Penn State Goings-On

[garbon]

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.

I don't know - I mean they knew it was still happening. I'm not sure I really understand such a mindset where you'd not even think that you were washing your hands of the affair.

[grumbler]

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.

In essence, the NCAA can't act contrary to the interests of its members, because it is its members.  The NCAA used to run the TV contracts for college football and basketball.  The university presidents decided their schools and conferences would do a better job, so they simply removed that power from the NCAA.  The NCAA director came up with the idea of the NCAA basketball tournaments, and the presidents allowed the NCAA to run them because they saw the NCAA being in charge as being in the interests of the schools.  The current NCAA director wanted 4-year scholarships to be possible, and wanted athletes given what he called "total cost of attendance" allowances.  He got the first, but not the second.

The NCAA is administered by an executive director, but he works for the Board of Directors, which is made up of one college president from each each of the conferences.

[grumbler]

I don't know - I mean they knew it was still happening. I'm not sure I really understand such a mindset where you'd not even think that you were washing your hands of the affair.

Ditto, but unless you are willing to believe that a bunch of different actors just all happened to make the same decision (or non-decision) for their own individual reasons, then you have to look for the common thread, and attack that, if you really want to see a change.

[garbon]

I don't know - I mean they knew it was still happening. I'm not sure I really understand such a mindset where you'd not even think that you were washing your hands of the affair.

Ditto, but unless you are willing to believe that a bunch of different actors just all happened to make the same decision (or non-decision) for their own individual reasons, then you have to look for the common thread, and attack that, if you really want to see a change.

Well it is probably a mix of both, but agree that the strongest route is to attack the common thread.

[The Minsky Moment]

"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.

If you didn't want to play semantic games, you probably shouldn't have argued that "associated with" means something different from "related to".

I can't account for what you find persuasive or not.  What I can tell you is that the usual way texts are interpreted for the purpose of determining whether to use coercive sanctions is that the first thing you look at is the text and the words used, and well-established canons of interpretation usually require giving meaning and purpose to all the words used.

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.

I've seen nothing that indicates the first sentence is true.
In real life, a neutral will enforce a private settlement but a private settlement has zero precedential value, not even on the settling parties should an identical situation arise in the future.

The university presidents are the NCAA

Right - which just defaults back to NCAA being appealed to as the authority for judging the merits of their own case.  Invoking the university Presidents adds nothing more, even less than the dentists in fact.

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

Assuming we are talking about "culture" as a social phenomenon of some kind, then such cultures can only arise from human beings - and from what specific real-life human beings say, do, or fail to do.  Your postulation of "PSU culture" as some free-standing construct that requires sanction independent from human beings doesn't even rise to the level of an unncessary multiplicity that falls to Ockham Razor, it is just an incoherancy - To wit:

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...."

. . . . Strawman

My strawman version of your argument is stronger than the actual argument.  When it comes time to specify the phenemenon that supportedly justifies the NCAA extraordinary action, what is proposed is: a "'culture'" that "seems to be" (!) "'Joe Pa knows best'"

That may be enough for in your mind to justify a $60 mil fine; it doesn't cut it for me.  When I read the leaked GJ testimony and other reports of the various witness, it certainly didn't seem to me that any relevant decision was being made on suppositions about what Joe Paterno thinks.  Or that there was a failure of "introspection".  I would be interested in knowing what particular failures you have in mind.

Te evidence doesn't seem to support this.  Who specifically told McQueary to shut up? 

You are correct - the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, McQueary specifically testified he was not told to shut up. 
But that only makes McQueary's conduct more straightforward.  There was no PSU omerta that stopped him from going forward.  It was his own decision to protect his own interests.  You don't need to postulate some grand cultural construct to explain that behavior.  It just a individual person doing the wrong thing.

[Martinus]

Ah multi-quote responses. My favourite thing on Languish. 

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

This is a good example of using a abstract construct to diffuse personal responsibility.

Of course McQ and the others made conscious decisions not to follow up. They weren't zombies, they weren't in comas, they weren't Rip Van Winkles asleep for 15 years.  They were quite conscious and they made wrong choices. 

[grumbler]

If you didn't want to play semantic games, you probably shouldn't have argued that "associated with" means something different from "related to".

  More semantics.  They are different words because they have different meanings.  I associate with my friends, but I am not related to any of them.

I can't account for what you find persuasive or not.  What I can tell you is that the usual way texts are interpreted for the purpose of determining whether to use coercive sanctions is that the first thing you look at is the text and the words used, and well-established canons of interpretation usually require giving meaning and purpose to all the words used.

I do this and find that the university presidents are correct.  Your claim that they are wrong is unpersuasive.

I've seen nothing that indicates the first sentence is true.

I cannot account for what you have seen.  It is true regardless of your lack of seeing it.

In real life, a neutral will enforce a private settlement

Yes, and this case is a real-life case.

Right - which just defaults back to NCAA being appealed to as the authority for judging the merits of their own case.  Invoking the university Presidents adds nothing more, even less than the dentists in fact.

The members and owners of a private voluntary association are the only authorities for judging the extent to which their private association has jurisdiction over its members on matters regarding the association.  Neither you nor your dentist have a say in what the NCAA claims as its jurisdiction, so long as that jurisdictional claim is lawful.

Assuming we are talking about "culture" as a social phenomenon of some kind, then such cultures can only arise from human beings - and from what specific real-life human beings say, do, or fail to do.  Your postulation of "PSU culture" as some free-standing construct that requires sanction independent from human beings doesn't even rise to the level of an unncessary multiplicity that falls to Ockham Razor, it is just an incoherancy

Strawman argument.

My strawman version of your argument is stronger than the actual argument.  When it comes time to specify the phenemenon that supportedly justifies the NCAA extraordinary action, what is proposed is: a "'culture'" that "seems to be" (!) "'Joe Pa knows best'"

The difference between your strawman constructs of my arguments and my actual arguments is that I am arguing a point based on some evidence, and you are recreating my argument in straw man form in order to engage in some philosophical incoherence. 

That may be enough for in your mind to justify a $60 mil fine; it doesn't cut it for me.

I also said that the $60 million fine was unjustified.  I guess you couldn't fit that into your straw man version of my argument, and so decided to ignore it.

When I read the leaked GJ testimony and other reports of the various witness, it certainly didn't seem to me that any relevant decision was being made on suppositions about what Joe Paterno thinks.  Or that there was a failure of "introspection".  I would be interested in knowing what particular failures you have in mind.

The failures of McQueary, the janitors, and the Second Mile board to act based on the information they had, but which they also knew (or presumed, in the case of the janitors) Paterno knew.  Plus the similar decisions by possible others (for I don't pretend that we know of every person who knew or suspected but didn't act).  This seems to me to be too many similar decisions for them to all be acts of "bad people."

You are correct - the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, McQueary specifically testified he was not told to shut up. 
But that only makes McQueary's conduct more straightforward.  There was no PSU omerta that stopped him from going forward.  It was his own decision to protect his own interests.  You don't need to postulate some grand cultural construct to explain that behavior.  It just a individual person doing the wrong thing.

It was, according to you, just a whole host of individual people who just happened to make the same decision.  McQueary's conduct seems to me, also, to be straightforward:  he told Joe Paterno, followed Joe Paterno's instructions, and thought that, since Joe knew about it, he had no further need to act.

The explanation that McQueary remained silent in the absence of a culture of silence "to protect his own interests" flies in the face of reason.  His own interests lay in revealing what he knew to the police, so that he couldn't be accused of being an after-the-fact accomplice to Sandusky's crime.  He had no interests involved in remaining silent - unless there was a cultural barrier between him and telling the cops what he had already told Paterno, and which he knew Paterno hadn't passed on.

Occam's razor says my theory of a common thread between all these silent people is preferable to your theory that somehow chance made everyone involved decide to shut up.

[garbon]

  More semantics.  They are different words because they have different meanings.  I associate with my friends, but I am not related to any of them.

Only if you stick to think "related to" must have a familial sense. Otherwise you most certain have a relation.

[Neil]

  More semantics.  They are different words because they have different meanings.  I associate with my friends, but I am not related to any of them.

Only if you stick to think "related to" must have a familial sense. Otherwise you most certain have a relation.

Sometimes, the same words have different meanings.  grumbler is starting to go off the rails here.

[grumbler]

This is a good example of using a abstract construct to diffuse personal responsibility.

Only if you believe that it actually diffuses personal responsibility.

Of course McQ and the others made conscious decisions not to follow up. They weren't zombies, they weren't in comas, they weren't Rip Van Winkles asleep for 15 years.  They were quite conscious and they made wrong choices. 

Of course they made conscious decisions, because you say so!  Excellent argument!

On what day did McQueary make this conscious decision?

[Ed Anger]

Ah multi-quote responses. My favourite thing on Languish. 

You'll live. Rub some dirt on it and get back out there kid.



And if you don't understand any of this post, that's ok.

[The Minsky Moment]

Of course they made conscious decisions, because you say so!  Excellent argument!

My conclusion is based on the following assumptions:
1) They were conscious for at least part of the time since becoming aware of Sandusky's conduct and the GJ investigation
2) They possess the faculties of reason possessed by normal human beings
3)  They are capable of exercising agency.

On what day did McQueary make this conscious decision?

The first day was approximately four or five days after he met with Curley and Schwartz in 2002.  That was when  Curley told them that the only action that was being taken was that Curley had informed Second Mile and that the solution was to tell Sandusky not to take any more kids around PSU or PSU facilities.

That plus every single subsequent day after that when McQueary recalled what he had saw, which according to McQueary, happened quite often, because he testified that he continued to see Sandusky at PSU facilities, and that he "personally found it troubling and not right" (and yet took no further action).

While McQueary's testimony demonstrates consciousness of his own actions, there is nothing in it that mentions "football first culture" or "what JoePa thinks" or anything that suggests he was acting unconsciously or under the some kind of compulsion.

[Malthus]

To my mind the significant moment was when McQueary say Sandusky raping a kid and did nothing about it.

The issue is why he did that, and the rest of it - telling his boss, and doing nothing thereafter. As to that, we are all pretty well speculating.

To my mind, the most convincing explaination is that he's acting out of self-interest. After all, within the department it puts him in a great position - his boss is going to be reluctant to fire him, knowing what he knows.

If that is true, it demonstrates agency all right. Nasty, self-interested agency.

[dps]

The explanation that McQueary remained silent in the absence of a culture of silence "to protect his own interests" flies in the face of reason.  His own interests lay in revealing what he knew to the police, so that he couldn't be accused of being an after-the-fact accomplice to Sandusky's crime. 

I'd be surprised if the thought of him being criminally liable for anything never crossed his mind.  If that was his concern, his obvious play would have been to consult with a lawyer before talking to anyone else.  AFAIK, he didn't do so.  If he did consult with a lawyer, it would seem that the lawyer either failed to give him good advice, or he failed to heed it.