St. Joe's needs a new PR firm, or new PR personnel. What a poorly crafted statement.
The statement says absolutely nothing -- other than 'we were allowed to reject the waiver so we acted within the rules in doing so'. If the point is that there is more to the story, but that they aren't allowed to comment, then that should have been the lead.
Right from the beginning, the first statement (after the intro) is I want to assure everone that we followed the rules. Well, that's answering a quetsion no one is asking. What people are wondering is not whether SJU was allowed to reject the waiver, but whether they were right to do so. It's like a politician accused of unethical behavior saying "I didn't break any laws" -- well, ok, but the question isn't whether it's leagal, it's whether it's ethical.
And the first rule of PR is that when you address an issue, you respond to the main point, not try to answer a question that no one is asking, or you make it look like you are in the wrong.