Read the “Legal/Ethical Reflection and Discussion” regarding Penn State on pages 150-151 in the text. Respond and support your responses (brevity is fine as long as your point makes sense) to questions 1-7.
You must respond with one substantive reply post to another student for full credit. You can agree, disagree, continue their train of thought but try to add some value rather than a blanket statement.
Please respond to this initial assignment and then respond to a peers response I have listed below.
LEGAL/ETHICAL REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION (initial assignment)
The Penn State Saga
In 2011, the Pennsylvania State University community was stunned by multiple charges of child molestation committed by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky had used Penn State’s facilities, with permission, for a children’s charity organization with which he was affiliated. Soon after the initial charges were filed, allegations of perjury and failure to report the situation were brought against Penn State management. Joe Paterno, the legendary bead football coach, was found to have been aware of the situation Penn State’s athletic program motto is “Success with Honor.” The football program had never been charged with a severe NCAA rules violation, and the program enjoyed a high graduation rate. A subsequent investigation showed that Coach Paterno did in fact report the incidents to his superiors but had not taken any independent action. As a result of intense media coverage, a former university vice president and the former athletic director were implicated in a cover-up, along with the university president, Graham Spanier. Spanier and Paterno were fired. On June 22, 2012. Jerry Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 counts of sexual assault involving 10 boys. In addition, many of Sandusky’s victims filed civil lawsuits against Penn State for damages. On October 28, 2013. Penn State University reached settlements with 26 of Sandusky’s victims, costing the university a total of $59.7 million.
Not all victims settled with Penn State. One victim (identified only as “Victim 9” in court documents) sued Penn State on November 21, 2013, citing that the victim had been unable to reach a settlement with the institution, and in a separate case involving another victim (“Victim 6”), a US. district court judge in Philadelphia ruled on November 6, 2013, in favor of the university, stating that Penn State could not legally be held liable for Sandusky’s actions sim ply because he was employed there. The judge stated that Victim 6 failed “to explain how molestation was the kind of act that Penn State employed Sandusky to perform.” But on April 9, 2015. Penn State trustees voted to approve a confidential settlement with “one or more” victims from the child sexual abuse scandal involving Jerry Sandusky.
By 2019, the amount that Penn State paid as a: result of the Sandusky child abuse scandal topped out at $220 million. Only $30 million, or just under a third of the expenditures, were reimbursed by insurance carriers. Thirty-three victims received a total of $63.1 million. Former assistant coach Mike McQueary, who was fired by Penn State soon after he helped uncover the abuse, received a $14.1 million judgment as a whistleblower (the McQueary case is covered in more detail in Chapter 11. Employment Relationships and Labor Law). The rest of the money was paid out for fines, attorney fees, and investigation costs The NCAA brought sanctions against the university including fines restrictions on postseason play, a reduction in football scholarships, and university-wide probation
1. Paterno said that he fulfilled his responsibility by reporting what he knew to the university management. Could he have done more? Should he have done more? If so, what specific steps should he have taken?
2. Who are the primary and secondary stakeholders in this dilemma?
3. Once the university administration became aware of the Sandusky allegations; what specific action should it have taken?
4. Is it fair for current Penn State student-athletes to be affected by incidents that they had nothing to do with and that happened before many of them entered the university?
5. Did Paterno and the university management demonstrate a commitment to their stated expectation. “Success with Honor
6. Was the cover-up intended to preserve the universitys reputation? Is that a justification for the university’s failure to act? Are there ever any circumstances in which a cover-up is ethical? Can any ethical theory justify the university’s failure to act?
7. Initially, the NCAA stripped Penn State’s foot- ball team of 112 wins as part of their sanctions The NCAA reversed their position three years later and restored the wins. Did the NCAA act ethically in restoring the wins? Why or why not?
students answer (please respond to student)
1. Yes I do believe that Paterno could have done more he knew that after reporting to the university nothing was done, clearly Paterno knew what Sandusky did was wrong because he reported it but he did not go to the law with the information he had.
2. The primary stakeholder is university
The secondary stakeholder is atheletic program
3. The first thing that the university should have done is remove Sandusky from the program so that if the allegations were warranted they did not continue.
The second thing is to start to collect information and investigate if there is evidence
Third either reinstate the individual if the allegations are false, or consequence and removal if the allegations are true. As well as the sharing of information with law enforcement because it is an illegal act that happened on campus and that means the law is the highest court of judgement that Sandusky should have faces sooner.
4. Yes because that is the way of life sadly communities and individuals go through different traumas and because of this Sandusky incident it is important for this university to go a step further and show its students that the proper systems have been put in place to protect students from each other and the staff. Even if it cost the university extra money the board of this university made moral and ethical mistakes regarding students mental and physical wellbeing. So this is sadly the long term consequence of not following the rules.
5. No they were not a good model of their Success with Honor expectation because they did not show honor when they chose to save the career of a man over the wellbeing of its students. There is no honor in trying to hide the mistakes that have been made without consequence.
6. Yes it was intended to save the universities reputation, and no reputation is not a valid justification for their failure to act. The only thing that I could think of is the greater good theory, that the wellbeing of the few harmed individuals means nothing or at least very little in comparison to all the kids that Sandusky and the athletic program have helped over the years. But its invalid because doing good things dose not dose not make you immune to consequences of the bad things that you do we have consequences for a reason. Breaking the law is wrong and nothing is more important that protecting the youth that we are putting in these programs and I mean every single one of the kids not just most of them.
7. Yes I do believe that the wins should have been reinstated it was an ethical choice because those wins happened under the coaching of Sandusky but he was not the one playing the game the players deserve credit for the work they put in even if the person that was in charge was doing illegals things behind closed doors.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|