Draft 1
Section 1INTRODUCTION
Penn State/Sandusky scandal disclosed during 2011. The case shocked the whole U.S society. From 1994 to 2009, Jerry Sandusky, the main accused in the scandal was involved in about 52 counts under age sexual harassment, and at least eight counts under age male sexual assault. However, some evidences showed that Sandusky may have begun his atrocity back in the 1970s. Moreover, about 7 Penn State officials have been involved in this scandal directly or indirectly. They are 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. The case was first exposed in 2008, after a victim’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 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. The University has absolute responsibility to prevent crimes from happening on its premises. However, instead of providing necessary help and information, the officials tried to cover up crime facts even after the scandal had been disclosed. Under the protection of the University, offences made by Sandusky had lasted several decades.
Section 2WHO WAS INVOLVED
Firstly, 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 .
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.
Section 3BUSINESS ETHICS TRUISMS
“People often prefer to avoid difficult situations; in addition, individuals have decision-making biases and a large capacity to rationalize their behavior”
In 2000, a university janitor had witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting an underage boy in locker room. However, after discussing the matter with his co-workers and being afraid of being fired, he decided not report the incident to University officials. In this case, University staff was aware of the crimes being committed by Sandunsky 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. Moreover, on Friday, February, after witnessing Sandusky having sexual interactions with an underage boy in the coach’s 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.”. Panterno 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.”. These staffs and coaches preferred to avoid difficult situations, as a result they made decisions that seemed to rationalize their behavior.
“Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things. Nonetheless, good people mostly do good deeds, and bad people mostly do bad deeds.”
On May 3, 1998, a boy’s mother reported an incident of sexual assault to the University Police and the Department of Public Welfare, who took swiftly registered the case and immediately began an investigation. In this case, the staff of the University Police Department and Public Welfare adhered to their duties and did their jobs well. They knew well that Sandusky had committed a very serious crime and it was their responsibility to stop him. On the other hand, 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. In other words, clearly knowing that Sandusky had broken the law, the officials made wrong decisions to conceal the scandal. One report states “Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Cureley did not even speak to Sandusky about his conduct on May 3, 1998 in the Lasch Building.”. The officials represent the highest power and justice within the University, and they all knew about their responsibilities; however, they made bad decisions to protect Sandusky.
“Managers weigh profits and other financial issues against ethical concerns”
On June 9, 1998, Schultz sent an email to Spanier and Curley said that he hoped everything was over. All of these officials chose to selectively forget incidents instead of taking action to protect children entrusted to them from being harmed. They placed greater emphasis on their personal gains and ignored the welfare of the university’s students and the public at large. During the Board meeting in May 2011, Spanier and Baldwin did not fully describe the allegations and overstated the issue of bad impacts this would have on the University. They did this in hopes of stopping the investigation held by the board and minimizing the risks towards their own profits. Finally, Spanier and Baldwin held reservations about an independent investigation of Sandusky. They thought the investigation would have a negative impact on the University and the Board.
“Managers should evaluate the personal character of those they hire employees whom they can trust”
The officials knew about Sandusky’s felonies as early as 1998; however, instead of taking action to control his actions, and report his crime, they chose to conceal the truth and even rehired Sandusky. After knowing that he would not continue his Head Coach position at Penn State, Curley talked with Sandusky about the position of Assistant Athletic Director. Further, “While Sandusky’s retirement agreement was being finalized, Curley sought and received authorization for Sandusky to be re-employed as an “emergency hire” for the 1999 football season.” Before Curley agreed to rehire Sandusky, he did not fully investigate Sandusky who had been observed committing sexual assaults on minors, and gave him further opportunities to continue his crimes. The consequences of this decision were serious; victims could have been protected from being harmed if the officials had carefully investigated their employee’s character.
“An organization’s culture, structure, and resource allocation strongly impact managers’ and employees’ behavior.”
The Pennsylvania State University has a string organizational structure. For example, Human Resources Department was lead directly by an Associate Vice President, and independent Human Resources staffs were employed within each school and department. However, the work environment within the departments was relaxed and lacked necessary discipline. As a result, staff like Sandusky felt free to go beyond rules or even laws. Further, the ill-organized reporting structure made it difficult to prevent and stop illegal activities even when they had been noticed. Further, once reports had been made by victims and their family, the Police Department did not forward the report to higher police officials and public authorities. Instead, the information was sent directly to the University officials, which allowed the truth to be concealed. What made this possible was the “oversight of compliance with these policies is decentralized and uneven.”. There is no centralized office in the University, which makes each department responsible to solve their problems by their own procedures and resources. Given such a freehand, aided by poor management and the support of seniors, staff such as Sandusky felt no inclination to fear the repercussions of their actions.
“An ethics scandal in one company will negatively affect other companies in the same industry.”
The Penn State/Sandusky scandal disclosure in 2011 was like a rock thrown into a still pool of water. The entire country including other universities and NCAA were shocked by Sandusky’s crime and felt disappointed with the officials at Penn State. Several scholars and professionals gave suggestions to prevent such crimes from recurring; however, some of these suggestions could also bring negative effects in education industry. “Remind everyone involved in college athletics that no coach should be allowed to have the absolute power that Paterno wielded.”. Smith suggested cutting off the power of the coach of college athletics team after Sandusky’s scandal. This might be a considerable way to prevent crime; however it will also block the athletics development within a college. Smith opposed the naming of arenas after the coach, which would reduce athletics teams’ ability to gain honor for their institutions. For example, “Arenas shouldn't be named for coaches. He was talked into it by university officials, who said it was what most alumni wanted.” Smith said . Smith also suggested cutting down coaches’ salaries. “They should stop giving coaches multimillion-dollar contracts.” While it may be an effective way to lower operational costs of educational facilities; however, unreasonable salary reduction would enrage the whole sports industry, and it would eventually hurt educational organizations.
“Boards of directors are relatively easy to manipulate by withholding information and by providing misinformation.”
Within the investigation held in 1998, Spanier and Schultz were leaders who handled most important information about Sandusky’s issue. However, they did not report what they discovered and knew to the investigation group, which can be considered as concealing. Another example was in 2001, when McQueary reported Sandusky’s sexual crimes to Paterno. Paterno refused to report it to the Board and, as a result, Sandusky’s illegal activities were not disclosed as soon as they should have. On February 12, 2001, Schultz, Curley, and Spanier met together to discussed the report about Sandusky; however, all of these officials decided to remain silent, instead of disclosing the issue. This can be considered as obstruction of justice.
“Stakeholders who are out of sight are often out of mind.”
On February 9, 2001, McQueary reported his witnessing of Sandusky’s assaulting to Paterno, and Paterno asked him report to someone else. Paterno only considered himself and the short term profit of the Athletics Department; however, the scandal eventually brought great loss to the University. Further, on February 25, 2001, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley came up with common conclusion that they would not report the issue to public and only asked Sandusky stop bringing children to the Lasch Building. At this point, the three men only considered avoiding Sandusky’s crimes being linked to the University, but did not try to prevent children from being harmed. The Second Mile concluded that the issue was not covered by them and decided not to take action. As a result, the price for their carelessness and lack of responsibility was the loss of the university’s honor, victims’ health and the end of their own careers.
Section 4CONSEQUENCES
Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno were four key men involved in Sandusky’s scandal. The investigation showed that they “failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade;" “concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities.”. After the scandal was disclosed, a group of students created a Facebook page named “Fire Graham Spanier” to voice their dissatisfaction. Because of their concealing, and lack of responsibility all of these men lost their standing in public view. Curley and Schultz were even indicted for perjuring. McQueary was the only one who reported his witnessing of Sandusky’s crime; in other words he did what he supposed to do. However, McQueary was no longer Penn State’s employee after his contract expired. It seemed McQueary was right; however the stakeholders of the sandal thought it was McQueary who made situation out of control, and what he knew may additional harm Penn State’s repute. The entire football team of Penn State was also affected, since the president of NCAA, Mark Emmert, forced Penn State stop their recruiting trail. Further, as a result of the scandal, the Second Mile shut its doors, because it was lack of donor support. The Second Mile refused to take responsibilities when they heard about the crimes of Sandusky, was a major public disgrace. Further, the Board of Penn State also suffered due to the Scandal, since the University’s public image suffered a major blow, and they have to work very hard to win its repute back. The whole football industry was also affected by the sandal. Analysts suggested cutting of athletic expense to minimize the coach’s power. Finally, the departments of Penn State were asked to reform their rules and procedures to prevent such incidents from happing in the future.
Section 5CONCLUSIONS
The officials in Penn State failed to perform business ethics truisms, it was their lack of responsibility that allowed a heinous crime to be committed repeatedly, without check.
Firstly, Paterno did not report what McQueary had witnessed; he tried to avoid putting himself in a difficult situation, and asked McQueary reported to someone else, which delayed the exposure of the scandal.
Secondly, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley did not use their power to prevent children from being harmed; they were the men who had absolute power in the University, but did nothing.
Thirdly, Spainer and Baldwin failed to describe the truth to the Board. Between profit and children’s safety, they chose the former. They were managers who considered only profit and loss when making decisions; they even ignored justice for this purpose.
Penn State has complete Human Resources staffs within each department; however they lacked management and the work environment was too relaxed. The irrational working behavior of the staffs can be attributed to having no rules and procedures to follow.
Finally, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley made decisions themselves not to disclose the scandal and only warning Sandusky without controlling him. They focused on short term profit of the University and themselves, but ignored children’s security.
All of above are examples of how the officials failed to follow basic Business Ethics, and reasons why they received so much criticism.
Cite Page
Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP. "Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of The Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Sexual Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky." Investigative Research. 2012.
Tribune-Review Publishing Co. 17 7 2012. 26 9 2012 .
Wikipedia. Graham Spanier-Wikipedia. 23 8 2012. 26 9 2012
Wikipedia. 23 8 2012. 24 9 2012
