after re-reading my original post and the large volume of comments (some not so nice), i have an updated take on the washpost piece.
first, i can see how mr o’hara’s read was right that i did get personal with murry. that was totally unnecessary and i’m sorry for it. i also want to point out that i wrote that on a blackberry on a plane with no intent of it growing into a jihad shitstorm for murry or myself.
second, i still stand behind my right to bring up the case as an example of the lack of ethical backbone at HBS. i also dont believe that anhyone has a right to privacy (legally or morally) once their case has been in public domain.
third, the question of redemption, the whole point of my original post was that it seems there is no corporate memory around ethics. the reason i mentioned fastow in a comment was that i was impressed with the way he handled himself after admitting guilt. my understanding is that he plea bargained to get his wife’s sentence commuted so she could raise their kids. i also read that he was contrite in court. i do believe people can seek redemption and in doing so can take back their story and turn it to a positive. never too late.
in general, this whole episode has been positive in raising these important questions of ethics and privacy. the internet and specifically google and wikipedia as semi permananent records will take on whole new meanings in our lives
(public and private) going forward.