.....Since I vented my views on the situation with Penn State, I have read in newspapers and magazines and have heard commentators on TV excoriate the NCAA for the harshness of the penalties inflicted on the university. These media people expressed their opinions much more vehemently than I did on my blog the other day.
*(Portions of the following article originate on ESPN.com)
.....A source familiar
with the investigation into Penn
State 's response to
former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child sex abuse scandal is
speaking out against the NCAA.
.....According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, a person
connected to the Freeh report, which condemned Penn
State 's handling of Sandusky 's abuse, said the NCAA should not
have based its harsh sanctions against the university on the investigation.
.....The NCAA took this
report and ran with it without further exploration," the source said.
"If you really wanted to show there was (something) to cover up, interview the
coaches. See their knowledge and culpability ..." The failure to do so, according to the source, has
damaged Penn State .
....."The sanctions against Penn State
were really overwhelming, and no one imagined the report being used to do
that. Instead, Mark Emmert, NCAA President, took the
report and used Penn
State 's own resources to
do them in. The institution is made of people, too. And they don't deserve
this."
(.....Meanwhile,
former Penn State
players Franco Harris, Rudy Glocker and Christian Marrone have sent an e-mail to other
Penn State alumni saying the Freeh report "is highly flawed, and factually
insufficient.)
.....I do hope that the new administration at Penn State and its coaches will appeal the NCAA penalties which they so richly undeserve.
Yes, absolutely: we must hope that there will be a successful appeal. No other comments right now, dear Baron - this is just to let you know that I'm reading and agreeing with all you say. Much love, Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteWow! I can't believe there is no dissent from my views on this Penn State matter. Of course, Joel is on safari in Africa using up his birthday present from his sibs. Phil is sulking somewhere taking umbrage on my politics and will not read this blog forever again. Bob Fox is A-OK on this. Anyway, I'm biased because Ilana, Rho's granddaughter is a freshman (freshwoman?) at Penn State. Excuse me, I'm back to watching the Olympics. BTW, Cuz, you Brits did a great job on the opening ceremony.
ReplyDeleteNice of you to say so, dear Cuzzin, and no doubt you are right, as always. However, I'm ashamed to say that I didn't watch it. I will catch up on that at some point, I promise!! Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteunfortunately when the NCAA deals out its punishments, they are always after the fact. if the report is true, the powers that be, failed on many levels, that being said, punishing present day students is a backwards way of righting the wrong.
ReplyDeleteOk, I'm back from my safari. My thoughts might not be completely clear, because I haven't slept for the past 40 hours or so, but I can't pass up an opportunity to comment on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI obviously agree that those who were at fault should be punished; that's a given. I also feel that the present students and athletes at Penn St. should not be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others. However, I do *not* agree that Penn State, as an entity should *not* be punished by the NCAA.
Punishing only the offending individuals and not their sponsoring institution sends the wrong message to future individuals and institutions that plan to carry out or cover up offenses. A President or AD of a university represents that university; they are the human faces of the institution. If they commit a crime under the auspices of that institution, then that institution must be held responsible.
So, how to punish the unversity without punishing its present students? Delay the punishment. For instance, beginning in two years (or whenever), Penn St. should lose half (or more) of its football scholarships for a year (or more). That will discourage top athletes and some students (in the future) from attending Penn St., crippling the football program for a few years. That, in turn, will hurt the university's financial bottom line. It also does not harm its present students and athletes, who innocently chose to attend Penn St. because of it (at the time) untarnished reputation.
I can understand some people's argument that sports and academics should not be intermingled with crimes that are not directly related to sports and academics. It's a valid point, but I just feel that a university should be held responsible for a culture or atmosphere that encourages crimes carried out under its auspices.
Baron: Per yesterday's blog entry, some abused children *did* tell their parents -- one mother testified in court about her shame because her son son told her what was happening, and she did not believe him. Also various adults *did* report abuse to Penn St. officials -- the officials have been fired and charged because they did not act upon that information, or purposely covered it up.
As for questioning whether the abused victims' lives were "ruined" or not, I would just refer you to numerous studies that outline the mental destruction wrought by a young boy being raped by an adult, and how that might affect a person's life from that point.
This comment isn't longer than Ruth's, is it?
Lots of good ideas in your comment, Cousin Joel, but with regard to your last question, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do a word count! Cousin Ruth PS Great to have you back xxx
ReplyDelete