John Hawks has an interesting look at the recent return of skeletons to a Native American tribe for reburial. This is really interesting because it indicates that there are more implications for our thoughts/ideas/theories than we realize. Hawks is an anti-Creationist, so he thinks the connection between the bones and modern tribes is ridiculous. I'm not aware of current Creationist thinking on biogeography of human remains, so I don't know whether or not a modern Creationist would agree with Hawks or with the tribe, but nonetheless it is an interesting intersection of ideas with the reality of politics.
While I appreciate Hawk's desire for administrators to administer based on principle rather than on money, I think he leaves out one additional component that may be worth considering - one that John West brought to my attention a few weeks ago - that public decisions have valid interests besides experts. Experts have been wrong - even whole communities of experts, and on matters of public policy, everyone has to live with the consequences, not just the experts. Therefore, the public has a say, too.
So, while it is very likely that Hawks is correct - the University president is probably most interested in money, one possibility that should not be overlooked is that, even though the University president is not a Creationist, the University president recognizes that there are other valid interests which include people and groups that the University president doesn't agree with. Being respectful to these groups and these ideas, even when they are in conflict with your own or experts, is wise, not spineless, though it should always be done with care.