Post by tihuber38 on Nov 16, 2011 21:08:39 GMT -5
In the last decade, there have been numerous scandals of a serious nature involving students and faculty at United States colleges. Of the scores of unfortunate events that have transpired, the Penn State Football scandal and the Duke Lacrosse scandal stand out for a number of reasons, one of which is the mishandling of the events by school administration. Both of these scandals reveal that when moderate tyrannical consensuses form within a school’s administration in the wake of serious allegations, they erode the respect of their faculty and student body by placing the college’s image before the interests of those they serve.
In the aftermath of the Penn State Football scandal, the Board of Trustees takes rash actions to punish the administration, which ultimately results in more humiliation for their school. The scandal dates back to 1998 when allegations of inappropriate contact with young boys surfaced against Assistant Coach Sandusky. He subsequently retired, but was allowed to continue to use the football facilities where, in 2002, Assistant Coach McQueary saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy. McQueary reported the incident to Head Coach Joe Paterno, who then informed the Athletic Director, but not the police. These incidents were kept quiet and not brought to broad light until recently when they sparked public outcry over Penn State’s apparent negligence in managing the issue. The Board of Trustees then took swift action to halt the humiliating damage by firing legendary coach Joe Paterno and long-time president Graham Spanier. The student riots that follow exemplify the general anger and confusion rampant on the campus after the Board’s decision, and contributed to the school’s humiliation. This swift action without clear cause and evidence is not an isolated phenomenon.
The Duke Lacrosse scandal demonstrates how the fear of humiliation in the tyrannical consensus of a college board can lead to preemptive disciplinary actions towards students. In the Duke scandal, Crystal Gail Mangum, a dancer the lacrosse team hired for a party, accused three of its members of rape. One month after the incident the college administration canceled the 2006 season, suspended the three accused students, and fired the head lacrosse coach. These extreme actions were taken before substantive evidence of wrongdoing surfaced, and seriously wounded the lacrosse program and the college careers of those accused. One year later all charges were dropped and the students were declared innocent. Unlike the Penn State scandal, which was suppressed for years, this incident occurred off-campus, and was therefore immediately brought to the public’s attention. Prompted by damaging public scrutiny and the case’s racial overtones, the administration took swift and extreme action. This preemptive action to preserve the college’s image ultimately damaged it further, and affirms the reality that college image sometimes takes precedent over its students’ interests.
The actions of tyrannical consensuses only further tarnish a college’s reputation when they lose sight of their mission to serve the interest of their college community. Unfortunately, almost every college has created a disciplinary environment that enables this corruption and tyranny. The campus police of many universities do not report through normal law enforcement channels, and they have enormous discretion as to whether they turn a case over to the district attorney, or to the paralegal disciplinary boards set up by the college. These college boards, which wield significant power, can suppress information or take decisive action to mollify the impact of an incident. In this environment, the potential for damaging corruption is perpetuated.
Word Count 581
In the aftermath of the Penn State Football scandal, the Board of Trustees takes rash actions to punish the administration, which ultimately results in more humiliation for their school. The scandal dates back to 1998 when allegations of inappropriate contact with young boys surfaced against Assistant Coach Sandusky. He subsequently retired, but was allowed to continue to use the football facilities where, in 2002, Assistant Coach McQueary saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy. McQueary reported the incident to Head Coach Joe Paterno, who then informed the Athletic Director, but not the police. These incidents were kept quiet and not brought to broad light until recently when they sparked public outcry over Penn State’s apparent negligence in managing the issue. The Board of Trustees then took swift action to halt the humiliating damage by firing legendary coach Joe Paterno and long-time president Graham Spanier. The student riots that follow exemplify the general anger and confusion rampant on the campus after the Board’s decision, and contributed to the school’s humiliation. This swift action without clear cause and evidence is not an isolated phenomenon.
The Duke Lacrosse scandal demonstrates how the fear of humiliation in the tyrannical consensus of a college board can lead to preemptive disciplinary actions towards students. In the Duke scandal, Crystal Gail Mangum, a dancer the lacrosse team hired for a party, accused three of its members of rape. One month after the incident the college administration canceled the 2006 season, suspended the three accused students, and fired the head lacrosse coach. These extreme actions were taken before substantive evidence of wrongdoing surfaced, and seriously wounded the lacrosse program and the college careers of those accused. One year later all charges were dropped and the students were declared innocent. Unlike the Penn State scandal, which was suppressed for years, this incident occurred off-campus, and was therefore immediately brought to the public’s attention. Prompted by damaging public scrutiny and the case’s racial overtones, the administration took swift and extreme action. This preemptive action to preserve the college’s image ultimately damaged it further, and affirms the reality that college image sometimes takes precedent over its students’ interests.
The actions of tyrannical consensuses only further tarnish a college’s reputation when they lose sight of their mission to serve the interest of their college community. Unfortunately, almost every college has created a disciplinary environment that enables this corruption and tyranny. The campus police of many universities do not report through normal law enforcement channels, and they have enormous discretion as to whether they turn a case over to the district attorney, or to the paralegal disciplinary boards set up by the college. These college boards, which wield significant power, can suppress information or take decisive action to mollify the impact of an incident. In this environment, the potential for damaging corruption is perpetuated.
Word Count 581