Good judgment has been uncharacteristic of Dr. Abdul Rao recently. However, it revealed itself Wednesday when Rao resigned in lieu of pending University investigations after he took a student’s bicycle.

Unfortunately, this revelation was short-lived.

In an e-mail sent Thursday night to Stephen Klasko, dean of the College of Medicine, Rao attempted to rescind his resignation.

“I am convinced that the conditions under which the resignations were obtained were extremely unfavorable, not giving me ample time to think through this very important decision,” he stated. “I was given no option to consult a lawyer or a member of my family and was informed that I either resign or else.”

This directly conflicts with the resignation settlement that Rao himself signed. Section 12 of the official settlement states that “Dr. Rao specifically acknowledges the following: ‘That he has had the opportunity to consult with an attorney before signing the agreement’ and ‘That he has been given 21 days to decide whether to sign this agreement.’

If Rao did the appropriate thing and read the settlement before signing, he would have realized he was afforded every opportunity to carefully review his options and seek legal counsel. If he read it, he showed yet another error in judgment by rushing to a decision before exercising his options.

Though unlikely, the other possibility is that he did not read the agreement before signing it. If this is the case, he exhibited an inexcusable amount of stupidity.

Either account would give the University additional justification for rejecting Rao’s attempts to regain employment.

“I also believe that I have up to three days to withdraw my decision and I am exercising that option and withdrawing my resignation,” Rao said.

He believed wrong.

“From our point of view, the game is over. He resigned and we are accepting that resignation and moving ahead,” said Michael Hoad.

In his e-mail, Rao stated, “I am convinced that the outcome is not compatible with the level of the infraction and has placed my professional and personal life in serious
conundrum.”

This editorial board is convinced that Rao’s actions are not compatible with the level of propriety and standard of education this University so desperately needs to establish and maintain. The only “conundrum” is why the University spent any amount of money at all in response to an obligatory resignation.