LSU sent out an email in January 2022 in partnership with Caesars, a gambling company. That email read, “bet $20, get $300” and encouraged students to use the LSU code to access this offer.
This email was sent to some underage students, which the university later said was by mistake, according to The New York Times.
College has long been viewed as a virtuous journey that is made by those who want better lives for themselves and their families.
This partnership and email ad fly directly in the face of that.
Think of it through the lens of the university’s vision and mission statement. The vision of the university is to “achieve the highest levels of intellectual and personal development,” and its mission is “the generation, preservation, dissemination, and application of knowledge and cultivation of the arts,” according to LSU’s website.
If I were to think of an activity antithetical to intellectual and personal development, it would be gambling. Gambling doesn’t preserve nor disseminate knowledge. Much like drinking or drugs, gambling is simply a vice that, if left unchecked, becomes an addiction that is a barrier to a good life.
One might say, OK, so the university used its email to push a vice upon its students, and that’s kind of bad, but did it violate its own policies in doing so?
According to LSU’s email policy statement, LSU email is only to be used “to facilitate the University’s mission.” From my reading of this, an email encouraging gambling doesn’t facilitate LSU’s stated mission.
Not only that, but according to the Responsible Marketing Code, marketing guidelines created by the American Gaming Association, “Sports wagering should not be promoted or advertised on college or university campuses.”
We expect to see advertisements all around us. Advertising is one of the biggest industries in the world. According to Statista, the United States spent more than $285 billion dollars on advertising in 2021. The vast majority of these advertisements are digital. You’ll most likely see many ads today when scrolling through Facebook, TikTok, Twitter or the Wall Street Journal when reading up on the latest news.
You might even get spam emails advertising certain products to you. How they got your email? Who knows.
We do know, however, how the university got your email. LSU created your email for you because you paid them thousands of dollars and decided to go to the university to increase your marketability as a worker and to expand your chances for success in the world.
We, as students, view the university as a source of knowledge and an intellectual guidepost. Americans, in general, view college as the next logical step after high school in bettering oneself and enhancing the probability that one is successful in life.
When the university engages in behavior that doesn’t align with its stated mission, our perception of the university is frayed. The university risks students and professors questioning the validity of its mission.
“It just feels gross and tacky for a university to be encouraging people to engage in behavior that is addictive and very harmful,” said LSU political communication professor Robert Mann in an interview with The New York Times.
This is precisely correct.
Colleges and universities take up the noble task of educating the next generation; in this, they assume a position of authority over its students.
A question worthy of asking in this situation is what duty does the university have to its students in this position of authority? It can be described as a “duty to care,” said Deborah Goldgaber, director of the LSU Ethics Institute.
LSU, as a university, claims to be in a position of moral authority that comes from its stated mission. When it violates its duty to care, it slowly picks away at that position.
“The duty of care may have been violated by encouraging gambling.” Goldgaber said.
The university administration should explain why it thinks a partnership with a gambling company is worth the reputational damage it might cause—or perhaps has already caused.
LSU can’t claim moral authority, violate the tenants of that authority and offer no explanation for why it believes its actions were acceptable. 
Put simply by Goldgaber, “The person responsible for this decision should justify their actions.”
Brandon Poulter is a 27-year-old political science and psychology major from Baton Rouge.