Every sentence must contain the phrase “shall not” and every paragraph must contain the phrase “enable child molestation”.
An angry denunciation in Comic Sans.
The news we’ve had locally suggests that the University President stone cold overrode the board.
Sorry, it’s the same. Bunch of innocent attendees unaware that the hierarchy is covering up horrible sex crimes. By the same logic everyone else in the thread is using, that apparently means death penalty.
I don’t watch college football, I don’t care for it. I was a student at University Park for five years and did not attend a single game. Try again?
No, it’s not remotely the same, because nobody is suggesting that the government step in and end the program. The closest anyone’s come to that is suggesting that our tax dollars stop going to support the program–and if you want an analogy, then sure, I’m okay with any suggestion that my tax dollars stop going to support the Catholic Church.
Instead we’re suggesting that a different private entity ought to choose to end its association with this school. If you really need an analogy to Catholicism, it’d be as though the Catholic church decided to shut down a diocese in which corruption was rampant and thorough, and I’d be okay with such a decision as well (although even that analogy fails, given the highly mobile nature of Catholic officials–the church would probably just rotate new officials into the offending diocese).
Generally speaking, a President does not have the authority to override a specific directive from a Board of Trustees. Or to say it more accurately, if he does, he could face removal by the Board and his decision to be reversed by the Board.
More likely, the President made the decision in a vacuum – the Board probably hadn’t formally decided anything, and the President made a unilateral decision. That may or not have been accompanied by a threat from the Pres that he would resign if his decision was overturned.
OTOH, he may have made and implemented a decision without giving the Board any time to meet and discuss it and possibly override the decision. It’s also possible, but unlikely, the Board will order the statue put back when next they meet. More likely they will cave and accept a fait accompli.
I have also seen stories predating the removal saying the President is likely to make a decision soon, which means either the Board hadn’t decided anything, or they specifically approved letting him make the call.
Maybe they were being intentionally vague, that statue had to come down before any kind of resistance against its coming down could be formed.
That is possible. They could have made a decision in private to take it down sooner or later, and left the timing in the President’s hands, but publicly announced no decision had yet been made.
But if that is ever made public, people will scream for their heads. I wonder if the Board has to make its meeting minutes open to the public after some period. In Wisconsin they would – we have very strong “open meetings” legislation – but perhaps not in Pennsylvania. And if I were them, I’d be real concerned about a leak to the press from somebody if they pulled a stunt like that.
PSU will not get the “Death Penalty”.
I don’t think ANY school will receive it after the NCAA saw what the DP did to a school. SMU remains the only school to get it for a reason.
If the NCAA came in and gave the DP, I would guess there would be a bunch of lawsuits against the NCAA. After all, the revenue lost is going to hurt a LOT of people, including businesses that rely on PSU football for revenue.
The NCAA doesn’t need that crap. They don’t need to be drawn into lawsuits.
But what they CAN do (and WILL do) is give PSU the DP without using the words.
Major scholarship reductions. Major bowl game sanctions. No TV exposure. This program will be crippled for the next ten years at least. So, they will be permitted to put a team on the field, but this will not be a team that will compete for a very long time. Kids with talent will not want to go there. They will get kids marked for DII schools. Marginal kids, or kids that may see an opportunity to start at PSU, where no other D1 school would even look at them.
It will virtually be dead as a D1 program, and it will be a long time before it will ever compete at a national level again.
I think this is appropriate.
If the NCAA does not cripple the program, I will be very disappointed. I guess tomorrow we will all find out.
sfp
Oklahoma was put on probation in the early 80’s. No TV and no bowl appearances for 2 years. It would take them a decade to return to prominence although that was primarily due to poor coaches. Gary Gibbs (who wasn’t really a bad coach, he just didn’t fit in), John Blake (Bad coach), Howard Shnellenberger (crackpot drunk). Once Bob Stoops appeared, all was right with the world again.
The reason this scandal could happen was because people - the administration, yes, but also the fans students, and alumni through their support - elevated “Penn State Football” to such a level that the program was accountable to nobody. You’re arguing the same thing here: that Penn State Football is so important to the community that “the program” shouldn’t be punished for the actions of the very men who were supposed to oversee it. That viewpoint is what drives people to engage in coverups like this, and it’s what made the coverup work through multiple allegations of abuse.
I don’t think that the individuals who make up the Penn State community are morally culpable for what went on there, but that community is ultimately what made the scandal possible. I have no problem “punishing” the community as a whole (although I quibble with the word “punish” for most of them), and I’ll be extremely happy if this forces them to re-examine their priorities.
in 2007-2008, there was significant discussion of Pennsylvania’s Open Records law. PSU, in the form of Graham Spanier, lobbied very hard for the university to be exempt from any open records law the state happened to consider.
However, the only information that PSU is required under the PA Right to Know Act is the same financial information that any other non-profit agency is required to divulge. I could be wrong – this is based on a search within the document – but the law jibes with my memories of the debate.
That being said, under the state’s Sunshine Act, an open meeting has to be advertised and open to the public. However, an agency (which includes PSU) can convene an executive session to discuss employment issues, to confer with legal counsel, or to discuss other privileged issues. It’s entirely possible that any meetings about the current unpleasantness fall under the executive session provision, at least for the present. Therefore, meetings do not have to be open and minutes do not have to be released.
Which is for the best, I think. While I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and that too much of this happened because of secrecy and silence, PSU has the right and obligation to discuss some of its own issues in such a way that they will actually deliberate on issues, not just act because the public wants someone’s blood, literally or figuratively.
I wonder whether the open records thing is affected by the weird distinction in Pennsylvania between “state” universities and “state-related” universities, which are state-funded but independent (Pennsylvania State, Pittsburgh, Temple, and Lincoln). I don’t know of any other state that has such a bifurcation.
You’re either unclear on university hierarchies, or the meaning of “override.” He may defy the board, at risk of his job, but not “override” it.
Pennsylvania has a two-tier system with respect to its universities.
State-related universities are public in the sense that they receive public money from the state. However, they are independent from the state; the state has no involvement (or not much, anyway) in the governance of these universities. Faculty and staff are not state employees; they are employees of the university. As I posted upthread, they are not subject to the state’s right-to-know law aside from the same financial information that is required of any other non-profit organization.
State universities, on the other hand, are subject to state oversight and the state does have involvement in the universities’ and system’s governance. Faculty and staff are state employees and therefore fall under civil-service regulations; had the Sandusky scandal happened at a PASSHE school, there would have been less hand-wringing over what to do with him; civil-service regs are pretty clear on this. (My own university had to deal with something similar, although in an academic department, not a coach and I’m basing that statement on what happened there. However, even athletics coaches are considered faculty.)
You’d think the Big Ten would have replaced promotional videos like these, that prominently feature Paterno – http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/033011aaa.html
So PSU has to “vacate” victories after 1998. Does that mean my Spartans can count them as wins?
Very weak. What does that even mean? The people who care will know who won those games on the field. The NCAA can’t force people to stop knowing that.
The whole point was probably to knock Paterno out of the record book. Nobody is going to crow about games they may retroactively win.
And the 60 million and four year bowl ban and loss of scholarships.