Penn State Goings-On

[grumbler]

I dunno. If the penalty for covering up crimes is to be fired and suffer criminal punishments - what additional actual deterrence is provided by imposing sanctions on the institution as a whole, after you, the person(s) responsible for the cover-up, are (presumably) long gone, serving your time? I mean, unless you are very loyal to your organization, presumably you don't really care what happens to it that much, compared with what will happen to you. 

It depends on whether the audience for these sanctions is the Presidents of the universities, or the boards.  The PSU board raised the issue of increasing the accountability of the athletic department and the president in 2000, and again in 2004, and were basically talked out of it.  These sanctions tell boards of directors/regents/whatever that they need to be more serous about their responsibilities.

[Berkut]

I guess this kind of comes down to whether we consider the University an entity that exists over and above the individials who make up its adminstrators, and hence the sum of the policies, procdeures, and culture that make up that University is identifiaible (and worthy of being punished) outsde simple the individuals who happen to be filling some job at any particular moment.

It isn't ideal of course, but what is the alternative? If you never hold the organization responsible, then there really isn't any real enforcement - any school can simply cut the individuals free now and again, and escape any real penalty.

The purpose of holding the school accountable, even if the people are gone already, is to make current schools think "Hey, I better actually buy into the idea that we should do things the right way, rather than buy into the idea that we should be good at not getting caught".

Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.

[grumbler]

No I am saying the University would survive just fine without it. 

Sure.  Same for the art school, the music school, the engineering school, etc.  Lots of schools don't have those things.

[Valmy]

Sure.  Same for the art school, the music school, the engineering school, etc.  Lots of schools don't have those things.

I was responding to CC's claim that Penn State was dependent on its football program.  So yes.

[Valmy]

Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.

Hush you!

[grumbler]

I was responding to CC's claim that Penn State was dependent on its football program.  So yes.

Experience tells us that, if CC says it, it probably isn't true.  I agree that PSU could survive quite handily without an athletic department.  It would be a massive blow to their identity, but the institution would survive in some form.  Athletics are icing, not cake.

[Malthus]

Dunno what the university as an organization can effectively do, if the people who make up its administration are covering up crimes. The most the university itself can do to someone is threaten to fire them if they cover up stuff.

Well one thing they can do is get at the heart of why staff think it is appropriate/acceptable to cover up crimes.

I assume the same reason people think it is okay to commit crimes in the first place. Because they will personally benefit from the crime, and believe that chances are good they won't be caught and punished.

[Malthus]

Jail is deterrence to the individuals.  But what is deterring the institution as a whole?  To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.

If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.

OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?

[Barrister]

Dunno what the university as an organization can effectively do, if the people who make up its administration are covering up crimes. The most the university itself can do to someone is threaten to fire them if they cover up stuff.

Well one thing they can do is get at the heart of why staff think it is appropriate/acceptable to cover up crimes.

I assume the same reason people think it is okay to commit crimes in the first place. Because they will personally benefit from the crime, and believe that chances are good they won't be caught and punished.

The heart of the claim here though is that Penn State allowed and encouraged a culture where football was held to be more important than anything else - a culture where nobody dared question JoePa, a culture where the needs of the football program were above the needs of protecting children.

[Barrister]

Jail is deterrence to the individuals.  But what is deterring the institution as a whole?  To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.

If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.

OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?

The claim isn't that the President covered up the crime, but that the President, Board of Regeants and whomever failed to exercise sufficient (or any) control or oversight over the football team.  It's not a criminal offence, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very seriously.

[sbr]

The Freeh report says the president helped in the cover up.

[Malthus]

I guess this kind of comes down to whether we consider the University an entity that exists over and above the individials who make up its adminstrators, and hence the sum of the policies, procdeures, and culture that make up that University is identifiaible (and worthy of being punished) outsde simple the individuals who happen to be filling some job at any particular moment.

It isn't ideal of course, but what is the alternative? If you never hold the organization responsible, then there really isn't any real enforcement - any school can simply cut the individuals free now and again, and escape any real penalty.

The purpose of holding the school accountable, even if the people are gone already, is to make current schools think "Hey, I better actually buy into the idea that we should do things the right way, rather than buy into the idea that we should be good at not getting caught".

Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.

I dunno. I'm just not getting why collective, institutional punishment is appropriate.

Perhaps an example would illustrate the issue. Say a famous, skilled player - a new OJ Simpson ( ) - murdered someone, and his coach found out about it. Intead of going to the cops, he went to the President of the university. Between them, they decided to help the player cover up the murder, maybe personally buried the victim on the 50 yard line.

To my mind, arresting all three is a no-brainer. They are all guilty as fuck, and ought to sit out the season- and many more - in a cell. What I would not understand, is imposing sanctions on the school. Maybe the school board exercised bad judgment in hiring these guys, but how do you know in advance who will do that? Having a policy that says "whatever you do, do not cover up murders. Do not bury the victims in the playing field" is all well and good, but really, you sorta expect people not to do that anyway, and if they are the sort that would, are they really going to listen to your policy? "Oh yeah, I was about to commit this crime, but then I read Article 5(B) of my University Code of Conduct, and realized it was a bad idea".

[Malthus]

Jail is deterrence to the individuals.  But what is deterring the institution as a whole?  To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.

If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.

OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?

The claim isn't that the President covered up the crime, but that the President, Board of Regeants and whomever failed to exercise sufficient (or any) control or oversight over the football team.  It's not a criminal offence, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very seriously.

My understanding is that the allegation is that the upper management was in on the cover-up, but I could be wrong in that.

The problem is that, should the execs who actually run the show decide to do criminal things like run a cover-up, what duty - and what ability - does the board have to prevent that? They are not cops. 

[Barrister]

Jail is deterrence to the individuals.  But what is deterring the institution as a whole?  To flip around your analysis, if you're a university president, board of directors and whatever - you don't particularily care if a few employees are thrown in jail.

If you are a university president, and you cover up a crime, *you* should be thrown in jail, and if you aren't, that's a bigger problem.

OTOH, if someone lower down in the administraton covers up a crime, and you know nothing about it - why should you, or the institution you serve, be punished at all? That's like punishing the police for failing to detect a crime, only worse - as the university president is not really equipped to investigate crimes by his subordinates, right?

The claim isn't that the President covered up the crime, but that the President, Board of Regeants and whomever failed to exercise sufficient (or any) control or oversight over the football team.  It's not a criminal offence, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very seriously.

My understanding is that the allegation is that the upper management was in on the cover-up, but I could be wrong in that.

The problem is that, should the execs who actually run the show decide to do criminal things like run a cover-up, what duty - and what ability - does the board have to prevent that? They are not cops.

It's a vicarious liability issue essentially.  Plenty of cases have found institutions like universities liable for failing to provide adequate oversight (and plenty where they have not).  Hell, here's the SCC saying how it happens:

http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii693/1999canlii693.html

[sbr]

I guess this kind of comes down to whether we consider the University an entity that exists over and above the individials who make up its adminstrators, and hence the sum of the policies, procdeures, and culture that make up that University is identifiaible (and worthy of being punished) outsde simple the individuals who happen to be filling some job at any particular moment.

It isn't ideal of course, but what is the alternative? If you never hold the organization responsible, then there really isn't any real enforcement - any school can simply cut the individuals free now and again, and escape any real penalty.

The purpose of holding the school accountable, even if the people are gone already, is to make current schools think "Hey, I better actually buy into the idea that we should do things the right way, rather than buy into the idea that we should be good at not getting caught".

Of course, if this actually happened, the entire SEC would likely implode.

I dunno. I'm just not getting why collective, institutional punishment is appropriate.

Perhaps an example would illustrate the issue. Say a famous, skilled player - a new OJ Simpson ( ) - murdered someone, and his coach found out about it. Intead of going to the cops, he went to the President of the university. Between them, they decided to help the player cover up the murder, maybe personally buried the victim on the 50 yard line.

To my mind, arresting all three is a no-brainer. They are all guilty as fuck, and ought to sit out the season- and many more - in a cell. What I would not understand, is imposing sanctions on the school. Maybe the school board exercised bad judgment in hiring these guys, but how do you know in advance who will do that? Having a policy that says "whatever you do, do not cover up murders. Do not bury the victims in the playing field" is all well and good, but really, you sorta expect people not to do that anyway, and if they are the sort that would, are they really going to listen to your policy? "Oh yeah, I was about to commit this crime, but then I read Article 5(B) of my University Code of Conduct, and realized it was a bad idea".

It wasn't a one time thing.  Sandusky raped multiple children in the Penn State Athletic building and was witnessed doing so at least twice.  Neither time did anyone go to the police.  Sandusky, who had retired from the program a decade previously, still had an office in the Athletics building until just a year or two ago.  People that knew he was a child rapist saw him on campus with children and did nothing about it.  Even though he was no longer on the staff, and was a known child rapist, Sandusky continued to hang around the Penn Sate football program, and they say he used his connections to the Penn State football program as bait to lure children from his own charity into his predatory web.

Sandusky used the Penn State football program to attract children and used their facilities to rape those children and the University President, the VP in charge of Campus Safety, the Athletic Director, and the Head Football Coach knew about this for over a decade and not only chose to hide it, but helped to cover it up.

A janitor that witnessed Sandusky raping a child decided not to report it because he knew he would be fired and the charges would never go anywhere.  The Penn State football culture was so incredibly broken it needed to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.