I honestly don't care what people do in their private lives, it sounds like he managed his life pretty successfully in spite of his heavy drug use. The fact that a physician let a young woman overdose in his company is pretty damn slimy though, and an indication that he might not have been doing as good a job keeping things under control as he thought.
Reminds me of a joke I read once, where someone says "I'm shocked that Lance Armstrong was on drugs when he won the tour de france. When I was on drugs I couldn't even find my bike.".
Well it seems this guy was able to find his bike, and I can't really say I mind what he does in his private life.
This really doesn't seem like public interest reporting. It's well sourced and not outwardly judgmental, but the facts of the story are all in the headline: rich successful older man secretly does a lot of drugs and hangs around with younger women. If he was an actor this wouldn't be news.
Maybe you're the rare HN user who doesn't care about police oversight, but it's a public interest issue when police don't file reports for the wealthy and connected. It's clearer in the LA Times follow-up stories that USC's administration ignored the LAT for a year, including questions about how early USC knew of the dean's incident:
> It remains unclear when top USC officials first learned about the allegations involving Puliafito. But The Times made repeated inquiries over the last 15 months about Puliafito, in some cases describing information reporters had gathered about the dean. USC’s leaders never responded to the inquiries. Numerous phone calls were not returned, emails went unanswered and a letter seeking an interview with USC President C.L. Max Nikias to discuss Puliafito was returned to The Times by courier, unopened.
> “As indicated in the article, initially there was no police report made of the incident,” Mermell said. “There should have been and that was a failure on the part of our responding officer. Once this came to light, [police] undertook an appropriate investigation and ultimately the involved officer was the subject of disciplinary action.”
If he were an actor, maybe this would just make TMZ. But he's not just an actor, he's dean of a prestigious medical school. Just like Trump's tweets aren't front page news until he became president.
Giving someone illegal drugs, watching them OD, then lying to the cops about why they're passed out is pretty bad. Agree that if you get caught doing that as a leader of a high-profile organization, you should get fired.
However, this article seems to be trying to whip up anger not just for that particular case of depraved negligence, but more broadly for the fact that Dr. Puliafito led a hard-partying secret double life.
The puritanical impulse to hold people to super-high standards of wholesome rectitude in their private lives seems silly to me, and I think it's ultimately to the detriment of large institutions, whether universities or government or big corporations or whatever else. I'd much rather work for a highly competent CEO who indulges a few vices in her private life than a soup sandwich straight arrow, so long as the party animal keeps things professional while at work.
[edited: previous draft erroneously said he gave his companion prescription opiates, not the case]
You are correct, it does not, my mistake - the article implies that he gave his companion who OD'ed GHB and/or meth (neither of which is a prescription opiate), as well as the inhalers you mentioned.
I think the source of the anger lies in the double standard where south-central LA non-student residents in the same position would likely face jail time, but the Pasadena police appear to have willfully turned a blind eye because of Puliafito's social status: they confiscated meth without bringing any charges.
Smells like a cover up, by both Pasadena police and USC admin. And USC seems to be gaining a reputation for cover-ups.
I believe California has a safe harbor law that deters prosecution of people for drugs found on-scene when first responders are called for an OD (in order to reduce reluctance to dialing 911 in such cases). However, I'm not a lawyer.
Agree more broadly that there's a massive double standard in terms of how drug laws are enforced between rich/white neighborhoods and poor/nonwhite ones.
The puritanical impulse to hold people to super-high standards of wholesome rectitude in their private lives seems silly to me
The "in their private lives" part stops (not just stops - comes to a screeching halt) when we have incidents in which other people's lives are directly (and callously) endangered. By someone in a high-profile position in the medical profession, on top of that. In fact, that's precisely the point at which we star to call it a "legitimate public interest story".
So it's not a story about puritanical moralistic standards -- or about this guy's "party animal" life on the side (per se) - at all.
"Puliafito has no known criminal record, and public records show no blemishes on the medical licenses he holds in California and three other states. A review of court records in those states found no malpractice claims against him."
Wtf is wrong with the media that they can't let this person have a private life, warts and all. Sad.
Based on these reports, I suspect that Puliafito is a psychopath and is unfit to practice medicine. The refusal of USC authorities to recognize this and act appropriately is the real scandal.
23 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 63.5 ms ] threadReminds me of a joke I read once, where someone says "I'm shocked that Lance Armstrong was on drugs when he won the tour de france. When I was on drugs I couldn't even find my bike.".
Well it seems this guy was able to find his bike, and I can't really say I mind what he does in his private life.
No, it wasn't simply a matter of his doing drugs and "hanging around" with younger women. You might want to give the article a closer read.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-dean-ethic...
> It remains unclear when top USC officials first learned about the allegations involving Puliafito. But The Times made repeated inquiries over the last 15 months about Puliafito, in some cases describing information reporters had gathered about the dean. USC’s leaders never responded to the inquiries. Numerous phone calls were not returned, emails went unanswered and a letter seeking an interview with USC President C.L. Max Nikias to discuss Puliafito was returned to The Times by courier, unopened.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-usc-dean-pasadena-o...
> “As indicated in the article, initially there was no police report made of the incident,” Mermell said. “There should have been and that was a failure on the part of our responding officer. Once this came to light, [police] undertook an appropriate investigation and ultimately the involved officer was the subject of disciplinary action.”
If he were an actor, maybe this would just make TMZ. But he's not just an actor, he's dean of a prestigious medical school. Just like Trump's tweets aren't front page news until he became president.
However, this article seems to be trying to whip up anger not just for that particular case of depraved negligence, but more broadly for the fact that Dr. Puliafito led a hard-partying secret double life.
The puritanical impulse to hold people to super-high standards of wholesome rectitude in their private lives seems silly to me, and I think it's ultimately to the detriment of large institutions, whether universities or government or big corporations or whatever else. I'd much rather work for a highly competent CEO who indulges a few vices in her private life than a soup sandwich straight arrow, so long as the party animal keeps things professional while at work.
[edited: previous draft erroneously said he gave his companion prescription opiates, not the case]
Smells like a cover up, by both Pasadena police and USC admin. And USC seems to be gaining a reputation for cover-ups.
Agree more broadly that there's a massive double standard in terms of how drug laws are enforced between rich/white neighborhoods and poor/nonwhite ones.
The "in their private lives" part stops (not just stops - comes to a screeching halt) when we have incidents in which other people's lives are directly (and callously) endangered. By someone in a high-profile position in the medical profession, on top of that. In fact, that's precisely the point at which we star to call it a "legitimate public interest story".
So it's not a story about puritanical moralistic standards -- or about this guy's "party animal" life on the side (per se) - at all.
Wtf is wrong with the media that they can't let this person have a private life, warts and all. Sad.
But it’s fucked up if he didn’t try to help that woman to save himself or protect his reputation.