Ten Reasons Why Penn State Deserves The "Death Penalty"

The so-called "death penalty" has only been handed down five times in NCAA history, and Penn State should be the sixth. Here are ten reasons why.

As the NCAA investigation into Penn State continues now that the Freeh report has been released, the debate rages on about what sort of penalty the NCAA should hand down to Penn State. The two largest camps that have formed have been those pushing for the so-called "death penalty", the harshest penalty the NCAA has ever handed down, and a faction that says there should be no penalty at all, as the violations are not under the NCAA's jurisdiction.

The "death penalty" is a season-long ban from participating in a sport that has been enacted five times in NCAA history, three in Division I (Tulane also volentarly shut down its basketball program amid a scandal--click here for a list of the worst scandals in NCAA history). The long term effects of the death penalty are usually disastrous. For example, in the 20 years after receiving the death penalty, SMU had exactly one winning season.

Still, Penn State should get the death penalty, and here's why.

1. Penn State violated NCAA bylaws

graphics8.nytimes.com

The Penn State case is unprecedented in its scope and magnitude. Historically, NCAA violations have involved illegal payments made to players, players conspiring with organized crime to shave points or attempting to circumvent academic requirements. Never before has a scandal like this hit an NCAA institution. However, that does not mean the NCAA cannot act. The two articles in the NCAA bylaws Penn State most clearly violated were Article 6, outlining institutional control, and Article 10, outlining ethical conduct.

Article 6 has been where most of the focus has been, because "lack of institutional control" has been viewed as sort of a catch-all for NCAA violations in the past, in situations where a corrupt environment has been allowed to build. In the case of Penn State, the Freeh Report outlines dozens of examples of an absolute lack of institutional control, most notable of which is the decision in 2001 by vice president Gary Schultz not to report Sandusky to child services after speaking with Joe Paterno, and instead deciding to take a 'more humane route' with Sandusky.

Under Article 10, Bylaw 10.1 outlaws "Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work." While it goes on to list several traditional examples of what would be Unethical conduct in relation to athletics, it also makes it clear that the violations would not be limited to these items. I can think of nothing more unethical than participating in the sustained coverup of the rape of a child.

NCAA President Mark Emmert (pictured) has promised to clean up college athletics. If he is serious about that mission, the first step is going to be enforcing the bylaws the NCAA has set forth.

2. Joe Paterno was directly involved with the coverup

wordpress.com

Among the most startling revelations from the Freeh report was the level of involvement Joe Paterno had with the coverup that occurred following the 1998 Jerry Sandusky incident. Among the revelations included in the report was the fact that Paterno had offered Sandusky a continued Assistant Coaching position so long as he wanted to remain on the staff, and also persuaded officials at the school to take a "more humane" approach with Sandusky in 2001, avoiding reporting him to child services.

Despite being aware of both reported assaults in 1998 and 2001, Paterno stood by Sandusky, continuing to allow him to have an association with Penn State football. Paterno, along with other Penn State officials, never rescinded Sandusky's access to Penn State facilities, including the locker rooms where several of the rapes took place, including some after 2001, when the second reported incident took place.

Other people involved who had witnessed the events, including the janitors employed by the athletics department, declined to come forward for fear of losing their job. Paterno maintained his innocence, and claimed he was not 'aware' of the details of the sexual assault, which was an outright lie. Paterno perjured himself in a grand jury investigation into the assault. Overall, his actions were more interested in protecting Sandusky and the long term reputation of Penn State football (and his own legacy) then doing the right thing. He used his power and influence to protect Sandusky, ensured Sandusky's continued association with Penn State football, and directly created a situation that allowed many more children to be raped.

3. The coverup included senior Penn State officials

media.lehighvalleylive.com

After waiting two days, because he didn't want to "disturb their weekend", Joe Paterno informed Penn State athletic director Tim Curley of the 2001 sexual assault, and Curley brought senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz, who was tasked with oversight of the University Police Department, into the loop and they interview Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary, who describes "in graphic detail" the acts he witnessed. Despite knowledge of the 1998 incident, Schultz and Curley decide not to act on this second incident after Paterno raises concerns. Schultz was also aware of the possibility of other victims. As part of the 1998 investigation, Sandusky had stated that "he had done this with other boys in the past."

Neither did anything to restrict Sandusky's access to campus facilities, and Sandusky continued to have access to the showers and dormitories, and allowed a continued association with Sandusky and Second Mile with Penn State that allowed Sandusky continued access to children and Penn State facilities. The failures did not stop there, as Curley and Schultz had also informed University President Graham Spanier of the incident, as well as the retirement package Sandusky was offered. Curley also arranged for Sandusky to coach for a final season in 1999, which culminated in the Alamo Bowl, where Sandusky raped Victim No. 4 in the team hotel while being awarded a heroes exit on the football field.

4. Even after the Grand Jury was called, the coverup continued

trbimg.com

Even after a Grand Jury was called to investigate, Spainer (pictured), Curley and Schultz worked to downplay their involvement with the initial incidents and the subsequent investigation. Even as Curley, Schultz and Paterno testified before a Grand Jury, Spainer does not alert the Board of Trustees to the investigation or the possible implications it will mean for the University. From e-mails exchanged by Spainer and Then‐Penn State General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin, it appears the early focus was on reducing Penn State's liability in the ensuing investigation, only disclosing that Jerry Sandusky was no longer allowed to bring children into the showers at Penn State.

Spainer would eventually be called to brief the Board of Trustees following a newspaper article about the investigation into Sandusky. At these hearings Spainer downplayed the University's role in the investigation and along with Baldwin, regularly attended Board of Trustees meetings. A senior administrator suggested an independent investigation group be set up to investigate the athletics department, but Spainer and Baldwin agreed that should not happen.

Spainer issued a press release in support of Curley and Schultz on November 5, as the Grand Jury investigation was heating up. On November 6 Curley is placed on administrative leave and Schultz re-retires. Spainer releases a statement saying such moves were voluntary, when in fact they were not. On November 7, the state announced charges against Sandusky, Curley and Schultz. It is only then that the Board of Trustees learned of the full scope of the incidents and subsequent action taken by the University.

5. The Board of Trustees did not actively persue information

jimrome.com

As indicated above, Spainer was not forthcoming with the Board of Trustees with information concerning the investigation, and only learned of the incidents through a March 31, 2001 newspaper article. In their April meeting they called Spainer and Baldwin to appear, and received a brief update on the Grand Jury investigation. While Spainer downplayed the involvement of the University and staff, the Board failed to ask significant followup questions or request more details. The board meets again in July and September with Spainer and Baldwin, but do not followup on the investigation at all.

The initial statement of support for Curley and Schultz was co-written by then Board Chair Steve Garban (pictured), who remains with the Board to this day. It was only after the November 6 incident with Spainer's press release in support of Curley and Schultz that the board takes control, once it became clear their image had been placed in jeopardy. For six months the Board took no action, including failing to obtain criminal council or launching an internal investigation. It was only after the criminal charges were filed, eight months after they were initially made aware of the investigation, did the Board of Trustees launch an internal investigation into Paterno and Spainer.

On November 9 the Board demanded Spainer's resignation, and fired Joe Paterno. However, because they were woefully under-prepared, they were unable to adequately explain their decision, as they had not launched any form of internal investigation. This led to student demonstrations and a swelling of support for Paterno. Because The Board had not launched an investigation, they were unable to explain their actions, and subsequently were met by massive resistance in the Penn State community. This reinforces the belief that the Board was only interested in protecting the reputation of Penn State University.

6. Even as the scandal broke, sweetheart deals were made

wordpress.com

Before the incident in May of 1998, Jerry Sandusky was told he was not going to be the next head coach of Penn State football. He had already been considered for other positions, including an Associate Athletic Director position at the school, and had been working with Curley to settle on his future. With the knowledge that he would not become head coach, Sandusky made the decision to retire after one more season, with the approval of Curley. He was given an unprecedented retirement package that included a buyout of $168,000 and an emeritus title that was unheard of for someone in his position. There is no evidence that his retirement was related to the 1998 incident. It is clear from the demands that Sandusky made that he wanted access to Penn State facilities, and assistance in running his charity, which involved underprivileged children.

Sandusky was not the only official to get a sweetheart deal, however. In January of 2011, shortly after he found out that he would be testifying before a Grand Jury, Joe Paterno renegotiated his contract to include a $3 million payout if he agreed to retire at the end of the 2011 season. This was done in coordination with Spainer, who ensured the contract was resigned. When the scandal broke, Paterno offered to retire at the end of the season to avoid being fired, a move that was well received at the time. Of course, it was not revealed until much later than Paterno had negotiated a $3 million parachute for himself and the family.

7. The University has not made substancial changes since the incident

tampabay.com

While the Board has promised sweeping changes very few, aside from personal changes have actually occurred. While the Board states they are going to change the reporting structure at the University, no details for that plan have been provided. The most substantial change the Board has implemented seems to be increased education of the signs of child abuse. Finally, the new Penn State President Rodney Erickson was Provost at the time of the original Sandusky scandal and was the man who approved Sandusky's Emeritus title, albeit begrudgingly.

While the Board has admitted some of its failures, there has been no massive changes to the personal of the board. Furthermore, there has been little acknowledgment of the mistakes the Board made from the time they learned of the Grand Jury investigation to the time the scandal broke wide open in November. In addition, the athletics department has not announced any self sanctions or sweeping changes outside of the massive turnover in football staffing.

8. The culture that allowed the coverup still exists

assets.nydailynews.com!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen

Even as new details emerge, Joe Paterno continues to have his defenders, both at the school and in the media. Defenders, such as Baseball statistician Bill James, Former Penn State player and football great Lydell Mitchell and former player Matt Millen are among those who have come to Paterno's defense, even as the evidence mounts against him and the program. There has been an effort to maintain Paterno's legacy, even among those boosters still heavily involved in the Penn State community.

This becomes all to clear when you discover that Penn State has received a record number of donations for the second highest fundraising total in school history, even as the scandal was breaking last year. The culture at Penn State is still extremely football driven, to the point where corruption has clearly become too easy and those involved in athletics have become too powerful.

9. The action has precedence

blog.topratetutors.com

The so-called "Death Penalty" has been issued five times in NCAA history, most notably against SMU for repeated violations involving payments made to players. It was also used against Kentucky after a points shaving scandal in the 1950s and Southwestern Louisiana in the early 1970s after fraud was discovered in academic records. However, the reason why each school received the death penalty was a lack of willingness to self-regulate, or a conspiratorial effort to coverup the events that occurred. Baylor was let off the hook without the death penalty only because of the immediate cooperation and investigation launched by the University.

For fourteen years there was an effort by those within Penn State's athletic program and school leadership to coverup the rape of a child on athletics property, an event that happened multiple times. Furthermore, the lack of action on their part led to more rapes and assaults, some on University property, and some through his connections to Penn State and the charity Second Mile.

Simply put, there is certainly no precedence for the kind of violations that Penn State committed in the coverup of Jerry Sandusky, there is a precedence for punishing schools who engage in conspiracies and coverups. Furthermore, while the NCAA has stated that it would only issue the death penalty for a school already on probation, the egregious level of the violations caused by Penn State should force them to reconsider that requirement.

Finally, the culture that allowed this coverup to occur at Penn State is still prevalent, and so long as athletics is allowed to take precedence over all else, real change is impossible. Furthermore, were the NCAA to avoid penalizing the school, they would be sending a horrible message to other institutions to attempt to coverup crimes, as the coverup would not result in NCAA sanctions, and would discourage future whistle-blowers and internal investigations.

10. It's the right thing to do.

wordpress.com

And it is the most proactive step that can be taken to ensure that these events never occur again.