Would this really be big news if the school wasn't funded by Oprah? I mean look I hate the bitch, but it's hardly on her how the students in her school behave if she's not directly in charge.

Where she takes credit, she must also bear responsibility.

Quote from Percy

Where she takes credit, she must also bear responsibility.

Very true, if one of those students did become a future leader, she would take all credit, and insist she is called the Oprah-educated leader.

Winfrey, herself a victim of sexual abuse as a child

What, just like she had pet cockroaches as well, only that turned out to be a complete load of horseshit, so it makes you wonder, was she sexually abused, or did she just say she was to beef up her life story, just as she did with the cockroaches?

Just goes to prove that all the fine words and money in the world are not going to change human nature. Putting females on a pedestal and telling them they are angels who can do no wrong is just a sham, they will still follow their very less than angelic instincts and behave accordingly. And they would make no better leaders than the equally flawed men who are in charge right now.

""Winfrey, herself a victim of sexual abuse as a child"" !
dar she blows her credential for being a target of oppression

Where she takes credit, she must also bear responsibility.

That's totally dishonest, in my opinion. She does not run the school day-to-day, she is its patron. She supplies money not expertise. If money could have prevented this then condemn away but I don't see how it could. As a patron she might also have withdrawn support after the first controversy, but if she had we would now be criticising her for jumping ship. Oprah can take credit for good that comes of this school because she facilitates it. Education, housing, food, etc, these things generate good. That's a simple fact. That people might choose to make mistakes, fuck up, be criminals, etc while availing themselves of others charity in no way implicates the person trying to help them.

Dad, she is far more than a 'Patron', she started the School at her own initiative and milked the fact for all it was worth and more.

I take leadership as it is supposed to be. Accountable.

One could use your arguement (as it is used) to exonerate Prime Ministers and Presidents, Heads of Government Departments and everyone else in the Chain of Command for things that go wrong. SHE could have and SHOULD have made sure that such things did not happen. She does not appear to have taken even baby-steps.

Compare that with the all-too-common blaming - and punishing - CEOs, Directors and Shareholders when some vicious femizembezzler whines about someone making a 'remark' she finds offensive. Even the friggin' taxpayer is stung. They are far less 'Patrons' that the Oprah-phony.

A president or CEO is not a patron. That said if she was in charge of the school as in directly ran it then I agree. Ownership is not the same as leadership. Investment does not equal responsibility. Responsibility should always come in direct proportion to power and influence. Citing examples of unfair cases where women milked money from taxpayers, etc indicates nothing other than that people can indeed be unreasonable when placing blame, and often hold people to account in situations where they should not be. Or fail to when they should. However if, as you say, she was in charge then fair enough. I was under the mistaken assumption that her role was as a beneficiary. I am not a big consumer of Oprah news / facts, heh, can you blame me? Fair enough I probably shouldn't have weighed in, but was in some ways misled by the article. Nevertheless I admit I am wrong.

I cannot visualize a world in which she is held accountable however. Sad.