Really? What makes you think that? More importantly, what makes you think they were properly evaluating risks and rewards at the time? Regardless, they are gonna lose a lot more money than the football team was providing via lawsuits even if they fessed up initially. If they were so worried about punitive financial measures, why wasn’t that a sufficient hindrance?
You’re assuming they thought they might get caught. Few people plan for the worst outcomes. Especially criminals in the moment they are conducting their criminal activity. Given the ridiculously stupid things they did, like sending incriminating emails, they clearly were not conducting an well though out scheme.
Plus, there was no way to avoid hurt to the team and the school. They could fess up, or roll the dice thinking nobody would find out. They rolled the dice, lost, and will suffer more as a consequence. That said, there seems no logical reason to me why this would function as a useful deterrent. Not only for the reasons outlined above, but also because the likelihood of this situation happening again, within a sports program, involving is vanishingly small.
But the “program” wasn’t bad. A handful of people, 3 or 4 of whom working within the program were bad. The justification for this seems to be that these individuals were enabled by the culture. One that exists at many schools. If the punishment is to make a point about the culture, and not these individuals, then why not just nip it all in the bud?
I’m saying that the program, the institution, the culture permeating it, was bad. Only some of the very worst individual actions are going to be prosecuted as crimes, but many more people behaved badly in this culture, to varying degrees. Most of them were probably not really wicked people. But more than just enabling bad behavior, their institutional culture actually pressed them to become worse than they might otherwise have been.
Because college sports cultures are not exactly the same everywhere, of course. Other schools have not shown themselves to be this bad; it makes sense to make the example of the one that has.
Clearly they were not evaluating them properly because a proper evaluation would have involved spending a moment’s thought on the children who were being raped. But they were evaluating them nonetheless, and different factors could have produced a different result.
Because the possible future penalties seemed less than the present-day gains.
We know they considered the possibility. In an email, one of the administrators (Curley, I think) discussed the possibility that if they told Sandusky to stop abusing kids and he didn’t listen, the whole thing could blow up in their faces. And like I said earlier, we know they started getting cagey in their emails before their planned meeting with Sandusky. So it stands to reason they knew they could get caught and tried to avoid it.
Are we supposed to do anything except laugh at this? Joe Paterno was synonymous with the program and built it into a national powerhouse. The athletic director was a Paterno stooge, and the other two guys were the president and VP of the school. Who else needs to be bad for “the program” to be bad? The janitors who were too frightened to report the abuse to Paterno? The coach who went to Paterno instead of the cops, trusting he’d handle it? The child molesting defensive coordinator who was Paterno’s former heir apparent?
What evidence do we have that anyone else in the program would have handled things differently if they’d been in Paterno’s shoes? When every single person in a program who had a chance to do the right thing failed to do the right thing, that tells us something about the program.
What evidence do we have that punishing innocent people now would be a deterrent to others in the future? Especially considering the likelihood of this happening again is basically zero?
You are literally talking about 3 people. Paterno, the AD, and McQueary. The bad actions of those three people is enough to shut down an entire football program in your estimation?
And we’re back to “hurting a bunch of kids and staff who didn’t know shit about shit, in order to punish a few people who are already either dead, in jail, or on trial.”
What? How about university president Graham Spanier? Senior vice president Gary Schultz? University counsel Wendell Courtney? Centre County district attorney Ray Gricar? Officers of the Penn State University Police and the State College Police? Physical Plant supervisor Jay Witherite, and several of his staff?
Just how many people, in how many different positions of authority, need to be involved before you would say that the problem is systemic?
And the former chairman has resigned from the board. Steve Garban learned about the investigation in April 2011 but didn’t tell the full board. (He told two of the 31 trustees.) The remaining trustees say they could have dealt with the situation better if they had known about it before charges were filed.
It’s really sad the rest of the board didn’t know. Unlike the senior executives and the chairman, they never had a chance to keep it secret from anyone.
And even though two football guys and two overpowered administrators wanted to keep this in-house, I don’t think there’s any chance that the entire board would have allowed a coverup.
I’m getting it, all right, I just think you’re dead wrong. There’s no deterrence value here, because people who valued the program above the old boy’s club wouldn’t have made the “coverup” decision in the first place.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter to the NCAA whether it’s the football program or the old boys club, so long as some of the old boys are part of the football program. They have some very vaguely worded rules (and deliberately so) about maintaining ethical standards on and off the field, so they can hammer a school for just such a case as this. That is, one where they didn’t draw up a specific rule because they didn’t (and couldn’t) anticipate the particulars of every egregious situation somehow involving people in the athletic programs at their member schools.
And they will drop some kind of hammer on Penn State, to preserve their own (largely illusory) reputations as an arbiter of morals and ethics in college sports. The only question is how big a hammer and how long do they keep it pounding.
No, there’s a whole culture that went south here, and it involved the ENTIRE FUCKING COMMUNITY. Read about the hell they put the first victim to report Sandusky (and his mother) through:
Out of the 100,000 current students, 15,000 current employees, and uncounted millions of PSU alumni, how small a percentage of them would have to be unhinged in order to push a lot of death threats?
How does that percentage compare to the general population’s percentage of crazies?