Punishing Penn State, Rewriting History?
http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2012-07-25/punishing-penn-state-rewriting-history
A month after former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of child sexual assault, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has levied historic sanctions against the school’s football program: a four-year postseason ban, a reduction in scholarships and a $60 million fine. The NCAA also "vacated" all Penn State victories between 1998 and 2011, retroactively and posthumously stripping former head coach Joe Paterno of his title as the winningest coach in Division 1 football. We explore the punishment and ask whether it's appropriate to change the record books.
Guests
Dave Zirin
Sports Editor, The Nation; Author, "The John Carlos Story" (Haymarket Books) and "Welcome to the Terrordome: The Pain, Politics, and Promise of Sports" (Haymarket Books)
Gary Alan Fine
Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University; Author, "Sticky Reputations: The Politics of Collective Memory in Midcentury America" (Routledge)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Why do we believe there should be more than what the justice system doles out for the crime? I don't understand why the school as an institution should be punished. What did IT do -- or fail to do? The school is comprised of thousands of employees -- administration, faculty, support workers, and students, all of whom are there for work or an education and who had no knowledge of this crime, and all of whom are probably very conscientious at their jobs and good people. I can understand that the school is naturally going to suffer some decline just because of the reputation problem caused by this incident. Why should the NCAA pile additional punishment onto the institution -- which, as far as I can see -- means thousands and thousands of innocent people who had nothing whatsoever to do with these crimes? Isn't it enough to catch and punish the criminals who committed the crimes?
I'm inclined to believe that the NCAA is piling on because it is the politically correct thing to do -- they felt public pressure to "do" something; if they didn't "do" something it might be read by the public as a lack of concern for the victims and a lack of concern about the problem of child molestation. So they "did" something -- and now they can feel better, because they pacified the public outrage by what they "did" -- even though what they "did" does not address the problem of molestation and even though what they "did" punished innocent people rather than those who committed the crimes. It boggles my mind. I fail to understand how anyone can see this as a good and wise thing. It seems to me an outpouring of politically correct emotion, not justice.
I feel that some of these sanctions are actually demeaning to suffering of the victims. How can we think that changing the history of wins and losses and titles of a football team accomplishes justice for victims who were humiiliated by rape and molestation? We're placing these victims' humiliation on a par with playing of a game?
I don't understand why people are applauding this...
Go look up "lack of institutional control" and then come back when you have your facts straight.
Horrible show. Your panel had little idea of what they were supposed to be discussing here. Dave Ziran hates the NCAA so much that he would let his quest to abolish it be the enemy of the good. He even made several statements that are false.
1. The NCAA is allowing schools that accept Penn State scholarship football players to exceed their limits during this year.
2. The notion that the NCAA, of which Penn State is a member, has absolutely every right and responsibility to police its member schools.
Where was the balance on this panel?