Penn State Goings-On

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, I read that yesterday, and my immediate though was the same as yours:  the Penn State problem arose because highly placed individuals couldn't tell the difference between the football program and the school, and here is a trustee proving, after the sanctions were put in place to crush that concept, that the offending concept is alive and well.

I guess the NCAA sanctions bullet missed the "Culture"   

[garbon]

Then we have a very, very big difference of opinion.
I think a decision not to report a rape of a child to the authorities, once he became aware that the people he reported to would not act, is unequivocally wrong, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks so.

Indeed and this was a reaction to his role by many.

[The Minsky Moment]

"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.

Wow. Evidence the penalties weren't harsh enough.

Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Of course the penalties failed.  Because by doing nothing to change the identity of the people responsible for the lapses in supervision, it virtually guaranteed that nothing would really change.  Leopards don't change their spots, even if the zookeeper erases the old feeding records.

[grumbler]

"associated with" and "related to" are synonyms - both imply a connection with what follows.
If the intent was to have a rule that apply generally to all ethical standards then that following language simply wouldn't have been included.

I am not going to play the semantic game - you either use their words, or you substitute your own.  The latter just weakens your argument.  The argument that you can ignore what the NCAA's board and advisory committee based on your own interpretation of the significance of adding words doesn't persuade, either.

Penn State signed a consent decree upon threat of the death penalty.  If this were real law in a real court (not the NCAA kangaroo court), a neutral arbitrator or judge would give no weight to the mere fact of Penn State's consent if the question was determining whether an action actually fell within the scope of authority.

Penn State agreed that the rules applied before there was any negotiations about the scope of the penalty.  It is absolutely true that Penn State accepted the deal they got "upon threat" that they would end up with a worse deal.  If this were real law in a real court, a neutral arbitrator would accept that a plea bargain or out of court settlement, even if it turned the "real court" into a "kangaroo court," might well be in the defendant's best interests.

What individual university Presidents say, even if you had anything to support that, is also irrelevant, as is what 4 of out 5 dentists have to say.  Nor should the NCAA's opinion of its own authority to act be considered determinative of its actual authority - that is asking them to be the judge of their own case.  Without some neutral adjudicator to answer the question, there can be no legitimate exercise, only a raw exercise of ipse dixit authority.  Which is why among those thoughtful people who are not directly interested in the controversy, some have raised questions about this.

The university presidents are the NCAA.  Dentists are not.  If the American Dental Association made a ruling on the applicability of its rules to the actions of a dentist, I would tend to defer to their judgement pending evidence to the contrary.  A lawyer's opinion would carry little weight with me.

What is the "culture of penn state football" and how can it be anything more than the resultant of the actions or deliberate failures to act of individuals?

I am not sure I believe the assertion that cultures come from the actions or deliberate failures of individuals. 

The "culture of Penn State football" seems to have been "JoPa knows best, and if he does something or fails to do something, it is because that is the right thing to do or not do."  People didn't question what they perceived to be Joe Paterno's decisions.  That's where the problem lay; introspection and independent thinking went by the board when it came up against "JoPa thinks...."

This is just the use of abstraction to obfuscate.  "People in the know" didn't censor themselves because they thought the Culture Bogeyman was going to get them.

Strawman argument.

They censored themselves because specific individuals advised them to shut up and they listened.

Te evidence doesn't seem to support this.  Who specifically told McQueary to shut up?  Who specifically told the janitors to shut up?  Who specifically told the Second Mile people to shut up?

[grumbler]

Then we have a very, very big difference of opinion.
I think a decision not to report a rape of a child to the authorities, once he became aware that the people he reported to would not act, is unequivocally wrong, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks so.

Indeed and this was a reaction to his role by many.

Yes, but that begs the question of him ever making a conscious decision not to do so.  It was a grievous failure, to be sure, but I question the assumption that it was a conscious decision.

[grumbler]

Of course the penalties failed.

 

Wow!  You certainly gave them long enough before you leaped to the conclusion you had reached ahead of any evidence!

[Malthus]

Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.

Sandusky's role as a former coach was certainly not a red herring.

Whil you are correct the conduct did not affect the field of play, it was very clearly because of the fact that Sandusky was a former coach that his actions were covered up.  It was because Sandusky was a former coach (and still had his office) that JoePa was being consulted on what to do.  If Sandusky was a chemistry professor none of this would have gone through Curley or JoePa.

Was it the fact he was a former coach, or was it that, because he was a former coach, he was a personal friend of the guys in the department?

If Joe P. covered up the identical crimes of his drinking buddy, the former Professor of Chemistry (to whom he had generously provided space for his charitable works), it would be just as heinous, but in that case would the sanctions be just as appropriate? 

[dps]

Then we have a very, very big difference of opinion.
I think a decision not to report a rape of a child to the authorities, once he became aware that the people he reported to would not act, is unequivocally wrong, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks so.

Indeed and this was a reaction to his role by many.

Yes, but that begs the question of him ever making a conscious decision not to do so.  It was a grievous failure, to be sure, but I question the assumption that it was a conscious decision.

I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter.  His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do.  When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.

What kind of thought process is that?  I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid?  I just don't get it.

[Barrister]

Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.

Sandusky's role as a former coach was certainly not a red herring.

Whil you are correct the conduct did not affect the field of play, it was very clearly because of the fact that Sandusky was a former coach that his actions were covered up.  It was because Sandusky was a former coach (and still had his office) that JoePa was being consulted on what to do.  If Sandusky was a chemistry professor none of this would have gone through Curley or JoePa.

Was it the fact he was a former coach, or was it that, because he was a former coach, he was a personal friend of the guys in the department?

If Joe P. covered up the identical crimes of his drinking buddy, the former Professor of Chemistry (to whom he had generously provided space for his charitable works), it would be just as heinous, but in that case would the sanctions be just as appropriate?

It's a step removed, but potentially yes.  Depends how much it ties in to the football program.

[Malthus]

I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter.  His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do.  When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.

What kind of thought process is that?  I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid?  I just don't get it.

I don't see it as so mysterious. Guy sees the friend of his boss do something evil and criminal - and worries about whether he should do the right thing, or cover his ass by making it his boss's problem. Moral cowardice wins out.

[dps]

I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter.  His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do.  When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.

What kind of thought process is that?  I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid?  I just don't get it.

I don't see it as so mysterious. Guy sees the friend of his boss do something evil and criminal - and worries about whether he should do the right thing, or cover his ass by making it his boss's problem. Moral cowardice wins out.

OK, but asking you dad about it first?

[Malthus]

I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter.  His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do.  When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.

What kind of thought process is that?  I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid?  I just don't get it.

I don't see it as so mysterious. Guy sees the friend of his boss do something evil and criminal - and worries about whether he should do the right thing, or cover his ass by making it his boss's problem. Moral cowardice wins out.

OK, but asking you dad about it first?

Advice as to how to cover one's ass - retain job and not be subject to liability oneself. Dad's wisdom: tell the boss and make it his problem.

At least, that's my suspicion. That the guy was thinking more about his own position than about saving any kids, and his dad felt the same way.

How else to explain that he saw Sandusky rape a kid right in front of him and did nothing about it? If he was thinking of others, he'd at least have grabbed the kid, rather than let Sandusky walk out with him. 

[grumbler]

I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all on the matter.  His response to witnessing a crime was to go home and ask his father what to do.  When his daddy told him that he should tell his boss about it, that's what he did.

What kind of thought process is that?  I mean, if Sandusky was driving with an expired driver's license or something of that nature, I suppose I could see asking a parent or other authority figure if you should report him, but raping a kid?  I just don't get it.

I am not sure what your point is, here. You say "I question whether he made any conscious decisions at all " and then list some conscious decisions he made on the matter.

He made bad decisions from the start, I agree.  One of the first was to accept the idea that going to Paterno, rather than the police, was the right thing to do... hell, the decision to allow Sandusky to finish what he was doing was pretty fucked up.

My point is that McQueary, and others, probably didn't make conscious decisions to fail to follow up on what they reported.  My point is that McQueary, and others, were so ingrained in a screwed-up culture that they didn't even seem to question the idea that leaving it all in JoPa's hands was the right thing to do.  That's a result of culture, not conscious decisions to do bad things.

[grumbler]

OK, but asking you dad about it first?

Again, this isn't mysterious, as Malthus points out - McQueary didn't know who was the person to go to under the circumstances.  Out in the real world, you go to the police.  In the world JoPa built, that's not so clear.  McQueary had been living in the world JoPa built for years.

[crazy canuck]

We are talking about an association that gets together for amateur athletic competitions. The leadership of one member apparently behaved in an egregious manner that brought negative publicity to the entire association. Their continued membership will bring additional negative publicity (imagine if they won the championship next year). I don't see why the rules in place before, or even if rules were in place before at all, should prohibit the other association members from setting strict standards for continued participation of the offending member to make a public stance that the collective association does not accept the conduct that took place, to possibly deter such action in the future, or simply to give the public the blood it craves.

I think the process could be important if the NCAA as an institution was acting contrary to the wishes of its membership. But all indications are that it consulted with the presidents of its members and I haven't seen evidence that members feel the sanctions are too harsh. At the end of the day, if the members decide they don't like the color blue and vote to arbitrarily kick out every school using that color, that would seem to be their perogative.

The major problem with this analysis is that the NCAA is not merely "an association that gets together for amateur athletic competitions".   If it was there is no way they would be imposing a financial penalty in the millions of dollars and there is no way one of its members would pay (or be able to pay) such a penalty.