Penn State Trustees Considered Canceling Rest of Football Season

November 18, 2011, 4:00 am

The idea didn’t gain much traction, but Penn State’s Board of Trustees considered canceling the university’s last home football game, against Nebraska, and the other two remaining scheduled games, two people with knowledge of the board’s deliberations told The Chronicle.

“There was some feeling that it would be unseemly to play a football game under these circumstances,” one source said. The discussions took place last week as the board weighed its response to child-sex-abuse charges against former coach Jerry Sandusky, and allegations that university officials had covered them up.

Ultimately, trustees felt that ending the season would harm players who had nothing to do with the problem. “People who favored playing felt it was unfair to punish students for the actions of others,” one person said. “Some also wondered if it would say we can’t play football if Joe Paterno’s not there.”

If the university had not played its final three games, it would have forgone at least $8.7-million in game-day profit, not including any bowl revenue, according to Ryan M. Brewer, an assistant professor of finance at Indiana University at Columbus.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

http://www.facebook.com/people/Antsy-Kuhnwisse/100002159499682 Antsy Kuhnwisse

I do not understand how this is interpreted as hate speech — that is, how it demeans or denigrates or threatens a group of people.

It argues for recognition of the value, and perhaps the equality, of women, which to me seems the opposite of hate. To those it argues against, it says (as do all arguments): you are wrong. But that’s not hate, either. We humans are often wrong. Our beliefs are fair game for arguments.
bekka_alice

Acknowledging that God made all, including woman made as she is to suckle children, is hate speech? Keep working on that argument, you’re not convincing me yet. So far I’m still thinking that it doesn’t make sense to be ashamed of the work of God in a house that proclaims His glory.
chemteach

Having breastfed both of my children, I can identify with the woman in the poem even though I am not muslim. As a Christian in worship in our modern North American society, I found it necessary to take myself and baby to a side room for nursing. Even though I considered my church family loving and caring, I personally did not feel comfortable staying in worship. I didn’t feel comfortable nursing in any public venue, even a baseball game. Yet nursing a child with my own body was indeed one of the most beautiful things I have ever done. The close bond between mother and child formed by nursing is exemplified in scripture numerous times. Breasts are not just made for the pleasure of men and sexual relationships, but for the nourishment of next generation. I thought this was a beautiful poem.
jffoster

If this had happened in the preparatory department (lots of children and youthes around) of the College or Conservatory of Music, would there have been a serious consideration of cancelling the rest of the concerts, performances, and public juries for the rest of the season (quarter, semester,…)?
kinnewoman

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1088879–queen-s-marching-band-may-be-a-parade-no-show?bn=1
Guest

Music teachers are the right kind of gays in the eyes of the mainstream liberal media, so they are allowed to sleep with underaged boys without being demonized.
jffoster

For the record, you will note I used the pluperfect subjunctive. I know of no cases where this actually happened in a Music College / Conservatory. Perhaps I should have written “If this were to have happened…..” to make the hypothetical abundantly clear.
isugeezer

“If the university had not played its final three games, it would have forgone at least $8.7-million in game-day profit”
And there you have it.
not4nothin

Well, yeah! They had 8.7 million reasons to finish the season.

No surprise here. Just plenty of shame.
mbelvadi

Yes, but let’s not be too condemning, considering that they probably have enough sunk costs that if they didn’t get that $8.7M from the sporting events, it probably would have come out of the academic budget in the end. Maybe just this once they made a “football” decision to the benefit of the academic mission of the university.
cwinton

The decision to play the last 3 games, whatever the motivation, at least fits with how teams that have been placed on probation are treated (although some might argue this case rises to the level of the one at SMU, where the NCAA required the school to shut down its program). PSU will be bowl eligible, so the real proof in the pudding will be how they handle possible post season games. To my thinking the school should announce it will not play beyond already scheduled games (which also means they would not contend for the Big 10 championship). The argument that you would be punishing innocent players doesn’t wash, since infractions by one or more players can lead to the same kind of outcome. Isn’t that one of the lessons teamwork is supposed to teach?
moehnandasc

Perhaps this might be considered. Play the reaming scheduled games as to cancel them will hurt not only Penn State, but the Universities they are playing. Accept a bowl bid so as not to hurt the players that have worked so hard, but donate all the proceeds from the bowl game to an orginiztion that helps protect and heal victims of this type of abuse.
Just a thought
sand6432

If the incidents had involved a currently employed coach and been recent events, then cancellation might have been appropriate. But to take such a step in response to an incident involving a nonemployee occurring nearly a decade ago seems extreme. But I do like the idea of donating any bowl game profits PSU makes to child abuse charities (to the extent that Big 10 revenue sharing allows).—Sandy Thatcher
victorl

Penn State is only beginning to learn what the actual “costs” are to arrogance and contempt toward the truly vulnerable. The students at Penn State who feel they had “nothing to do” with the priority given to sports over other issues are learning that there really is a price to pay for keeping one’s head in the sand (or bleachers, or sky boxes). Penn State should not just bemoan their fall from grace (if that is how they consider what’s gone on), but reflect on what else might have fallen by the wayside with this coordinated lack of oversight of the university’s athletic program. If such a horrific and egregious disregard could be sustained for so many years at such an high administrative level by so many, can this truly be the only crime, abuse, etc., that has been brushed aside in the name of leaving the school’s image (and sports profits) untarnished? An ethical lapse like what’s gone on at Penn State did not emerge from nowhere. This is a culture of “no-higher-priority” athletic prominence. I’ll be surprised if it were the only instance we learn about.

In part, this ethos gets sustained by pandering to what your “customers” (students) want, rather than what faculty, educators, administrators, etc., must understand a university to be. They’ve proven that they know how to run Penn State as a business, and can show a profit, and can please their share-holders, advertisers, and sports alumni. It might be nice if they could come round to a sense of what a non-profit educational organization should be doing, and how this is so very different from big business, or, as we’ve seen, a “winner-take-all” athletics contest. It will be interesting to follow the trajectory Penn State’s trustees chart as the school moves forward. Will there be any reprioritization?
academicvalues

FYI Penn State is a fine academic institution.
12080243

“If the incidents had involved a currently employed coach and been recent events, then cancellation might have been appropriate. But to take such a step in response to an incident involving a nonemployee occurring nearly a decade ago seems extreme…” This quote portrays quite aptly limited sympathy.

Sympathy seems appropriate for all those at Penn State except “one individual and the failure of a few others.” Then thoughts occur whether they’re consciously sought. For example, you’ve seen the screaming, enthusiastic crowds at Penn State football games (and at other such events, in other environments, too.) It’s quite overpowering. It’s also quite empowering to Penn State leaders or to other university leaders, too. Now, remember the pictures of the screaming, enthusiastic crowds at Hitler rallies. That thought occurs whether we bid for it consciously or not. They’re facts. Do the screaming, enthusiastic crowds provide license to Hitler, to other tyrants, or to, by comparison the lesser but just as disgusting, criminals at Penn State, or to other amoral leaders at other universities? How do you control this license? How do we control the crowds? And the leaders that feed on them? The crowd can’t walk away as innocents, can they? The crowd is made up of individuals. Are individuals at Penn State innocents? We all contribute to our rah-rah PR deceptions our leaders perpetrate on students and the public. We know that. We professors know that. None of us is ignorant of this reality. But we let it slip by. We, faculty, allow Penn State type leadership, whether it is at Penn State or my school, the University of Southern Mississippi. My guess is that all individuals at Penn State will, directly or indirectly, pay the price for their participation in the child-abuse scandal. Associative guilt? That’s a fact whether you like it or not, or whether I like it or not. The question is are you blameless as a fan of “Joe-pa” sports? If you’re blameless, then stop the mindless crowds and the license they give the Joe-pas around the country. Worry about controlling the license you grant to Joe-pas. It may be your son or daughter or religion that is ————–. You fill in the blank.

Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA, Professor, School of Accountancy, University of Southern Mississippi and Editor, usmnews
TruthGuardian

I do agree with everything you say on degrees and on the refusal to renew the lease being the impetus, in the early 1980s for the UK government to have to come up with a strategy for the return of HK, rather than anyone “shrugging off” colonial rule.

The only area where I disagree is that the UK left the people of HK to their fate (pom is fair epithet :-) The treaty provided for 1 counrty 2 systems and a Basic Law that has, by and large, of course with some exceptions, been adhered to. You also are spot on that, with the exception of the housing bubble burst, HK has thrived. Not sure there was much more the UK could have done.

I am a proponent of the 3 year degree. One big area for this is law. Those who will go to the UK for an undergraduate law degree complete in 3 and then can receive 1 year of advanced standing on a JD. The whole thing (with two law degrees and an international experience) can be completed in 5 years and at much lower cost. As the cost of education goes up and up people do need to re-evaluate. Not saying the liberal arts degree has no place, or value, it does, just not for all people.