An organization already in crisis not only requires swift action to correct the situation, it also requires they inform the public of their knowledge as well as display the actions being put into place to remedy the problem and support for those directly affected immediately (Crandall et. al., 2014). This is one of the areas the officials at Penn State failed in their response to the scandal (Stern Strategy Group, 2012). The board of trustees did act swiftly in their termination of former university president Greg Spanier and former head coach of the football team Joe Paterno following the Grand Jury indictment of Jerry Sandusky in 2012. Consequently, the action was still delayed since they had been made aware of the pending indictment in early 2011. The internal emails used to convict the staff members involved with the cover-up could have been easily uncovered by technical staff at the university and used to begin termination much earlier.
When a statement was given by former university president Greg Spanier the focus was not to support the victims of the incident, conversely, his focus was placed on supporting the
…show more content…
al., 2014). There should be a publicity campaign to stress to the public that while the incident did occur the school is more than that defining instance (Stern Strategy Group, 2012). The changes within the operation of the organization as well as the campaign to display their commitment to their students and community would certainly assist with rebuilding the university's reputation. The university must become completely transparent to display their honesty to improve upon public opinion. This approach would show all the stakeholders that the university has learned from the incident and has built a system to be more proactive in preventing any future incidents from
Penn State football was once the pride of Pennsylvania. The Sandusky scandal changed all of that forever. The University had to learn many lessons. According to Layden, T. (2014), one of the biggest issues that caused the scandal to strive was the fact that those in charge probably felt the football program was too big to fail. In other words, they felt the success of the program was so important to the University and its fans that the scandal needed to be kept on a low profile.
There are so many unanswered questions left-over from this scandal that it really makes it hard to say that it was resolved and even harder to decide whether or not it was resolved in a positive or negative manner. This is also not to say that there weren’t ways in which the crisis was resolved in positive ways. The more positive ways that this predicament was resolved in are still able to be seen today as after all of this happened Congress passed various laws in regards to government ethics, campaign financing, and freedom of information. Although there were many, many
Penn State football is a major brand with a very large fan base. Many areas of the school benefit from the large amount of revenue generated by the success of the football program. One of the major factors in the Penn State scandal was blind loyalty to one individual with total disregard for the children and the lives he was destroying. Many believe the four individuals that had the control to step in and stop this from happening either did not do so for fear of destroying the program or the hopes that it would somehow stop on its own (Crandall 2013). Jerry Sandusky was a top assistant and defensive mastermind for thirty years with Joe Paterno as the head coach.
I do agree with the sentence imposed on Jerry Sandusky, just like I believe most people who followed this trial did. He will most likely end up not making it out of prison, the judge made this decision for many reasons. Sentencing is one of the most difficult jobs of the judge, seeing as the a judge cannot just give out any sentence he must abide by guidelines and stipulations (Bohm & Haley, 2014). During this trial Jerry Sandusky was sentenced to more than 30 years but not more than 60 (UPI Newstrack, 2012). This sentencing was efficient for a multitude of reasons, even though he could have been given more time, and it is explained by the judge that he could have done so.
The Penn State scandal involved more than just the individual committing the crimes. Many of the university’s officials were at fault for not reporting the alleged crimes to the Board of Trustees or Pennsylvania police. This type of behavior shows how the culture was a clan style and more of a family characteristics of protecting their own (Brumfield, 2012). Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach, was with the university for almost forty years and was admired as an upstanding citizen. He was the organizer of a charity call The Second Mile, which assisted disadvantage youth.
PROS: The pros of the Louisville scandal were very hard to identify. Being that the scandal was very much the hot topic and caused more bad than good, there are not many pros of this scandal. One pro that I found while reading up on the Louisville Scandal was that it brought the team, school and also the coaches many opportunities of fame and attention. During this time of attention, there was a book published called ‘breaking cardinal rules: Basketball and the Escort Queen.’
Matthew, I agree with you that Coach McElwain’s press conference was effective because he was upfront about Will’s making a mistake, but most importantly in the press conference, Coach McElwain made it known that he along with the team would continue to support Will. In addition, I also agree with you about the Penn State crisis. Consequently, a crisis of that magnitude is unlikely to recover from. I believe that no matter how much the school and the Athletic department do to try to distance itself from the crisis that it will always be connected to the school. Great Post!
“President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football coach Joseph V. Paterno – failed to protect against a child sexual predator from harming children for decades” (Crandall, Parnell, & Spillan, 2014). These four did not report what they knew to the right people and allowed it to continue for some time, therefore, this cover up is what lead this indecency to become a scandal at Penn State. “An examination of meeting notes and e-males reveals that Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno had met and discussed the problem with various authorities, and not including the board of
These shortcomings included initial inadequacies in utilizing negotiating personnel, communicating with FBI Headquarters, documenting decisions and securing the site. During and after the crisis, the crime scenes were searched by many law enforcement officials under the direct supervision of the FBI. They found the FBI's handling of the crime scene searches to be inadequate including its failure to use basic crime scene techniques in collecting evidence. Furthermore, the general disorganization and inexperience of some of the participants coupled with inaccuracies in the searches adversely affected the prosecution and contributed to the negative impression of the government generated during the trial. We found no evidence that these deficiencies were intentional or that the FBI staged evidence for the prosecution's benefit.”
Joe Paterno was forced out of his job, and people felt disgust, because his silence was abominable; and pity because his life was ruined. The audience of King Oidipous also felt disgust and pity due to the same logic. Penn State and the city of Thebes suffered profoundly as well. Penn will never be the same, but will rather be known as the “school sex scandal”. A messenger in King Oidipous explains that no one “could wash clean this dwelling place [the palace]” because of how dishonored and off track the city of Thebes already is (127-128).
The football team of the high school appeared “to have been ground zero for the scandal.” This resulted in a forfeit of their Friday game and a parental meeting to address these shocking events. These parents talked about the problems that are being exploited to the public and the lies that are being told. It is said that the children will be prosecuted with misdemeanors and the adults could be getting sexual offender charges depending on the photos they have acquired. With that being said, over 100 students could end up with misdemeanors because of their actions.
During the trial cases in the months of march and April, the detectives and the court were able to see the revealing cover-up story of president Nixon. On March 23, burglar James McCord told the district judge that he was pressured into silence. As things began to get even more interesting, an F.B.I director Patrick Gray resigned after he admitted to destroying the watergate scandal evidence for protection of Richard Nixon. This would cause a chain reaction which would lead to more people resigning and revealing information that each individual had a role in the watergate scandal and how they tried to cover Mr. Nixon tracks (Historyplace.com, 2009).
Colleges are protecting their public record and do not wish to affect their brand be publicly admitting the high rates of sexual assaults. The documentary focused on a student attending Harvard Law School and the administrators insisted that the female victim should remain silent and avoid spreading the incident around. They asked questions such as, "Did you give him the wrong message, why did you choose not to fight back". Victim blaming is presented when the administrators are more interested in what the victim did wrong rather than what the offender's actions
The Watergate Sandal began to slowly unravel on June 17th, 1972 and would later become known as the worst scandal in American history. The beginning of the end started with the arrest of five men, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzales a locksmith, Eugenio Martinez a licensed real estate agent, Frank Sturgis a former Cuban Military army intelligence and Edward Martin aka James McCord, a retired CIA employee who was working on the Committee to Re-elect President Nixon at the time. They were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters, DNC, at the Watergate office and hotel in Washington D.C.. They were there to copy documents and swamp out eavesdropping equipment that had been placed there during previous burglaries; this was reportedly the third burglary like incident at the DNC since May 28th. All five men were charged with felonious burglary and with possession of implements of crime.
This case shows how the government continued to disagree on how to handle scandals and let someone in power limit the investigations. The government probably didn’t want to have to investigate another scandal, as they were still