Consider the impact of the Sandusky scandal on Penn State. What organizational functions were affected by the crisis

Complete: a minimum of 1,200 words (total assignment) and three scholarly sources.Consequently, when you are writing answers for the “Complete” section or the “Discuss” posts, always be sure to cite (reference) your source material, including any material you reference from your course text. Bethel University uses the APA (American Psychological Association, 6th ed.) style guide for citation.

Complete section:

1. In a narrative format, summarize the key facts and issues of the case.

2. Update the information in the case by researching it on the Internet. Focus your response on the specific issues in the case.

3. Consider the impact of the Sandusky scandal on Penn State. What organizational functions (management, marketing, human resources, etc.) were affected by the crisis?
How were they affected?

4. Who are the internal and external stakeholders? How were the stakeholders affected?

5. Imagine you are a crisis management consultant called in to advise Penn State’s Board of Trustees after the scandal began. What steps would you recommend to contain the damage to long-term the university’s overall image and reputation? What factors should you consider and why? Please explain your reasoning regarding your recommendation.

This is the pdf

Mini-Case: Scandal at Penn State For years, assistant Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky had appeared to be a model citizen in the community. He was a respected football coach under the legendary Joe Paterno and was the founder of The Second Mile, a charitable organization to help disadvantaged youth. He was also a serial child rapist. Of course, many people would think that it was unfortunate that no one was aware of this his dark behavior. Perhaps if someone knew and contacted the authorities, Sandusky could have been caught and stopped. In fact, people knew about Jerry Sandusky, and some of them were in high places at Penn State University. An internal investigation of the incident summarizes the findings: FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2014 by SAGE Publications, Inc. G O I N S , Y V O N N E 1 2 2 7 5 Chapter 1. A Framework for Crisis Management 19 Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University— 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 harming children for decades. Those men concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001. (Freeh, Sporkin, & Sullivan, 2012, p. 14) An examination of meeting notes and e-mails reveals that Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno had met and discussed the problem with various authorities, not including the board of trustees. However, the criticism and what led to the scandal was that they did not do enough to prevent further reoccurrences of Sandusky’s predatory behavior. Was it an attempt to cover up an incident so as not to embarrass the university and its stakeholders? Or was it a strategy on their part of the leadership to be discreet concerning a university employee with nearly 30 years of service? Or was the event so bizarre and uncomfortable that they just did not know how to manage it properly? What is known is that these four university officials went into crisis management mode and attempted to manage the scandal. They held numerous meetings, devised various strategies, and contacted various authorities, including the university police and legal office. Specifically, two areas in their crisis management efforts were not sufficient: (1) the board of trustees was not kept in the information loop, and (2) the victims of the assaults were not properly identified and protected. Crisis management is a huge task and must be taken seriously. For these four men, it cost them their jobs; it put the university through an agonizing trial; and perhaps most important, it changed the lives of a number of young men forever because of repeated assaults from a child predator. The Scandal Jerry Sandusky joined the coaching staff of Penn State in 1969 where he remained until his retirement in 1999. After his retirement, he continued to have access to the Penn State campus athletic facilities because of his status as an emeritus professor. The scandal that involves Sandusky became the worst ever in the history of college sports and led to harsh penalties by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) against the university (Wolff & Gagne, 2012). The crisis commenced with two events that occurred more than a decade ago. In May 1998, a mother reported to the University Police Department that Sandusky had showered with her 11-year-old son in the Lasch Building on the Penn State campus (Freeh et al., 2012). The police investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, but it did bring a reprimand from a police detective not to shower with any other children. A caseworker from the Department of Public Welfare was present at this meeting. Police Chief Thomas Harmon closed the case: “Sandusky was FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2014 by SAGE Publications, Inc. G O I N S , Y V O N N E 1 2 2 7 5 20 CRISIS MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW STRATEGY LANDSCAPE advised that there was no criminal behavior established and that the matter was closed as an investigation” (Freeh et al., 2012, p. 20). At this point, all four Penn State officials—Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno—were informed of the police report and proceeded as if the event were now behind them. That was to change on February 9, 2001, when Mike McQueary, a Penn State football assistant, witnessed a sexual encounter involving Jerry Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy in the showers of the Lasch Building. McQueary reported the incident to Coach Paterno the following day. Paterno met with Curley and Schultz on Sunday, February 11. University president Spanier joined them to discuss a strategy for addressing the incident in late February. They agree to confront Sandusky. On March 5, Curley met with Sandusky and informed him that he was uncomfortable with his behavior with young boys. Curley advised Sandusky not to bring any more boys to the athletic facilities. On March 19, Curley met with the executive director of the Second Mile charitable organization, of which Sandusky is the founder, and informed him of the incident that was observed by Mike McQueary. The Second Mile leadership did not take action and concluded that it was a “nonincident” (Freeh et al., 2012). Meanwhile, President Spanier made no mention of the Sandusky incident at the board of trustees meeting on March 16, 2001. Eight and a half years later, on January 7, 2010, the university received subpoenas from the Pennsylvania attorney general for personnel records on Sandusky. During 2010–2011, investigations were launched concerning Jerry Sandusky, and the crisis rapidly escalated, resulting in charges of child sex abuse that occurred both on and off the Penn State campus. The resulting trial occurred in 2012, and on July 23, Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts of child sex abuse. The Response The viewpoints of the stakeholders associated with this case varied. Some think the university should be vilified for its lack of empathy for the victims and its inability to keep a child predator out of its midst, resulting in harsh sanctions by the NCAA. Others feel that the scandal was a “witch hunt” with authorities looking for scapegoats to blame. The crisis has become an emotional hot point in State College, Pennsylvania, where those loyal to the university and the late coach Paterno have been pitted against others who believe the university was irresponsible (Fitzpatrick, 2012). The Board of Trustees Response The board of trustees removed legendary football coach Joe Paterno and President Graham Spanier from their positions. The two other officials, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz and Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley both stepped down (Tsikoudakis, 2011). In a dramatic move, interim Penn State president Rodney Erickson, who took over after Graham Spanier was ousted, ordered the removal of a statue of Coach Paterno from outside Beaver Stadium. Although the decision was controversial, particularly from alumni, he felt the icon was a “lightning rod of controversy” and FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2014 by SAGE Publications, Inc. G O I N S , Y V O N N E 1 2 2 7 5 Chapter 1. A Framework for Crisis Management 21 needed to be removed so that healing could occur. Erickson commented, “Were it to remain, the statue will be a recurring wound to the multitude of individuals across the nation and beyond who have been the victims of child abuse” (Brown, 2012). The NCAA Response The sanctions handed down by the NCAA were especially harsh, so much so that it even surprised some sports journalists, who felt the association was more accustomed to dealing with athletes who receive illegal gifts such as free tattoos or athletic shoes (Wolff & Gagne, 2012). The penalties to Penn State were meant to punish, and in doing so, many innocent stakeholders also suffered. The sanctions included: ■ The football program is barred from any postseason games for four years, starting with the 2012 season. ■ Scholarships were cut back beginning in 2013. ■ Coach Paterno’s wins for the past 14 years will be taken off the books, a total of 111 from his once-record 409 victories. The sanctions have come under considerable criticism because of the farreaching extent of the punishments. Indeed, the intent of the NCAA was to rebuild “a culture that went terribly awry” (Maher Bachman, & Miller, 2012). However, the sanctions rely heavily on a single report issued by former FBI Director Louis Freeh and two associates at his law firm, also known as the Freeh Report (Maher et al., 2012). Mini-Case Questions 1. Review the definition of a crisis given in this chapter. How does this event illustrate a crisis? 2. Given that the initial events occurred as far back as 1998, why do you think this case took so long to become public knowledge? 3. Were the sanctions by the NCAA too harsh, too lenient, or appropriate? Why? Mini-Case References Brown, E. (2012, July 23). NCAA set to act as Penn State removes statue. Wall Street Journal, p. A3. Fitzpatrick, F. (2012, June 4). Fury returns to Penn State. Newsweek, 14–16. Freeh, L., Sporkin, S., & Sullivan, E. (2012, July 12). Report of the Special Investigative Counsel regarding the actions of The Pennsylvania State University related to the child sexual abuse committed by Gerald A. Sandusky. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf. Maher, K., Bachman, R., & Miller, J. (2012, July 24). NCAA slams Penn State—Top college football program is hobbled for years; Paterno wins record negated. Wall Street Journal, p. A3. FOR THE USE OF SAVANT LEARNING STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2014 by SAGE Publications, Inc. G O I N S , Y