Is the Penn State Punishment Fair?
Today the NCAA announced that it is imposing unprecedented penalties on the Penn State University football program. The penalties include both retroactive penalties (such as vacating previous wins), future penalties (such as a prohibition from playing in bowl games for four years) and very large monetary penalties, to the tune of $60 million. In addition, the Big 10 Conference is applying its own set of penalties, which will effectively bar Penn State from sharing revenue from bowl games. The reaction has been mixed.
On one hand, former players have weighed in on Twitter with tweets to the effect that they had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky's horrendous crimes, so why should their records suffer? Further, there are many who continue to maintain that the late Joe Paterno did no wrong. He reported Coach Sandusky's alleged (at the time) crimes to his nominal superiors. Of course, the word "nominal" is key here. If anyone was in charge of the Penn State athletic program, it was Joe Paterno. It is likely that if Joe Paterno did not want a particular Athletic Director in the job, that person would probably be looking for new employment.
The other side of this debate is more compelling. For a decade and a half, Joe Paterno (who is now deceased and unable to defend himself), along with his nominal superiors at the university, were aware that Jerry Sandusky had probably abused young men. At the very least, it was apparent that he had engaged in highly inappropriate, if not criminal, actions. In fact, Sandusky had been in line to become Joe Paterno's successor. Instead of getting this promotion, he was forced to retire. In retrospect, it seems all too clear that the power brokers at Penn State were easing Sandusky out. In retrospect, it seems likely (though hard to prove) that Sandusky was told to quit doing whatever it was he was doing.
Not that Joe Paterno is the villian here. Along with PSU President Graham Spanier and Mr. Curley and Mr. Shultz, it seems that the top leaders of Penn State (if the Freeh report is to be believed) were interested in some kind of values. In fact, it seems they valued loyalty--loyalty to Jerry Sandusky, loyalty to the supposed integrity of the football program, loyalty to the good name of the institution. Loyalty is a fine value. But one must be sure to evaluate to whom loyalty is most due. Is loyalty due to a member of the community who violates the law? Or is loyalty due to the law? Is loyalty due to someone who puts the institution in a vulnerable position? Of is loyalty due to those who have been abused because of the institutional act of turning a blind eye?
Protection of the Institution is not a unique Penn State value. There are plenty of examples of leaders choosing to protect the institution rather than publicly embarrass the guilty. Unfortunately, this strategy almost always backfires and the coverup always looks nearly as bad as the crime. A courageous leadership stand in the late 1990s and early 2000s at Penn State would have looked something like this: a press conference to let the world know that Sandusky was being relieved of all duties and access at Penn State University, pending the results of a criminal investigation. The University has been made aware of some allegedly criminal activity, and has turned all evidence over to the district attorney. As of this time, the relationship between the University and Mr. Sandusky is severed.
That scenario would have been extremely painful for a lot of people. It would have been embarrassing to the Penn State community and to Joe Paterno. It most certainly could have resulted in accusations and denials from Sandusky. It would have, in short, upset an awful lot of people. Here is the rub. Joe Paterno helped turn Penn State University into what it was (at least until late 2011): a college football powerhouse and an academic powerhouse. His name is all over the campus. He was a true believer in academic achievement and athletic achievement. Now his reputation and legacy are forever questionable because he and his nominal bosses failed to lead. Someone had to be the leader. No one stepped up.
On one hand, former players have weighed in on Twitter with tweets to the effect that they had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky's horrendous crimes, so why should their records suffer? Further, there are many who continue to maintain that the late Joe Paterno did no wrong. He reported Coach Sandusky's alleged (at the time) crimes to his nominal superiors. Of course, the word "nominal" is key here. If anyone was in charge of the Penn State athletic program, it was Joe Paterno. It is likely that if Joe Paterno did not want a particular Athletic Director in the job, that person would probably be looking for new employment.
The other side of this debate is more compelling. For a decade and a half, Joe Paterno (who is now deceased and unable to defend himself), along with his nominal superiors at the university, were aware that Jerry Sandusky had probably abused young men. At the very least, it was apparent that he had engaged in highly inappropriate, if not criminal, actions. In fact, Sandusky had been in line to become Joe Paterno's successor. Instead of getting this promotion, he was forced to retire. In retrospect, it seems all too clear that the power brokers at Penn State were easing Sandusky out. In retrospect, it seems likely (though hard to prove) that Sandusky was told to quit doing whatever it was he was doing.
Not that Joe Paterno is the villian here. Along with PSU President Graham Spanier and Mr. Curley and Mr. Shultz, it seems that the top leaders of Penn State (if the Freeh report is to be believed) were interested in some kind of values. In fact, it seems they valued loyalty--loyalty to Jerry Sandusky, loyalty to the supposed integrity of the football program, loyalty to the good name of the institution. Loyalty is a fine value. But one must be sure to evaluate to whom loyalty is most due. Is loyalty due to a member of the community who violates the law? Or is loyalty due to the law? Is loyalty due to someone who puts the institution in a vulnerable position? Of is loyalty due to those who have been abused because of the institutional act of turning a blind eye?
Protection of the Institution is not a unique Penn State value. There are plenty of examples of leaders choosing to protect the institution rather than publicly embarrass the guilty. Unfortunately, this strategy almost always backfires and the coverup always looks nearly as bad as the crime. A courageous leadership stand in the late 1990s and early 2000s at Penn State would have looked something like this: a press conference to let the world know that Sandusky was being relieved of all duties and access at Penn State University, pending the results of a criminal investigation. The University has been made aware of some allegedly criminal activity, and has turned all evidence over to the district attorney. As of this time, the relationship between the University and Mr. Sandusky is severed.
That scenario would have been extremely painful for a lot of people. It would have been embarrassing to the Penn State community and to Joe Paterno. It most certainly could have resulted in accusations and denials from Sandusky. It would have, in short, upset an awful lot of people. Here is the rub. Joe Paterno helped turn Penn State University into what it was (at least until late 2011): a college football powerhouse and an academic powerhouse. His name is all over the campus. He was a true believer in academic achievement and athletic achievement. Now his reputation and legacy are forever questionable because he and his nominal bosses failed to lead. Someone had to be the leader. No one stepped up.
Comments
Post a Comment