Wrong again. While it’s clear that engineering would likely fit into one of those categories, it doesn’t mean any and every specific academic subject is necessary. I am saying that a university, even ones whose “mission” is to “educate, research and teach” needn’t have a singular specific (like engineering) in order to fulfill that mission. If some circumstances led them to shut down an academic dept., they would in no way be going against their mission or charge. Thus, the argument that an engineering dept. cannot be shut down because then the university wouldn’t be doing it’s job, is false. The engineering dept. doesn’t have some inviolable right to exist just because their mission statement says their goal is to educate. That’s the point. If you are gonna argue that shutting down a specific institution or dept. is an appropriate response to a cover up of this magnitude, then it shouldn’t matter whether is physics, football, or history. Since most sane people can see how ridiculous it would be to shut down the engineering dept. because the dean is a scumbag, it should be clear to them that shutting down their football program is wrong from many of the same reasons.
This makes a teeny bit more sense than your last post, so I can respond to it.
Is it your contention that the football program fulfills the college’s explicit mission of education, research, and teaching every bit as much as engineering (or political science, or business administration, or philosophy, or pre-medicine) does? Or do you see a qualitative difference between football and engineering, such that the latter has more to do with a university’s mission than the former?
Truer words were never spoken.
This is more like “If I get fired from my job because some VP I’ve never met did something to a kid, so the SEC burned the building down.”
Encompasses A) that it’s not even in the slightest way your fault that shit happened and B) that the organization being called upon isn’t the one that’s supposed to be enforcing the rules it’s being called upon to enforce.
I am saying their mission statement is standard boilerplate that has very little to do with their actual priorities or the priorities of their students. In reality, most of the people with any sort of standing, or power to affect change, value football as much, or more than almost any other academic department. Please keep in mind this issue arose because those of your ilk suggested that getting rid of an academic subject is fundamentally different because of an implicit right to exist based on their mission statement. That’s bullshit. There is no reason Penn State needs to have a classics dept., or a combinatorics class in order to fulfill their stated mission. You feel the way you do not because of an appropriate judgment of the role football and others sports actually play at large schools, but rather because of the role you think they should play. That’s a value judgment. You are entitled to have your own feelings on that, but we should use the actual facts when we are trying to dispassionately determine an appropriate punishment. Just as you are right to suggest they don’t NEED a football team, they also don’t NEED an engineering dept.
To answer your specific question, of course football does not fulfill their explicit mission statement as much as those other things you mentioned. However, that is not what their actual mission is IMO. More importantly, if you are gonna argue that administrative crimes should lead to the termination of a program, then it shouldn’t matter whether is physics, basketball, or Greek lit. Those entities have no more right to exist, and no less culpability than football (at that level) does. That’s why anyone who would be hesitant to give the engineering dept. the “death penalty” under similar circumstances should really question their outlook. Especially since you guys want to trot out this canard that the football team was too powerful for it’s own good. How is the power of the football program at all comparable to that of any academic discipline given that few would EVER suggest we get rid of the department under similar circumstances?
There is a qualitative difference, but in this case, it’s football that matters more. Football has done more for Penn State than the engineering dept. ever did. Period. That’s not a value judgment, it’s a demonstrable fact. Given that they seem prioritize football over any singular academic dept., I think it’s clear TPTB agree.
I haven’t heard this discussed seriously in the national media, and my view for this is that one, they are waiting for the legal system run its course, including all state and any federal charges that may be forthcoming. Two, I believe that most don’t believe the program will be given the DP because of money. Penn State has a powerful organization supporting them.
However, I can’t think of one reason the football program should not be given the DP, (aside from money, of course).
This tragedy was born in, covered up, and permitted to exist within the football program. There are no two ways about it. The more that comes out, the more it is clear that JoePa was closer to this than was first imagined, and the latest revelation about the change in his contract right before the scandal broke is a strong piece of evidence showing that Paterno knew things were going to get ugly very soon and he was hoping to retire at the end of 2011 before anything became public. His retirement was never announced to the public. There would be no great retirement tour. He would bow out and hopefully skip out of town before the scandal broke.
So, what should be done? Clearly, the NCAA must do something. They take scholarships away for free lunches and rides home. What do they do for this?l. Vacate all wins under JoePa, including national championships, bowl wins, and anything else they deem appropriate.
Perhaps they take away one scholarship for each child abused, or for each year it was covered up. I don’t know. Whatever they do, if it doesn’t seem harsh enough, they will get criticized.
And what about the Big Ten? They have a right to sanction a member school for rules violations. I’m sure a morals clause is in there, and the big 10 will want to act as well. Finally, if anything is left, the school will have to act. I just don’t see this ending well for the program. If it survives, it will be criticized relentlessly.
So, what do you think will be the final result? What should be the final result?
I think it is in the long term interest of the university. If there is not some kind of serious attempt at seeking redemption, the school will always be associated with the scandal. There are people who argue that the penalty is too severe, but I don’t think any penalty is too severe for an university that allowed its athletic facilities to be turned into child rape rooms.
If Joe Paterno gave money to recruits, Penn State would be potentially subject to the death penalty.
Now, it is up to you to explain why it would be OK to punish tens of thousands of people, because one man gave kids money, but not OK to do so over a larger conspiracy to protect a child rapist.
Personally, I don’t think giving kids money is quite as bad as protecting a child rapist. You can claim it’s not the NCAA’s place to punish them, but playing NCAA football is by invitation. There is no inherent right to play, you get to play because the NCAA and other schools invite you to play with them.
They could drop into Division III and give up athletic scholarships in football.
I don’t see that happening, but it might be the best option.
There are already two treads on this in the game rom.
If I thought you were correct, I’d call not only for their removal from the NCAA, but also for the complete withdrawal of all tax funds from the institution, because what you describe is so seriously fucked up. Fortunately I think you’re wrong.
It seems to me that both Brickbacon and Left Hand are right, on most of their points. It’s just that Brickbacon is more focused on the current reality of how football fits into certain universities, while Left Hand is focusing on how he wishes this were not so, and is suggesting first steps which should be taken to eventually arrive at that state.
You may be right, although again, if this is in reality an institution where a spectator sport is more important than its explicit mission of education, I see no reason why it needs tax dollar support any more than, say, the Starcraft championship needs tax dollar support. If they want my money to help support them, they need to return to their mission; and if they’ve neglected their actual mission in favor of hot-dog-eating contests, binge drinking, or football, then hot dogs, alcohol, or football needs to be removed from the equation, so they can refocus on what they’re supposed to be doing.
In other words, a covert mission of being a football school is more, not less, of a reason for the death penalty.
Agreed. But this is complicated by the fact that PSU does not operate in a vacuum; it is part of a larger system. (To return to my Costa Rica army analogy, that country could more easily “afford” to abolish its army because of an unusual alignment of internal situation, and the country’s role within a large geo-political security system.)
But then you’re straying into the territory of the NCAA punishing them for
-
Something the NCAA encourages, and
-
Something for which, logically, the NCAA should also punish about fifty other schools.
I mean, seriously, we all know Penn State is hardly unique in this regard. Ole Miss is the same way; the extent to which their football team is really just a pro football franchise is so clotheless-emperor-wink-wink is just comical. Ohio State? Nebraska? Auburn? C’mon.
If the NCAA is to punish Penn State then the reason must be clearly that the continuance of Penn State’s football program would be fundamentally at odds with the needs of the NCAA. And it is.
Look at it this way. Suppose the NCAA were to sever ties with Penn State tomorrow - it’s not gonna happen, but play along. So now Penn State has a football team but nobody to play. So, seeking opponents and a way to fill the bleachers, they call up the best university teams in Canada. Calgary, McMaster, Queen’s, they call them all and say “Hey, do we have a deal for you. Why don’t you come on down here and play some games against us in Happy Valley? Hell, we’ll even play your rules. Sure, we’re run you over like a steamroller, but we’ll give you a healthy cut of the gate and exposure you’d never get otherwise.” What do you think the response at Calgary, McMaster, and Queen’s would be? I’ll give you a multiple choice option:
A) No, thanks.
B) No way.
C) Fuck no.
D) (Sees “Penn State” on caller ID, lets it go to voice mail, deletes voice mail)
Of course they wouldn’t. If they did the Canadian press would freak out. “Seriously? You’re enabling the child rape school? Are you shitting me?” It’d be a PR disaster.
Why can’t the NCAA say the same thing? “Sorry, but it’s just gross. We’re gonna give you a few years to reexamine your priorities, and to give everyone a little warning about disgracing our football product. See you in 2017.”
I’ve moved Stink Fish Pot’s OP and two replies to The Game Room and merged them into this thread.
I’m not sure the NCAA encourages schools to neglect their mission, to place football at the forefront of their identity. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that they place sports as an adjunct to school’s missions, that they claim sports have beneficial effects for scholars. Am I incorrect? If this is right, then I’m not suggesting the NCAA punish them for something the NCAA encourages.
In any case, I’m not saying that the NCAA should drop them specifically because of their putative overreliance on football as a raison d’etre. Brickbacon seems to be arguing that football’s central role in the institution’s identity means the NCAA shouldn’t remove football from them; all I’m saying is that, rather than that being an argument against removing football, it’s an argument in favor of doing so. It wouldn’t be enough on its own for NCAA to act (although I’d hope that the government would stop funneling tax dollars their way, also I’d hope for a pony), but it would bolster such an action.
Because it’s the NCAA’s job to punish violations that result in unfair conduct of football games, and it’s the police’s job to punish violations that are criminal acts. It’s that simple.
The NCAA shouldn’t be involved because it’s not their baliwick. The police should be going over that place with a fine-toothed comb, and then start in on the Board of Trustees and the university administration staff.
The students were not involved. There is no need to punish them.
If Sandusky were still coaching at the time it became apparent there was a concerted cover-up (in 2001, IMHO) rather than a one-off report that was investigated by a state employee and came to nothing, at that point it would be in the NCAA’s interest to get involved.
That happens all of the time.
Anyone remember ENRON? The actions of their leadership screwed hundreds of innocent employees out of their retirement as well as their jobs.
Do we think that organization shouldn’t have been punished for what their leaders did?
What would be appropriate course of action to punish organization for W. Bush at al. lying and instigating a war for no reason?