The Sandusky Scandal
Penn State and the ethical dilemma of the Sandusky scandal
The Pennsylvania State University or Penn State, has been in the grips of public outrage over the manner in which it handled reports of sexual assault against its minor students at the hands of Gerald A. Sandusky, one of the senior most members of its football coaching team. On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts of criminal charges which including sexual assault on minors. Most of these crimes took place between the years 1998 and 2002 when Sandusky was associated with Penn state as its Defensive Coordinator and, later, an emeritus professor.
An extensive 267 page report filed by ex-FBI director Louis Freeh revealed that, throughout the period between 1998 and the 2011 charges against Sandusky that were filed by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Penn State, through its officials, had several opportunities to not only to report the offenses to authorities but also to prevent Sandusky from committing such crimes on the university’s campus . The case was first exposed in 2008, after a victim number 6’s mother reported that her son had been raped by Sandusky since 2005 .
However, when investigators tried to collect information from Penn State, some of the officials neglected to report the case when they became aware of it at first, although they did provide information once asked. The crimes committed by Sandusky mainly consisted of sexual assault and sexual offences against underage boys, with most of the incidents taking place in or near Penn State facilities and properties, primarily the Lasch building shower.
About 7 Penn State officials had been involved in this scandal directly or indirectly. They were Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, Tim Curley, Joe Paterno, Michael McQueary, and Thomas Harmon. Some of these officials offered protection to Sandusky or had known about Sandusky’s crimes as early as 1998 without disclosing them. Further, the inaction and lack of attention of the Board of Trustees of Penn State is also questionable. Throughout the duration of the scandal, from Sandusky’s first reported assault in 1998 till his eventual imprisonment in 2012, the absence of transparency in sharing crucial information as well as the poor monitoring of the activities of officials reveal the glaring inability of the university to contain a situation that could have been controlled a long time ago.
Jerry Sandusky, the assistant football team coach of the Pennsylvania State University from 1969 to 1999, was the prime accused in the scandal. From 1994 through 2009, reports show that at least eight underage boys were sexual assaulted by Sandusky. As a result, under the protection of Penn State officials, Sandusky brought tremendous harm to victims and their family, as well as great loss to the University and its stakeholders. However, his actions remained unchecked and, hence, encouraged by several officials of Penn State.
Graham B. Spanier was president of the Penn State University from September 1, 1995 to November 9, 2011. In the scandal, Spanier did not aid Sandusky in his crimes directly; however he had already known that Sandusky had raped underage boys, but he made no effort to stop Sandusky or identify the victims. As such, he concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. “Spanier told the Special Investigative counsel that no effort was made to limit Sandusky’s access to Penn State.” .
Gary Schultz was the Senior Vice President-Finance and Business. From Schultz’s notes, he had already known about Sandusky’s activities as early as 1998, since he heard of a report by a victim’s mother. Further, as the report states “The official thought the Sandusky case was so “sensitive” that it was handled by Schultz alone,” indicating that Schultz was the very first person who learned about the crime, but did not report it in time . Schultz was involved in several incidents where he had the opportunity to report Sandusky’s crimes to not just the authorities but also the board members of Penn State. However, as evidence by the facts discussed later, he failed to effectively address the case.
The Head Football Coach Joseph Paterno, failed to prevent child sexual assault from taking place although he was aware of the crimes. When he first heard about Sandusky’s crime activities, he did not take action to stop them from continuing; instead, he chose to escape and passed his responsibility to others. As a result, Sandusky’s activities were not stopped, but became even worse.
Timothy Curley, the Athletic Director of Penn State University, together with Gary Schultz both failed to report Sandusky’s crime after they heard of incidents or received reports from victims. A decision made by Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley not only ignored Sandusky’s crimes, but also allowed him to retire in 1990. Michael McQueary, the assistant football coach at Pennsylvania State University from 2004 to 2011, had witnessed an assault by Sandusky in 2001. After that, McQueary reported what he saw to Paterno; however his report did not draw the officials’ attention.
Finally, Thomas Harmon was the Director of Public Safety of Pennsylvania State University. Back in 1998, Harmon was in charge of Sandusky’s sexual assault cases. Harmon reported directly to Schultz about the investigation progress. On May 5, 1998 Harmon reported to Schultz that the police department was going to hold off the crime log entry. Since Harmon continued to provide investigation information to Schultz, the investigation was influenced by officials within Penn State University. As a result, Sandusky was provided with possibilities to continue his crimes.
The Freeh report relied on interviews conducted with over 400 people linked with Penn State as well as an evaluation of a massive number of emails exchanged between the parties involved. In his conclusion, Freeh state that key officials of Penn State, namely Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley, “never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky’s arrest.” Although this may sound like a harsh judgment to be passed on reputed members of an esteemed educational institution, these conclusions are based on hard facts that reveal that Penn State failed to allow their ethical and moral responsibility towards their students to take precedence over protecting the university’s reputation and securing the future of its football program.
Penn State officials first came to know about Sandusky’s crimes as early as 1998 when, on May 3, 1998, a boy’s mother reported an incident of sexual assault to the University Police and the Department of Public Welfare. However, Police Chief Harmon did not make a log entry and alerted Schultz who shared the information with Spanier. However, neither informed the board when they met on May 15. Instead, the police and welfare department investigators met Sandusky privately who denied that his interaction with the victim was sexual in nature. The investigators instructed Sandusky not to shower with minors.
After this, Schultz notified Spanier and Curley that “the matter has been appropriately investigated” and they should consider the case closed. They knew well that Sandusky had committed a very serious crime and it was their responsibility to stop him. Although Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley realize that Sandusky’s actions went far beyond what law allowed, they took no action to prevent children being grievously harmed. Clearly knowing that Sandusky had broken the law, the officials made wrong decisions to conceal the scandal. “Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Cureley did not even speak to Sandusky about his conduct on May 3, 1998 in the Lasch Building”.
Instead, they allowed Sandusky to continue being associated with the university post retirement and granted him an Emeritus status which allowed him unlimited access to Penn State recreational facilities. This was a gross oversight and neglect on the part of the members involved and may have served as an encouragement to Sandusky to commit more of such crimes. This was the first instance where Penn State officials showed a propensity to ‘cover up’ facts, ignore pressing ethical issues and place greater importance on the reputation of the university and its football program than the welfare of the victims.
In 2000, a university janitor had witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting an underage boy in the Lasch Football building shower. This was victim number 8. However, after discussing the matter with his co-workers and being afraid of being fired, he decided not report the incident to University officials. They were certain that the university would prefer protecting their football program instead of protecting their students. In this case, University staff was aware of the crimes being committed by Sandusky and could have become witnesses in court. However, in the face of losing their job or being faced with difficulties, they chose to remain silent. Accounts by ex-students also revealed that students and staff had heard about Sandusky’s nature but did not expect his crimes to be this serious or so many in number .
On February 9, 2001, after witnessing Sandusky having sexual interactions with Victim 8, another underage boy, in the Lasch shower room at the University’s facility, McQueary reported the incident to Paterno. However, Paterno told McQueary that “he did not want to interfere with anyone’s weekend”. Paterno surely understood that what Sandusky had done was much more important than anyone’s weekend; however, he tried to escape and pass the buck in order to avoid getting into trouble himself. By May 1998, some other staff members and football coaches had observed Sandusky’s illegal activities; however “None of the individuals interviewed notified their superiors of this behavior.”.
The report shows that although Schultz initially planned to notify the chairman of the board as well as Department of Welfare, he later changed his plan to a more ‘humane’ option – that of asking Sandusky to seek professional help. This incident reveals that, despite realizing that Sandusky’s 1998 assault was not a stand-alone crime and that he had continued to subject minors to sexual assault, Schultz, Spanier and Curley voluntarily kept the news to themselves and, hence, allowed Sandusky to continue abusing children. They simply told Sandusky not to bring minors into the university premises. Again, the Board f Trustees were not informed about the incident when they met on March 16, 2001. When Curley did inform the executive director of the Second Mile, he was told that they considered it to be a ‘non-incident’ and did not take any further action to protect the interests of past and future victims.
It was only in the year 2010, when Pennsylvania Attorney General issued subpoenas against Paterno, Schultz and Curley, that the matter was brought to the attention of the university’s then General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin. She enquired with Penn State’s outside counsel Wendell Courtney about his awareness of the issue, and was given a vague and edited version of the 1998 case. During this period, the three officials were called to testify to the Grand Jury. As the case gained momentum, on April 1, 2011, a trustee began emailing Spanier demanding information about the investigation. However, despite several follow ups, now clarification was provided.
Finally, when the Board of Trustees met on May 12, 2011, limited information was shared by Spanier and Baldwin and the board too did not sufficiently enquire into the matter. Subsequent meetings on July 15 and September 9 pass without the matter of the investigation being raised. This part of the report shows that the Board of Trustees failed to lay sufficient emphasis on a matter that should have ideally held prime importance considering the fact that it entailed the safety and security of its minors. The board only took form action after Sandusky was arrested on November 5, 2011, with Curley being placed on administrative leave and Schultz taking retirement. They also fired Spanier and Paterno.
However, these actions came too little and could not do any justice to the victims who could have been protected should timely actions have been taken against Sandusky at various opportunities over a span of 15 years. This lapse on the part of Penn State, its officials as well as its board was clearly seen by the public which not only sparked mass outrage but also resulted in severe penalties for the university. To begin with, its reputation was ruined beyond repair, which ironical as the main cause of the inaction and complacency was the desire of the university to protect its image and interests.
The football program was dealt a harsh blow when the NCAA banned the team from participating in post-season games for four years. Its wins between 1998 and 2011 were also negated. Further, the university was fined $60 million, the equivalent of the programs annual gross revenue. Penn State players were permitted to freely seek transfers and immediately responded to the opportunity. Although these measures were seen as drastic by many, NCAA President Mark Emmert justified its purpose by stating that “Football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people” .
Although Jerry Sandusky was charged with multiple counts of criminal offences and will be spending several decades in prison, the punishment cannot negate the impact that his actions have had on the lives of his victims. Being subjected to such trauma at such a young age has lifelong effects on a person and sending Sandusky to prison is a grossly insufficient recompense. Penn State poorly dealt with a situation that called for the highest levels of ethical and moral discretion. It would seem that, between protecting children and securing the interests of the university, Penn State saw no dilemma in making a choice. It chose to safeguard itself. In the end, the Sandusky scandal was a loss to everyone – the victims, the community, football as a sport, Sandusky, the officials of the university, and Penn State as an institution. The scandal is the story of the absolute failure to uphold ethical and moral values by the institution.
Works Cited
CBS/AP. (2012, July 23). Penn State slammed with NCAA sanctions over handling of Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal. Retrieved Novermber 30, 2012, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477633/penn-state-slammed-with-ncaa-sanctions-over-handling-of-jerry-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal/
Freeh, Sporkin, & Sullivan. (2012). Report of the Special Investogative Counsel Regarding the Action of The Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Sexual Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky. Pennsylvania: Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan LLP.
Myers, J. (2012, July 15). Freeh Reports Timeline of Sandusky Investigation, Penn State Actions. Retrieved November 30, 2012, from NorristownPatch: http://norristown.patch.com/articles/freeh-reports-timeline-of-sandusky-investigation-penn-state-actions
Wieberg, S., & Carey, J. (2011, July 11). Penn State abuse scandal chilling in details, reach. Retrieved Novermber 30, 2012, from USAtoday: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-11-06/penn-state-abuse-scandal-chilling/51100830/1
