Penn State Goings-On

[crazy canuck]

And the issue isn't failure to report a crime.  The issue is that "by perpetuating a "football first" culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules."

If the issue if perpetuating a football-first culture, then probably the same penalties should be levied against about 100 of the other Division 1A schools.

And why stop there.  Better add on all the Basetball first culture schools too.

[dps]

And the issue isn't failure to report a crime.  The issue is that "by perpetuating a “football first” culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules."

If the issue if perpetuating a football-first culture, then probably the same penalties should be levied against about 100 of the other Division 1A schools.

And why stop there.  Better add on all the Basetball first culture schools too.

Yeah, the 20 or so schools I was exempting included several, such as most of the ACC, where basketball comes first.

[sbr]

But the sanctions weren't necessarily about criminal acts by people in the University.

They may not have mentioned the criminal acts themselves.  But you dont content that the penalty was not related to the criminal do you?  In other words absent the criminal acts do you really think this penalty would have been imposed?

No.  I also don't think without criminal acts Jerry Sandusky would be in jail.

I didnt think so.

Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.

So according to you, once a person involved with a university has committed a crime, the NCAA has no jurisdiction over anything that could be even tangentially related?  Can they do anything once the criminal and civil processes are finished?

What if it is a student that committed the crime, can the NCAA rule on that student's eligibility to compete in NCAA sanctioned events or do they lose that too?

What about pro athletes who commit crimes away from the game, should the league be able to punish them at all?

[grumbler]

I didnt think so.

Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.

Again, the pretense that the NCAA only imposes sanctions for criminal acts (and that, when they do so, that they "usurp" the jurisdiction of the legal system) doesn't make you sound bright at all! 

SMU got the death penalty for acts that were not criminal.  The argument that PSU wouldn't get any sanctions unless they were involved in criminal acts is unsustainable, even if you get two cripples and a moron to agree with you.

Sandusky's behavior wasn't a secret known only to the perp, four men, and the victims.  It was known amongst the custodial staff as well, and I'll bet a lot further.   McQueary know.  The Second Mile knew.

But nobody acted.  Why not?  Because PSU football was to big to take on.  That's what the NCAA targeted, and that's  what they got.  The fact that it was a criminal act and not something else is beside the point.

[grumbler]

If the issue if perpetuating a football-first culture, then probably the same penalties should be levied against about 100 of the other Division 1A schools.

Ah, the ol' "everybody does it" defense.  That's never been very convincing.

The problem does exist elsewhere, of course, or the NCAA wouldn't have needed to act.  But I am willing to bet that every big-time university president has already sat down with their legal counsels and athletic directors and said "how do we make sure this can't happen here?"  That's one of the points of punishment:  it deters other would-be transgressors.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'd certainly argue that the PSU officials behaved dishonestly.  If "well, it technically wasn't dishonesty" is your argument, that's a pretty feeble reed, especially when the express purpose fo the honest behavior is to "represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports."  Ignoring Dandusky's behavior is pretty much the opposite of that.

One can argue any number of things, but if one reads the section of the NCAA rules relating to unethical conduct it is pretty clear that the kinds of conduct that they are targeted have nothing to do with what PSU did here.  The selection you quoted demonstrates that - the prupose of the rules are to promote "fair play" and "standards" relating to "competitive sports" - i.e. the relate to sporting mission of this Athletic Association and are not intended to impose general and unlimited standards of honesty and ethical behavior in all aspects of life.

Again, the argument that the NCAA's rules aren't "really applicable" is just argument by assertion.  The NCAA says they apply.  Penn State says they apply.  Coaches, lawyers, and college presidents across the country say that they apply.  They may not, but the burden is on those who say that they don't to provide some evidence.  Otherwise, your argument boils down to an unsupported opinion that runs contrary to what the better-informed principals say.

The NCAA is the very institution whose interpretation is being question, so it is circular to appeal to their authority.  Penn State signed a consent decree which is different from admitting the rules are really applicable - it is rather an agreement that they will not challenge it.  Without citation to the "coaches, lawyers and college presidents" who say they apply, or elucidiation of their reasons, or explication of what exactly makes them "better informed," there is no way to evaluate the validity of this appeal to authority.

As for my argument, it is hardly unsupported.  I have set forth a number of reasons - whether anyone finds them persuasive is another story.

And the issue isn't failure to report a crime.  The issue is that "by perpetuating a "football first" culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, the Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules."

Serial abuse occurred because and only because:
1) Sandusky was a rapist.
2) No one turned him in.

PSU "culture" didn't cause #1
That leaves 2.

So why wasn't he turned in?  The answer is that specifically identifiable human beings who had knowledge and could have turned him in made the decision not to.  That is a failure not of a "football first culture" (whatever the heck that is) or because some amorphous and unnamed "leadership" "failed . . . to value institutional integrity," but of specific individuals who when presented with a choice of how to respond, made the wrong choice.  These were educated adults, with agency.  They didn't act the way they did because they were helplessly entrapped in a dysfunctional institutional culture, but because they made a conscious decision to do the wrong thing.

The problem with blaming the "culture" and "value" of some abstract collective for individual moral failings is not just that it confuses the issues under a mass of meaningless verbiage.  And its not just because it involves the gross hypocrisy of the NCAA decrying a "football first culture" that the association and its memebers have done so much to facilitate over the years.  It is that it is counterproductive because it attenuates the real personal responsibility of the individuals in question by attributing that responsibility at least in part, to some conceptual construct.  The problem is redefined from (e.g.) Gary Schultz deciding to cover his ass and the institution's ass by deliberately failing to report criminal activity to "leadership" in general failing to value integrity and promoting the wrong culture.

[dps]

I didnt think so.

Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.

Again, the pretense that the NCAA only imposes sanctions for criminal acts (and that, when they do so, that they "usurp" the jurisdiction of the legal system) doesn't make you sound bright at all! 

Not to speak for CC, but my position is quite the opposite--the NCAA should impose penalties for violations of NCAA rules, and the courts should impose penalties for violations of criminal laws.  I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that anyone at Penn State violated any NCAA rules in relation to the Sandusky case. 

There certainly could be situations in which NCAA rules and state/federal laws are violated, in which case it would be appropriate for the NCAA to levy penalties in addition to those handed down by the courts.  This does not appear to be one of them.

[grumbler]

One can argue any number of things, but if one reads the section of the NCAA rules relating to unethical conduct it is pretty clear that the kinds of conduct that they are targeted have nothing to do with what PSU did here.  The selection you quoted demonstrates that - the prupose of the rules are to promote "fair play" and "standards" relating to "competitive sports" - i.e. the relate to sporting mission of this Athletic Association and are not intended to impose general and unlimited standards of honesty and ethical behavior in all aspects of life.

N ice rewording, but it won't fly; the standards are those "associated with wholesome competitive sports," not those merely "relating" to sports.  What is "pretty clear" to you isn't at all clear to others directly in the business.  I'll take their word for it, since your argument seems to be mere assertion.

The NCAA is the very institution whose interpretation is being question, so it is circular to appeal to their authority.

Not really, since the NCAA is an association of those to whom the authority applies.  It isn't circular to note that the presidents of the universities that make up the NCAA agree that they are bound by these rules in cases like this.

Penn State signed a consent decree which is different from admitting the rules are really applicable - it is rather an agreement that they will not challenge it.

Penn State agreed that "it accepts the findings of the Freeh report... and acknowledges that those facts constitute a violation of the Constitutional and Bylaw principals..."  I don't know how you can twist that into an assertion that this statement is "different from admitting the rules are really applicable." 

Without citation to the "coaches, lawyers and college presidents" who say they apply, or elucidiation of their reasons, or explication of what exactly makes them "better informed," there is no way to evaluate the validity of this appeal to authority.

Under the circumstances, I don't think citations would be useful.  You don't seem to know or care much about the facts of the case.  If you dispute that my sytatement is true, then I can easily find some cites - but, of course, you could do the same.

As for my argument, it is hardly unsupported.  I have set forth a number of reasons - whether anyone finds them persuasive is another story.

Your assertions seem pretty naked to me. 

Serial abuse occurred because and only because:
1) Sandusky was a rapist.
2) No one turned him in.

PSU "culture" didn't cause #1
That leaves 2.

So why wasn't he turned in?  The answer is that specifically identifiable human beings who had knowledge and could have turned him in made the decision not to.  That is a failure not of a "football first culture" (whatever the heck that is) or because some amorphous and unnamed "leadership" "failed . . . to value institutional integrity," but of specific individuals who when presented with a choice of how to respond, made the wrong choice.  These were educated adults, with agency.  They didn't act the way they did because they were helplessly entrapped in a dysfunctional institutional culture, but because they made a conscious decision to do the wrong thing.

I don't agree.  McQueary didn't make a conscious decision to do the wrong thing, I don't think.  The janitors didn't make a conscious decision to do the wrong thing, I don't think.  I think in all of those cases, people with a story to tell believed that no one would take their word against that of a powerful program and its leaders, and that they would be punished for no gain.

The problem with blaming the "culture" and "value" of some abstract collective for individual moral failings is not just that it confuses the issues under a mass of meaningless verbiage.  And its not just because it involves the gross hypocrisy of the NCAA decrying a "football first culture" that the association and its memebers have done so much to facilitate over the years.  It is that it is counterproductive because it attenuates the real personal responsibility of the individuals in question by attributing that responsibility at least in part, to some conceptual construct.  The problem is redefined from (e.g.) Gary Schultz deciding to cover his ass and the institution's ass by deliberately failing to report criminal activity to "leadership" in general failing to value integrity and promoting the wrong culture.

The problem with ignoring the culture and blaming all of the failures at Penn State on a few "bad eggs" is that it doesn't solve the problem.  The problem wasn't just Joe Paterno and his cult of personality; the problem was that people in the know censored themselves because they didn't want to take on the culture of Penn State football.  The NCAA engages in a great deal of hypocrisy, of course, but that isn't an argument for them to take no action in this case.  That is a mere begging of the question.

And only you seem to feel that forcing Penn State to face its own cultural defects somehow attenuates personal responsibility.  I have seen no one else argue that Curley or Scultz should receive any leniency based on the fact that Penn State suffered sanctions from the NCAA.

[grumbler]

Not to speak for CC, but my position is quite the opposite--the NCAA should impose penalties for violations of NCAA rules, and the courts should impose penalties for violations of criminal laws.  I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that anyone at Penn State violated any NCAA rules in relation to the Sandusky case. 

Penn State, the NCAA, and many others directly involved disagree with your lack of conviction, and your lack of conviction doesn't seem to me to be based on anything.  What would it take to convince you, if Penn State's own assertion doesn't?

[Maximus]

Why would anyone who isn't NCAA or Penn State give a fuck about what NCAA does to Penn State?

It challenges the hegemony.

[sbr]

After reading here and around other parts of the internet it does seem pretty clear that Penn State may not have actually violated any of the NCAA's written laws, rules or by-laws.  It would be nice if the NCAA's own page that says 'Click here to see the rules Penn Sate violated' actually worked as a link to somewhere.

That said I still am glad that the NCAA did what they did.  The game needs a kick in the ass and some straightening up.

The people who don't like what the NCAA did seem to fall into 2 groups (and they have a close to 100% overlap  )

1:  Lawyers.  Not that this is a surprise.  These money grubbing motherfuckers would try and throw a wrench into any agreement, no matter how or why it was made, just to create confusion and discord so both sides need to hire more of their blood sucking ilk.

2. Not fans of college football.  I don't know 100% about Minsky but being an east coast jew lawyer I can't imagine he cares much about college football.  Those that have been defending the NCAA the loudest here are the biggest fans of the game.

College football, no matter how great a game it is is pretty fucked up right now.  It isn't about catching the handful of cheaters, it is about everyone cheating and them finding the handful of unlucky/stupid schools.   Any school that is playing for BCS Bowl berths are "win first" and football above everything.  As long as they get billions of dollars of revenue from the game (with the workers working almost for free) they almost have to take that approach.

Hopefully these sanctions will make some schools think twice about this and maybe start making some decisions because they are the right thing to do, not because that is what the football team wants/needs.

[ulmont]

Sbr, did you see the letter the NCAA sent penn state?  It had sections and all.

[sbr]

Sbr, did you see the letter the NCAA sent penn state?  It had sections and all.

No.  You got a link? 

If not I will look around after dinner.

[grumbler]

After reading here and around other parts of the internet it does seem pretty clear that Penn State may not have actually violated any of the NCAA's written laws, rules or by-laws.  It would be nice if the NCAA's own page that says 'Click here to see the rules Penn Sate violated' actually worked as a link to somewhere.

That has been available for months now.  Of course, it was hidden on the NCAA's own web site; who would think to look there:
http://www.ncaa.com/content/ncaa-letter-penn-state

The front page of the NCAA site has a link to all the NCAA's documents on the topic.

College football, no matter how great a game it is is pretty fucked up right now.  It isn't about catching the handful of cheaters, it is about everyone cheating and them finding the handful of unlucky/stupid schools.   Any school that is playing for BCS Bowl berths are "win first" and football above everything.  As long as they get billions of dollars of revenue from the game (with the workers working almost for free) they almost have to take that approach.

I've never found the "everybody cheats" naked assertion very persuasive.  Your reiteration of it is no more persuasive than anyone else's. 

Hopefully these sanctions will make some schools think twice about this and maybe start making some decisions because they are the right thing to do, not because that is what the football team wants/needs.

That would, indeed, be a welcome outcome.  There are definitely schools out there that need to rein themselves in.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Here's the conclusion document.

http://www.ncaa.com/content/penn-state-conclusions

1. A failure to value and uphold institutional integrity demonstrated by inadequate,
and in some instances non-existent, controls and oversight surrounding the
athletics program of the University, such as those controls prescribed by Articles
2.1, 6.01.1, and 6.4 of the NCAA Constitution.

2. A failure to maintain minimal standards of appropriate and responsible conduct.
The NCAA seeks to foster an environment and culture of honesty, as exemplified
by NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 11.1.1, and by Bylaw 10.1 on ethical conduct.
Indeed, NCAA Bylaw 10.1 enumerates a non-exhaustive list of examples of
inappropriate conduct. In addition, Article 2.4 of the NCAA Constitution requires
athletic programs to adhere to fundamental values of respect, faimess, civility,
honesty and responsibility.

3. A lack of adherence to fundamental notions of individual integrity. An
institution's head coach should promote an atmosphere for compliance and
monitor the activities of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved
with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach. Further, NCAA
Bylaw 19.01.2, consistent with Article 2.4 of the NCAA Constitution, demands
the employees associated with intercollegiate athletics to serve as positive moral
models for students in order "for intercollegiate athletics to promote the character
development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to
promote civility in society."