When a senior member of a prestigious University is accused of sexual misconduct, the head of the Economics department must defend his long-time mentor, the Dean, who is accused of complicity by ignorance.

Aye... there's the rub, dpg... ignorance perhaps is not right word... maybe more to the point is that he turns a blind I to it -- he knows, but does nothing. In Blake Snyder land it would fall into the Institutionalized basket.

The germ of the idea came from a current government inquiry into the covering up of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church... Why set it in a University? I think my friend wants to deal with similar issues, but not in such an 'on the nose' way, if you know what I mean...

Thanks for your, as always, insightful feedback.

Right: fundamentally, the guy is trapped in a dilemma, loyalty to the law or loyalty to friendship.

However, "who is accused of complicity by ignorance" -- is unclear to me. How can one be complicit in malfeasance if one knew nothing about? To have evidence for probable cause to suspect malfeasance and have done nothing is one thing, but I should think that ignorance is exculpatory.

Right: fundamentally, the guy is trapped in a dilemma, loyalty to the law or loyalty to friendship.

However, "who is accused of complicity by ignorance" -- is unclear to me. How can one be complicit in malfeasance if one knew nothing about? To have evidence for probable cause to suspect malfeasance and have done nothing is one thing, but I should think that ignorance is exculpatory.