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.

Yes — you’re right — that’s what I think is lacking at the moment — need to make this dilemma clearer — a toughy. Thanks again!

Thanks wilsondownunder.

It’s a pretty tricky concept that we both know we haven’t excatly nailed yet (other issues as well — like the fact there are two ‘accusations going on…)

Essentially — it would be a tragedy (I have spent the afternoon arguing the case against this, but not my baby… 🙂 ) Our guy struggles with either supporting the Dean (a publicly well loved, charismatic type) and in turn making himself complicit to the sexually criminal atmosphere, or, say and do nothing to support his mentor the Dean, but have the opportunity to become the new Dean (which he becomes in the end…) but finds himself in the scenario whereby he too is challenged with the machinations of power. A tad complex — but the theme is to show that INDECISION, or, the unwillingness to make a choice is in fact immoral with major negative consequences… Anywayz — appreciate your thought.

This is a friend’s concept — just seeing if it can work…