Jerry Sandusky: Sexual Abuse Cases
Maria Tropiano
Monday, October 8, 2012
Business, Society, and Ethics – Section 006
First Analysis Paper I have read several online articles concerning the sexual abuse cases perpetrated by Jerry Sandusky and the obvious negligence of the top four administrators (Joe Paterno, Timothy Curley, Gary Shultz, and Graham Spanier) to report Sandusky to the authorities. I always thought that Penn State was an excellent university and am surprised and shocked that such serious unethical conduct was tolerated for such a long time. (Wikipedia states that “Sandusky was indicted in 2011 on 52 counts of child molestation dating from 1994 to 2009, though the abuse may have dated as far back as the 1970s”) (1). I agree with several statements in the article …show more content…
The article also reports that “a reverence for football was largely to blame for a series of missteps by top Pennsylvania State University administrators in failing to report repeated allegations of child sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky” (1). Obviously, the culture at Penn State involved regarding the football program as more important than the victims of Sandusky’s abuses and the failure of his colleagues to act in the best interest of the children who were being abused. Furthermore, one of the main reasons why the decision makers did not report Sandusky was “that top officials abdicated their responsibilities in the interest of avoiding bad publicity” (The Chronicle of Higher Education 4). The top administrators did not want the program to fail, or to besmirch its good reputation, so they “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from authorities, the Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large” (The Chronicle of Higher Education 4). Basically, the decision makers wanted to avoid bad publicity that would be generated by reporting Sandusky, as bad publicity would hurt the football program and the entire university in many ways. Bad publicity would cause the football program to lose funding and support, destroy their good reputation, create a media circus, cause uncomfortable embarrassment for the decision makers, result in their loss of prestige and status, loss of their high-paying jobs at the university (“Joe Paterno’s total compensation in 2011 was $1,022,794, and Graham Spanier’s pay was $813,000”), loss of respect and support of the students and the entire university as well as people who financially supported the football program, and could also cause them to be sent to jail. In addition, I feel that Penn State cultivated a
Monday, October 8, 2012
Business, Society, and Ethics – Section 006
First Analysis Paper I have read several online articles concerning the sexual abuse cases perpetrated by Jerry Sandusky and the obvious negligence of the top four administrators (Joe Paterno, Timothy Curley, Gary Shultz, and Graham Spanier) to report Sandusky to the authorities. I always thought that Penn State was an excellent university and am surprised and shocked that such serious unethical conduct was tolerated for such a long time. (Wikipedia states that “Sandusky was indicted in 2011 on 52 counts of child molestation dating from 1994 to 2009, though the abuse may have dated as far back as the 1970s”) (1). I agree with several statements in the article …show more content…
The article also reports that “a reverence for football was largely to blame for a series of missteps by top Pennsylvania State University administrators in failing to report repeated allegations of child sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky” (1). Obviously, the culture at Penn State involved regarding the football program as more important than the victims of Sandusky’s abuses and the failure of his colleagues to act in the best interest of the children who were being abused. Furthermore, one of the main reasons why the decision makers did not report Sandusky was “that top officials abdicated their responsibilities in the interest of avoiding bad publicity” (The Chronicle of Higher Education 4). The top administrators did not want the program to fail, or to besmirch its good reputation, so they “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from authorities, the Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large” (The Chronicle of Higher Education 4). Basically, the decision makers wanted to avoid bad publicity that would be generated by reporting Sandusky, as bad publicity would hurt the football program and the entire university in many ways. Bad publicity would cause the football program to lose funding and support, destroy their good reputation, create a media circus, cause uncomfortable embarrassment for the decision makers, result in their loss of prestige and status, loss of their high-paying jobs at the university (“Joe Paterno’s total compensation in 2011 was $1,022,794, and Graham Spanier’s pay was $813,000”), loss of respect and support of the students and the entire university as well as people who financially supported the football program, and could also cause them to be sent to jail. In addition, I feel that Penn State cultivated a