quote:To what extent would the players be hurt, really, by ending the program? Also to consider is that other programs have been killed for far, far less. Jaywalking in comparison, but apparently their real crime was not being a powerhouse program.
Potential damage to their careers, to say nothing of many probably losing crucial scholarships.
quote:If not, help them to stay at the university, subsidizing as necessary those who choose to stay but will have lost their scholarships without football. As you say, it's not their fault.
I have far less of an objection under these circumstances. I think tossing them out is overly harsh, but if you make considerations to ensure they can still finish out school with help, then it's less a big deal. As you say, the top tier athletes who were going to have careers anyway will likely move on to other schools.
quote:I think stripping the college indefinitely from this enormously lucrative and prestigious program is both appropriate, and useful to the rest of them in that it sends an unequivocal message.
It's a big step, a dramatic one...but I'm at a point where I think college sports, football especially, are so messed up, and the severity of this crime is so rampant and hideous that that sort of step is both justified and necessary to send a message to the rest of the NCAA. It sucks that a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire, but not everyone gets to come out unscathed when something this awful happens.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Potential damage to their careers, to say nothing of many probably losing crucial scholarships.
As you allude to below, statistically few of them will actually have professional athletic careers, that is NFL careers. And we both agree that their scholarships should either, through NCAA power and influence, be upheld at Penn State or be permitted to be shifted elsewhere. Hell, the NCAA could pay for it themselves and it would be less than a drop in the bucket.
quote:I have far less of an objection under these circumstances. I think tossing them out is overly harsh, but if you make considerations to ensure they can still finish out school with help, then it's less a big deal. As you say, the top tier athletes who were going to have careers anyway will likely move on to other schools.
Can they be said to have been tossed out, if the program is gone and nobody remains? Little quibble, really.
quote:It's a big step, a dramatic one...but I'm at a point where I think college sports, football especially, are so messed up, and the severity of this crime is so rampant and hideous that that sort of step is both justified and necessary to send a message to the rest of the NCAA. It sucks that a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire, but not everyone gets to come out unscathed when something this awful happens.
Likewise. I wish I had hope that it would work, though. When fan condemnation and support for such a move is far ffom universal when *child rape* is on the table, I don't really know what it would take. Every single athlete murdering toddlers in uniform on video, it would seem.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To what extent would the players be hurt, really, by ending the program?
Football is really the only sport I care about but I have to admit that it is a brazenly exploitative institution. I want Penn State to go down to further an overall collapse and potential rebuild of what has become an industry of corrupt profits.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gabbing about this with my old man over fish and chips, I wondered aloud-taking his agreement for granted-what it would take for people to come to the conclusion, "Penn State doesn't get to have a football program for awhile." He seemed surprised and replied, "Well I don't think that's called for."
The more I encounter that point of view, the more it seems that it is simply a given: these major football playing colleges just get to have football programs, and there isn't anything that ought to take that away. It's down at the facts of life level, I guess, like rights you get even when you're in prison.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the way I had opposition to the NCAA death penalty explained to me went a few ways. One, fans of Penn State are remarkably good sports and a pleasure to be around, and there are a lot of folks who really love, and make it part of their lives, Penn State football. He loves college ball a good bit more than me, but I can appreciate the impulse to stick up for good fans, even if in this situation it seems to me to be totally irrelevant. My (not spoken) response was to think, "Alright, but who gives a s*%t?")
The second part of it was that the key figures in this scandal are going to face criminal and civil justice (well, not Paterno), and that it was a group of individuals, not the institution, which transgressed. That seemed like serious nonsense to me, but I couldn't manage to make myself heard on that. Prior to this, there would have been many people who said without irony that Paterno *was* Penn State football, aside from the other three figures, including a president.
Also in the list were that other programs that have gotten the axe did so for football-specific rulebreaking, and that that was why they got the worst penalty, but Penn State shouldn't. That seemed plausible at first before I remembered: college football and the NCAA are most definitely *not* in the business of claiming they're only there for the football. You don't have to watch a game very long at all to hear talk about sportsmanship, student athletes, good works, so on and so forth. A substantial part of the culture's image appears, to me at least, to involve good people, not just good athletics.
The most compelling and paradoxical opposition came from the idea that Penn State will be hit with massive financial penalties, and if their program is axed they won't be able to pay. I have no idea if that's true or not. If it is, I suppose there is some merit, but I suspect that there would also be opposition to the program netting zero dollars for at least several seasons, if 'think of the fans' comes up.
Talk about trying to curb the power of coaches and athletic departments was met with blank-faced surprise. It would seem there is nothing beyond civil penalties that universities need to listen to, and because that power stems ffom popular adoration, there isn't anything to be done.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very conflicted about this. On the one hand, it is a criminal and civil matter and the court system is at work, so you could say the NCAA has no reason to get involved. On the other hand, the football program, through its leaders, allowed this to continue. Some of the assaults took place on the premises using football facilities. How does that not meet the NCAA's definition of "lack of institutional control?"
The University of Alabama faced sanctions and was put on probation because some football players sold back their textbooks at the end of the semester. The NCAA found that the football administration should have done a better job keeping up with what players did with their books. If we're concerned about what some 19 year olds do with a history textbook, surely to God we should be concerned with a program that allows a suspected pedophile to continue to bring young boys onto school property and abuse them there. If that's not "lack of institutional control", I don't know what is.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Gabbing about this with my old man over fish and chips, I wondered aloud-taking his agreement for granted-what it would take for people to come to the conclusion, "Penn State doesn't get to have a football program for awhile." He seemed surprised and replied, "Well I don't think that's called for."
The more I encounter that point of view, the more it seems that it is simply a given: these major football playing colleges just get to have football programs, and there isn't anything that ought to take that away. It's down at the facts of life level, I guess, like rights you get even when you're in prison.
The only problem I'm trying to reconcile with suspending the program, is that it effectively punishes the entire school for a handful of individuals actions.
The income generated by the football program goes towards things like college expansion, new professors, better facilities, etc. The program provides jobs as well as scholarships for students, jobs for members of the community, programs for prospective students and even non-students, as well as attracting talent from around the country.
As near as I can tell, the only people who did anything wrong were those who intentionally concealed these crimes. The coach who didn't do enough is dead, the administrators who failed to notify the police are being prosecuted. The perpetrator has been convicted. Near as I can tell, the only thing the school should probably be doing is attempting to make things right with the victims and their families. Whether that be paying for counseling, or just a monetary settlement.
While I am sympathetic to the idea, football *isn't* untouchable, I'm just not sure this is really the correct situation for going that far.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only problem I'm trying to reconcile with suspending the program, is that it effectively punishes the entire school for a handful of individuals actions.
The income generated by the football program goes towards things like college expansion, new professors, better facilities, etc. The program provides jobs as well as scholarships for students, jobs for members of the community, programs for prospective students and even non-students, as well as attracting talent from around the country.
The thing is, at what point does 'a few individual actions' turn I to 'actions of the institution' if those individuals are the highest members of that institution, take actions over years and even decades, and support or retaliate against other members based on how they go along-or don't?
These individuals would certainly have had the prestige of the institution rub off on them when it was time for awards, press coverage, politics, power in the workplace, so on and so forth. It seems to me that it's too late to say they weren't 'the institution', because in large part they were viewed as such when good things happened before.
Now, if there was some way to ensure that the money the football program brings in went overwhelmingly to court settlements and funding the actual university first and foremost, I'd be very interested in that. But that's almost never how it works. People say that football is great for schools because of all the money it brings in, and forget how very much of that money doesn't leave the hands that brought it. Which is fine, they bring the crowds, but they're not being charitable.
quote:As near as I can tell, the only people who did anything wrong were those who intentionally concealed these crimes. The coach who didn't do enough is dead, the administrators who failed to notify the police are being prosecuted. The perpetrator has been convicted. Near as I can tell, the only thing the school should probably be doing is attempting to make things right with the victims and their families. Whether that be paying for counseling, or just a monetary settlement.
I think it's safe to say the university as a whole did something very wrong by fostering, with enormous financial incentive, the sense of entitlement and ruthlessness among the men who actually took specific actions that went a bit beyond simply not telling police, to knowing it was going on and giving Sandusky tacit permission-just so long as it wasn't there. Now, it's certainly true the university as a whole didn't make that specific decision, but I'm enormously skeptical that there weren't so many little things over years building up. I mean, for example, those janitors and that guy who talked to his father...they saw children being raped (regardless of the legal definition), and they were worried that reporting it would cause trouble or cost them their jobs.
I don't think they just imagined those fears. I don't think that sort of culture is one which comes from the bottom, but rather from the top.
quote:While I am sympathetic to the idea, football *isn't* untouchable, I'm just not sure this is really the correct situation for going that far.
I can sympathize with that. To me, though, if we're going go suspend programs because of tattoos for autographs, textbooks sales, gambling, cheating (and I'm actually fine with the latter two), it seems an awful injustice not to do so for this sort of thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To me, though, if we're going go suspend programs because of tattoos for autographs, textbooks sales, gambling, cheating (and I'm actually fine with the latter two), it seems an awful injustice not to do so for this sort of thing.
posted
Holy geeze. If that report is accurate, and Caltech self-reported violations that never would've been found, then punished itself and the NCAA still gave them the chair, so to speak...man. I can't help but wonder what is being said behind closed doors to prompt such a stupid, petty exercise of power if it happened like that.
On another note, in listening to Talk of the Nation, there was a lengthy piece on whether or not to give the death penalty to Penn State. Several callers and letter writers remarked their opposition on the grounds that it punishes students.
The more I think about this, the more baffling it is. Not only are whole slews of innocent students caught up in NCAA punishments because of trangressions by coaches, recruiters, professors, or other students and no one regards it as especially foul, but punishing the group for the infractions of a few isn't exactly unheard of in team sports either. Anyone who has played team sports has run laps, done drills, suicides, and all sorts of other exercises because someone or some few people screwed up. That being one of the components of team sports, but suddenly with Penn State (but not athletically awkward but academically brilliant Caltech) suddenly everybody's an individual. When a professor forges grades or a recruiter pays money, they're not just individuals. They're punished, and then the institution is punished too-all of it, not just the guilty, but literally the guilty-by-association.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Holy geeze. If that report is accurate, and Caltech self-reported violations that never would've been found, then punished itself and the NCAA still gave them the chair, so to speak...man.
That is my understanding. But Caltech is one school where the honor code really MEANS something (and honestly, the athletic programs really don't).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't most NCAA sanctions punish a bunch of people for the actions of a few? It seems like this would never have gone on so long if the people involved weren't important to the football program.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's what the article made clear to me too, Rivka. The emphasis at Caltech places student at a much higher premium than athlete. With the big, multi-million dollar football programs, I don't think anyone serious would claim that the emphasis isn't switched. Despite all the talk about role models and good work and student athletes you'll see briefly portrayed during the television coverage of a game between two big programs.
Hell, I remember (it's been awhile, and someone more updated on NCAAF can maybe correct me) a time when a player was mentioned as excelling at double-majoring as well as being an effective big program player. Which is pretty impressive, but the double major only ever got lip service. Which is fine, since we really really really love football in this country, highlighted by our college athletics in and of itself, but frankly it seems to me the whole moral shine and coating to the big programs hasn't been anything more than b*#%£it for quite some time, at least in terms of the upper levels. Which is also natural, given how much money is involved.
--------
Well if you want to say what I did better in about a quarter the words, Shigosei... Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That seems really harsh. The real people being affected are the students of Penn State who had nothing to do with the scandal
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:That seems really harsh. The real people being affected are the students of Penn State who had nothing to do with the scandal
No, they're also being affected. But what do you want? You speak as though that university has some sort of sacrosanct right to an enormously profitable football program. Nothing the leadership of the university and its athletics department might do that would be punished wouldn't impact unrelated students at the university. Shall there then be no punishments, ever, for the program and university when it behaves with abject negligence and gross inhumanity?
This set of punishments will likely take many, many years for Penn State's football program, and the university, to recover from. Which is entirely appropriate, given the crime. We don't accord any other institutions this sort of hand-wringing deference. If a private business were found to be guilty of dumping barrels of toxic waste into the local river, we wouldn't just say, "Well the majority of employees had no knowledge of or hand in these crimes, so we can't take any action that will hurt them."
No. College football is not special. If it were actually a haven for the 'student athlete' and placed as its highest priority good sportsmanship, honorable character, and academics blended with athletics it might be special. It's not. It's a damned money farm, with the people generating the money-the 'student-athletes'-being compensated at only a tiny fraction of the wealth their athletics generate.
At first I was unhappy with this outcome. I felt a death penalty was in fact too lenient, but I've been hearing today from various commentators-who had been quite bloody-minded-that this may actually be worse than a death penalty for the program for some period of years, and that's without taking into account the many tens of millions I think will be paid in numerous civil suits.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many of whom will transfer to schools that didn't actively shield a pedophile for many years.
I suspect he meant students of the wider university, rather than the athletes themselves who have been given that option. To the extent the athletics department funds the rest of the university, which is substantial, he's right, I think.
My response to that remains, frankly, 'tough'. This was not simply the negligence or even criminality of a few select individuals, this was an institutional failing, to put it mildly-the institution is then punished.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many of whom will transfer to schools that didn't actively shield a pedophile for many years.
I suspect he meant students of the wider university
So did I.
The average college student transfers at least once. If the Penn students don't like the situation at their current school, transferring is an option. It may not be the best option for some of them. In fact, for some who are close to graduation, it might be a really lousy option.
Nonetheless, it IS an option.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it is an option for the majority of students rivka but the punishment seems overly harsh to the entire school.
I personally think that the NCAA should stay out of it entirely. Okay, maybe not entirely, but already most of the people responsible for keeping the abuse under wraps have been terminated. i.e. Joe Paterno.
So after the school and its students have suffered more than enough negative publicity from the scandal and having its beloved football coach get fired, die, and THEN have his statue torn down in the obvious display of unfounded contempt the NCAA and general populace still hold for the University.
And above all of that, the NCAA still somehow finds it appropriate to slap down an enormous sanction upon the University. I find that completely inappropriate and unfair.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was mostly satisfied with the punishment. It needs to hurt, but I don't think they should kill the whole program.
Penn State just removed the statue of Paterno from campus, and he lost his legacy as the winning-est coach in NCAA history, heck I don't even think you could say he will be fondly remembered by most people. The school can still play football, and the punishment sends a message that it's going to hurt if you do things like that.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally think that the NCAA should stay out of it entirely. Okay, maybe not entirely, but already most of the people responsible for keeping the abuse under wraps have been terminated. i.e. Joe Paterno.
So after the school and its students have suffered more than enough negative publicity from the scandal and having its beloved football coach get fired, die, and THEN have his statue torn down in the obvious display of unfounded contempt the NCAA and general populace still hold for the University.
There were more people involved than Paterno and Sandusky. Have you read the Freeh report, or a detailed summary? It doesn't sound like it, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Even if you take into account the four people known so far to have had the most impact on concealing the ongoing rape of children, they still weren't the only ones who need to answer for this. There were also those above and below who, answering to this damnably stupid reverence for college football and its heroes-and I say that as a fan myself-kept things quiet in pursuit of money and glory. Who didn't report for fear of their jobs or damage to the program, or who didn't inquire because they didn't want to offend the big guys.
As to your second paragraph, I'm sorry, but what is this nonsense? More than enough negative publicity? For a number of their most powerful and respected figures concealing and sanctioning dozens (of known) instances of child rape? A few months of negative publicity is enough, huh? Paterno died? That doesn't add to the justice done, it distracts. He very much earned the lengthy humiliation and public revulsion of a lengthy trial. So they lost their beloved coach and his statue? They should have. If he wasn't a freaking football coach, no one of any kind of moral sanity would look at someone who knew children were being raped and did nothing (actually worse than that) without recoiling from them in disgust. The university and especially its leadership, athletic leadership in particular, richly deserve contempt at least.
It is frankly outrageous that you or anyone would suggest that they have somehow suffered enough or that Penn State is somehow itself a victim. For decades the university has reaped the benefits in money and prestige from its football program, even for those who couldn't even tell you how many points are in a touchdown. The flip side of that is this. The only thing that excuses this shameful misplaced outrage is that you're not alone: we're taught that college sports are special or sacred. They're not.
---------
quote:The average college student transfers at least once. If the Penn students don't like the situation at their current school, transferring is an option. It may not be the best option for some of them. In fact, for some who are close to graduation, it might be a really lousy option.
Yeah, that's certainly true, and I'd be surprised if you didn't know more about the migration patterns of college students than just about everyone around here-certainly me! In any event, the collateral damage is to me regrettable, but necessary. When an institution must be punished, unless it's the Neo-Nazi Puppy Kickers Corporation, there are going to be some people harmed who don't have it coming.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im not saying that the death of joe paterno somehow contributed to the punishment or that all of the people involved in the coverup have been exposed, but what i am saying is that the entirety of Penn State university, namely the innocent students, is being wrongly punished!
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: I agree that it is an option for the majority of students rivka but the punishment seems overly harsh to the entire school.
Collective groups often get punished collectively. Rewarded that way, too. When Penn's team was doing great, there were lots of benefits that accrued to students through no action of their own (except maybe choosing that school). In the same way, now that the rot at the core of that shininess has been exposed and rooted out, the students will have negative consequences through no action of their own (except maybe choosing that school).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: I personally think that the NCAA should stay out of it entirely.
What do you think the NCAA's point as an organization is that you think they should just sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing about this whole, grotesque affair?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But think about how this will play out for them. For the rest of their lives they will be haunted with the fact that they attended Penn State during the Sandusky sex abuse scandal. There is nothing anyone could have done to prevent this, I know. (except maybe Sandusky himself). But maybe people could be more sympathetic to the situation thousands of young adults now find themselves in. It doesn't help that there was such extensive coverage by the media on the riot/protests after Paterno was fired. Now it seems, that general public views any student associated with Penn State as either a profiteering scoundrel ,raking in cash without any moral fiber whatsoever, or as an ignorant, overly passionate college frat boy. Blinded by a mob atmosphere and a collective love of college football. It's not that they don't think child abuse isn't an issue. They just put that much more emphasis on school spirit and loyalty to their football program
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: There is nothing anyone could have done to prevent this, I know. (except maybe Sandusky himself).
You're KIDDING, right? Several members of the school's administration actively covered for, covered up, and did various other types of covering.
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: It's not that they don't think child abuse isn't an issue. They just put that much more emphasis on school spirit and loyalty to their football program
So if it were a school where football weren't such a big deal, THEN a child abuse scandal would be more important?
It was precisely because football was such a big deal at Penn that the administration had so much incentive to do all that covering. They need to be shown -- and anyone who might consider covering up something in any way similar needs to be shown -- that the consequences of such actions are the football equivalent of salting fields.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: But maybe people could be more sympathetic to the situation thousands of young adults now find themselves in. It doesn't help that there was such extensive coverage by the media on the riot/protests after Paterno was fired.
... what.
What a disturbing idea — a product of a larger set of disturbing prevalent mentalities — that your reaction to this is to pretty much essentially say "but think of the athletes! think of the student body!" and lament that there was so much coverage of a disgusting institutional coverup of years and years of horrific child rape. As if the most important thing to do now is be more hush-hush about it, I mean, sure, children were raped and all, but penn state's reputation is really important to these students' self image guys, it would be better if the media and the victims just .. you know, got over this more quietly. And that the NCAA should just literally do absolutely nothing, because we really need to be teaching colleges and sports institutions how readily they can just ask to be forgiven of any sort of rape culture.
Really, for serious, dude. Think about what you are saying. Think about it. You are really seriously espousing the sort of mentality being mocked here for good reason.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zach...you are concerned for the wrong innocent young people. It's the many young boys who were raped who deserve your sympathy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Zach...you are concerned for the wrong innocent young people. It's the many young boys who were raped who deserve your sympathy.
Raped, and then not protected because the responsible adults who were notified decided that it all boils down to football being more important.
I mean think about it, (This is directed more at Zach not you SW). The *only* thing that would have potentially been damaged had they not covered things up in the past was that the school would be viewed as being horribly oblivious to such heinous crimes against children. Instead, they are now guilty of being horribly complicit in enabling heinous crimes against children.
The only motivating factor in their doing something that vile was to protect football's image at the school. Instead of looking at the fact Sandusky was routinely violating the trust and innocence of boys who needed a father figure more than anything, and realizing he needed to be stopped at all costs, instead they gave him tacit permission to continue, so long as he could keep it concealed from the authorities.
Paterno himself, denied knowing anything about it save one instance, which he insists he went to the Athletic Dept about, and then expected they would take care of it. We now know from an FBI investigation, that that was a complete lie. Damning emails show that Paterno was well abreast of the situation, and wanted to know what was going to be done. When nothing was done, he was told that was what the administrators were doing - nothing. Paterno then went back to building his legacy, fully cognizant that Sandusky was free and clear.
Don't get me wrong, the students, alumni, and 99.9% of the faculty, staff, etc had nothing to do with this. But the institution, and those in charge of it did. It was the desire to succeed at football that informed these evil choices. And so the fruits of that misplaced value system are being taken away. Past wins are vacated, money is lost, chances at championship and bowl games are gone for the next few years, athletes who no longer want to play can and will leave.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the problem here is the institution that is flawed enough to allow this sort of thing to happen.
BUT... It has already been established that most of the higher-ups in the football program and the athletic dept. knew what was happening with Sandusky. So, what I believe the most appropriate course of action to take is to clean out the football program, and instead of fining Penn State 60 million dollars, have them use that money to overhaul their entire athletic dept and upper management of the school. Also some of that money could be contributed to programs that help exploited children like the ones victimized here. All I'm saying, is that the punishment being dealt here is way to harsh to the majority of the student body, who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. But the punishment is also too lenient on the people who actively covered up the abuse. Sure, they got fined 60 million dollars and their football program is effectively crippled for a number of years. So what? They'll still be there when the punishment ceases and well after. They still have long, lucrative careers ahead of them and this punishment is but a temporary setback.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're being punished with the absence of football because many of them went to that school because they have a good football program, regardless of whether they play or not. Also, the football program is being fined 60 million dollars. DO you think they're suddenly going to cut back on spending because they have been docked a single season's revenue? No. That money is going to be taken from somewhere else. Its probably going to come from other programs that will have to be shut down because of lack of funding. Not just the football program will be affected, in all likelihood, the athletic dept. will be fine. No its the arts and other programs that are going to be cut to fund football that I am worried about.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're being punished with the absence of football because many of them went to that school because they have a good football program...
Egad. They should be punished for that.
quote:Also, the football program is being fined 60 million dollars. DO you think they're suddenly going to cut back on spending because they have been docked a single season's revenue? No. That money is going to be taken from somewhere else.
They could take your advice and fire all their coaches. That'd help.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:BUT... It has already been established that most of the higher-ups in the football program and the athletic dept. knew what was happening with Sandusky. So, what I believe the most appropriate course of action to take is to clean out the football program, and instead of fining Penn State 60 million dollars, have them use that money to overhaul their entire athletic dept and upper management of the school.
I...so your proposal for how the institution ought to be punished for both being negligent with respect to child rape and actually abetting it is that it shouldn't be punished? Because that's what you're proposing here. That part of their 'punishment' be that they use money fined to revamp their football program. Apparently, when you hear about Penn State as an institution being directly involved in permitting children be raped, your first response is to be concerned that Penn State is not overly punished.
I don't know if you simply don't understand the nature of the crimes committed here, or if th reference for college football nonsense has simply won you over, but here's the thing: even well meaning folks who put their trust and respect in Penn State in some measure because of its football program (however much that shows silly priorities...as it turns out, this trusted and respected institution was abetting the rape of children. People who admired it before should have that admiration turned to grief and regret, because although of course they didn't mean to, they backed the wrong horse.
quote:Also some of that money could be contributed to programs that help exploited children like the ones victimized here..
It says a lot, and none of it good, that payment to victim support groups is an also for you. Think about that, Zach. For over a decade, Penn State's leadership, football and otherwise, was active in covering up and permitting dozens of known acts of child rape. And victim support benefits are second. Second.
You've overdosed on college football, man.
quote:All I'm saying, is that the punishment being dealt here is way to harsh to the majority of the student body, who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. But the punishment is also too lenient on the people who actively covered up the abuse.
For dozens of semesters, the wider Penn State university has reaped many benefits from its football program. As it turns out, though, while they were reaping those benefits, that football program knew about and permitted children to be raped.
So, yes, the wider university has to deal with not having those benefits for quite some time. Not because it's fair or unfair to the students, who frankly ought to be far down your list of priorities instead of first, but because that's simply a natural result.
As for the most active participants, you seem to think their punishment is now over. It's not. Tens of millions in lawsuits will be coming their way over the next decade, and it's not unlikely they'll lose. They won't ever be coaching or administrating again. Criminal charges are not, I hope, impossible.
quote:Also, the football program is being fined 60 million dollars. DO you think they're suddenly going to cut back on spending because they have been docked a single season's revenue? No. That money is going to be taken from somewhere else. Its probably going to come from other programs that will have to be shut down because of lack of funding.
If that were to happen, it would be a shameful decision on the part of the bigshots there. So what you're saying is 'don't hurt 'em too bad, because they're so sleazy they'll hurt other people in response.' Geeze, have they got you drinking the kool aid.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying that at all. I have already outlined what I thought a more reasonable solution would be. I do not suggest spending money to revamp the football program for the sake of the football program! No. I'm saying fire all of the people responsible for covering it up and use that 60 million to hire new people and compensate the victims and donate to programs that support exploited youth. The children are my top priority. But beyond preventing this from happening again in the future, there is nothing more that we can do. The best course of action would be what I have already suggested. Instead of fining them. What is that going to do?
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the children aren't your too priority. You may tell yourself that all you like, but nothing you've said you feel ought be done actually points to that-your top concern, if we go by what you've actually suggested, is twofold: punish individuals involved but not the institution, and protect the institution from collateral damage associated with this series of events.
quote:I do not suggest spending money to revamp the football program for the sake of the football program! No. I'm saying fire all of the people responsible for covering it up and use that 60 million to hire new people and compensate the victims and donate to programs that support exploited youth.
Case in point with respect to what I was saying above. No, you didn't suggest the football program be revamped just for its own sake, but the first response you suggested was one designed to protect Penn State football in the long term.-and I don't say that simply because of the order you spoke in, though that was revealing.
quote:The children are my top priority. But beyond preventing this from happening again in the future, there is nothing more that we can do. The best course of action would be what I have already suggested. Instead of fining them. What is that going to do?
This is ridiculous. Almost no other institution would receive this sort of consideration. The institution, at its highest levels and over a decade, engages in some truly hideous wrongdoing, and you toss up your hands and say, "Well there's simply nothing else we can do." Yeah, there is: compensate the victims-in whatever pathetic measure money can for something like this-and punish them for permitting the rape of children. It has to happen. We cannot be a just, decent society and then go to the victims and their families and just shrug our shoulders and say, "Yes, we acknowledge the institution committed grievous harm, but we can't be too strict with them, because what about the self esteem of people who admired Penn State's football program."
Imagine for a moment that you're advocating this proposal to an actual victim, or their parents, of the ongoing child rape this institution permitted. Would phrases such as 'we need to think about the shame Penn State students will feel, and mitigate punishment accordingly' even make it past your lips? Or would you shy away from saying that, out of a realization that it would be a disgraceful remark met with well deserved contempt and loathing, were you speaking to a victim?
No. The victims are absolutely not your first priority. They are a priority for you, but everything you've said on this subject indicates your true first priority is ensuring Penn State's ongoing prestige and profitability.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zach, the logic you are using here is the same logic that was used to rationalize the cover-ups in the first place. I'm sure a few of the people involved were doing it strictly to protect themselves, but I would bet most of them were thinking, or at least telling themselves, that the scandal caused by going public would hurt innocent people. They rolled it over in their minds and decided that the harm done to players and students and alumni and community businesses would be so great that it outweighed the good that could be done by going to the police.
The NCAA is saying to them and anyone who finds themselves in a similar position that no, trying to protect these things by suppressing evidence of a crime will not protect them, it will only make the eventual consequences worse.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:They rolled it over in their minds and decided that the harm done to players and students and alumni and community businesses would be so great that it outweighed the good that could be done by going to the police.
This, and let's not neglect to mention the enormous amounts of money, power, and prestige involved as well that would be lost or at least diminished had it been reported properly. Even if you believe everyone except those directly involved were highly good morally and were highly diligent, very few humans indeed are entirely immune to those sorts of considerations.
Children being molested and raped and the crimes being covered up ought to be regarded as a 'house on fire with people inside' situation. If the house is on fire and people are trapped within, and you think there's a solid chance you might be able to rescue them and put out the blaze without thoroughly wrecking the place...you still thoroughly wreck the place if that's the best, most reliable way to rescue them and put out the fire. Ordinary considerations don't apply in the same ways when the house is burning down and people are going to die. Likewise when you discover children are being raped and an institution is covering up for it.
Your priorities are appropriate for a much lesser kind of crime or infraction, Zach. But this isn't a situation where the smoke alarm is going off-the house is burning down, and people are inside.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The children are my top priority. But beyond preventing this from happening again in the future, there is nothing more that we can do.
Then we prevent this from happening again.
We don't do this by literally having the NCAA do absolutely nothing about this incident, as you propose, letting everyone know that a college football program can be not only Too Big To Fail, but ... Too Big To Suffer Any Real Consequences For Aiding, Concealing And Abetting Serial Child Rape For A Decade.
Because, you know, think of the athletes.
I don't mean to join in on a relentless dogpile, but your proposal is exactly what we would engage upon if we sought only to abet rape culture as readily as penn state abetted actual rape.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay Okay. I've had enough of the tongue-lashings. Obviously I have not been communicating clearly enough.
1. I do not believe that the institution should go unpunished. 2. I feel for the families but I realize that beyond monetary compensation, there is nothing anyone can do. 3. Contrary to what I seem to have projected, I have no desire to protect Penn State or its football program. I was just trying to be as rational as possible.
I am going to extricate myself from the discussion now. I feel like I have said enough to convey my point. Anything else would be redundant and just anger you all further (namely Rakeesh).
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zach: I hope you won't feel like we are angry at you. I understand you are advocating for punishing the guilty parties not the peole who happen to like the sport that was used as the justification for evil behavior. I think what people are trying to express is that in the past that's been done before. I mean look at this op-ed in the NYT. The columnist gets one thing especially right. Having football taken away will be useful discipline. The times in my life where I had the things I wanted most taken away because of bad behavior were probably some of the most important periods of my life.
When people in Penn State go back to games they will be reminded that there won't be a bowl game because boys were raped and our football staff hid it from authorities. They will be reminded when the sanctions come off in a few years. Whenever Joe Paterno comes up in football conversation Sandusky will always be at the forefront if not right under the surface. It will take decades before this stigma is shed, which is good. The next time somebody sees a child being raped in a college football facility, there will be a name that comes to mind and that cautionary tale will move that person into making the right decision if not out of a sense of morality, at least out of fear.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: Im not saying that the death of joe paterno somehow contributed to the punishment or that all of the people involved in the coverup have been exposed, but what i am saying is that the entirety of Penn State university, namely the innocent students, is being wrongly punished!
No, they aren't. Their institution not only allowed abuse to occur over multiple years, but they provided the access to those children, and facilities for the program AND the abuse to occur, AND actively SHIELDED the abuser for decades.
They are lucky to still have a football program at all.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't see what you said above, man. Sorry for dog-piling.....
What would you suggest would be a proper punishment, then? I can't seem to think of one that would be proper that doesn't also affect the student body, most of who are innocent of all of this.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was mostly satisfied with the punishment. It needs to hurt, but I don't think they should kill the whole program.
Penn State just removed the statue of Paterno from campus, and he lost his legacy as the winning-est coach in NCAA history, heck I don't even think you could say he will be fondly remembered by most people. The school can still play football, and the punishment sends a message that it's going to hurt if you do things like that.
I'm mostly satisfied with the punishment, but my initial reaction is that four years seems a bit short.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is less one of communication and has to do with that .. you say that 'beyond monetary compensation, there is nothing anyone can do' — it's not true; we can disincentivize further abetting. We have a moral duty to.
Paterno put his legacy and his football program ahead of children that he knew were being raped by people he was in charge of. He knowingly let it continue. As did others in control of the system.
Now his legacy and Penn State's football legacy is 112 straight losses, a horrific tale of child rape, and an empty statue bay with the ghost-stains of bronze reliefs.
This is a message not to aid and abet such truly criminal things.
What's the message of the NCAA deciding that they should just butt out and let Penn State decide how to 'punish' themselves?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard a report today that had they not accepted the penalties and signed the consent decree, the NCAA was going to seek the death penalty for four years.
So, they basically sat down with Penn State and said we will seek the death penalty unless you agree to this.
posted
I wonder if that ultimatum was preemptive, or they offered it in response to a Penn State initial balking?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
