourse, no avenue to force the truth out of her or Cavagnaro.

And here's why there's no turning back now for Harter and why she almost has to remain mum: Full disclosure of the inquiry into Cavagnaro's remarks might very well run contrary to how Harter presented the evidence the day she cleared him and attempted to sweep his (supposed) indiscretions under the rug.

Without offering proof, such as the inquiry tapes, she implied that Cavagnaro wasn't besieged by accusers and that what little had been uncovered was of no real consequence.

As a result, she said, she was dismissing the investigation and taking no action.

But what if the special investigator was given more on Cavagnaro than what Harter let on? And what if more than one person testified they were in Cavagnaro's presence when he embarrassed himself with a verbal misstep?

There's a suspicion if not outright belief on campus that the inquiry produced a good deal of pertinent information and that Harter misled the public in whitewashing the incident.

Let's assume that's true, at least for the moment. Now factor in Harter's denials and how absolutely improbable it is that she would spend Thursday admitting she contributed to a coverup. (For good measure, add in the unlikelihood at this point in time that one or more of Cavagnaro's accusers goes public.) The 2 plus 2 is obvious: Harter, for self-preservation reasons if nothing else, has to keep the inquiry testimony confidential.

She's not going to treat a visit to the Board of Regents as a confessional. She's not going to flip-flop and ask for mercy not only for herself but for Cavagnaro.

No, she made her decision a month ago and it's similar to a vow of silence.

Be it audacity or be it confidence, Harter likely feels there's no calling her on the carpet, let alone overturning a controversial decision she may have made.

If that annoys the minions, so what?

archive