EPTBut OK, you don't like that hypothetical. What about the earlier one I gave involving sexual harassment (is a crime in most circumstances)?
Jerry Sandusky and PSU - Page 39
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
gh0st
United States98 Posts
But OK, you don't like that hypothetical. What about the earlier one I gave involving sexual harassment (is a crime in most circumstances)? | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32159 Posts
but rather than going down another strawman route, why not answer my original question of whether or not what transpired at PSU was ethical? That seems pretty clear cut? it also sets no precedent because the NCAA would not be stupid enough to hand out punishments for adultry. Are you kidding me???? | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
Your argument has no substance at all. You say we are interpreting the ethics clause too loosely, but the reality is that you are interpreting it too narrowly. Look at similar scandals in other sports, where there wasn't even a criminal conviction and penalties were given out! Roethlesberger and the F1 examples come to mind. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
Precedent is a common law principle. Business organizations are not bound by such principles when they administer discipline among their members. Adapting to market conditions is far more important. There is no need to list every single possible violation under the sun because it is understood that members of the organization have a duty to look out for other members and for the organization at large. The Penn State scandal is a huge blow to the integrity of college athletics, the activity that the NCAA was created to represent. It's the same argument as Goodell's enforcement of NFL discipline. Why some people think that the process should exactly mimic the US judicial system is beyond me. Continued membership in an organization and the privileges that membership accords is a separate matter from the judicial process. | ||
|
gh0st
United States98 Posts
The "unethical conduct" discussed in the NCAA bylaws have to do with actions that seek to gain an unfair competitive advantage. The examples it gives all have to do with some form of cheating: doping players, altering grades, pay-to-play schemes, etc. And if you look at past infractions cases, the NCAA has never sanctioned a school for anything remotely similar to this. Y'know if Sandusky had been doping players with performance-enhancing drugs, and there was a cover-up, I could understand why the NCAA gets involved. But that's not what happened. Yeah, pick a guy off the street and ask him whether PSU acted ethically and the answer is clearly "no." But that's not the question. The question is whether what happened at PSU fits the description of "unethical conduct" in the bylaws. If you read the language and the examples of unethical conduct it gives and you look at the past infractions cases in which this clause has been used to sanction a school, it's seems to me that we're talking about different things. Prior to this week's announcement it was very clear that the NCAA had never done anything like this before. So to say the NCAA sanctions against Penn State represents a new precedent (for good or ill) and an expansion of NCAA power should not be that controversial... As for the hypothetical, it's not a strawman. It's a very comparable situation. Kudos to you for staying consistent (if I understood your last post correctly), but I think you'd find a lot more push back from folks if the NCAA got involved in that situation. The NCAA opened the door to a discussion of hypothetical cases, and it's perfectly fair game. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32159 Posts
On July 26 2012 03:34 gh0st wrote: By any reasonable standard what happened at PSU was "unethical". But was it the same sort of unethical conduct discussed in the NCAA bylaws? The bylaws require member institutions to conduct themselves in an ethical manner to promote "fair play," "sportsmanship," and "the high standards of competitive sports." Again, what does child sex abuse have to do with fair play or sportsmanship? Besides the scandal involving ppl affiliated with the athletics program, what does it have to do with competitive sports? The "unethical conduct" discussed in the NCAA bylaws have to do with actions that seek to gain an unfair competitive advantage. The examples it gives all have to do with some form of cheating: doping players, altering grades, pay-to-play schemes, etc. And if you look at past infractions cases, the NCAA has never sanctioned a school for anything remotely similar to this. Y'know if Sandusky had been doping players with performance-enhancing drugs, and there was a cover-up, I could understand why the NCAA gets involved. But that's not what happened. Yeah, pick a guy off the street and ask him whether PSU acted ethically and the answer is clearly "no." But that's not the question. The question is whether what happened at PSU fits the description of "unethical conduct" in the bylaws. If you read the language and the examples of unethical conduct it gives and you look at the past infractions cases in which this clause has been used to sanction a school, it's seems to me that we're talking about different things. Prior to this week's announcement it was very clear that the NCAA had never done anything like this before. So to say the NCAA sanctions against Penn State represents a new precedent (for good or ill) and an expansion of NCAA power should not be that controversial... As for the hypothetical, it's not a strawman. It's a very comparable situation. Kudos to you for staying consistent (if I understood your last post correctly), but I think you'd find a lot more push back from folks if the NCAA got involved in that situation. The NCAA opened the door to a discussion of hypothetical cases, and it's perfectly fair game. That's because no staff has been dumb enough to cover up and further enable something like this for over a decade. Furthermore: "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, may include, but is not limited to, the following:" So seeing as Sandusky, the original perp, was on the football team, and the coach and AD helped cover it up with the help of administrators, that is statisfied. It is in the realm of athletics. If that wasn't enough, think for a second why it was covered up. And again, ethics, 'may include, but is not limited to'... Covering up crimes that took place in your athletic facilities is absolutely non ethical. And it doesn't have to be spelled out for that to work. There doesn't need to be an apples to apples precedent for them to get punishment, and it's not a court of law. | ||
|
gh0st
United States98 Posts
On July 26 2012 03:21 andrewlt wrote: Precedent is a common law principle. Business organizations are not bound by such principles when they administer discipline among their members. Adapting to market conditions is far more important. There is no need to list every single possible violation under the sun because it is understood that members of the organization have a duty to look out for other members and for the organization at large. The Penn State scandal is a huge blow to the integrity of college athletics, the activity that the NCAA was created to represent. It's the same argument as Goodell's enforcement of NFL discipline. Why some people think that the process should exactly mimic the US judicial system is beyond me. Continued membership in an organization and the privileges that membership accords is a separate matter from the judicial process. "Herp derp" was economical word choice. Precedent isn't just important in a court of law. If you run an organization with rules, it should go without saying that how you enforce those rules has consequences. With the announcement this week, the NCAA broke new ground. That's a fact. And yeah, it will have consequences. If you set a precedent and then apply it arbitrarily, you open yourself up to charges of hypocrisy and maintaining a double standard. That's true if you're talking about the criminal justice system, a business or the NCAA. Also, no matter what kind of institution you're talking about, setting clear rules and expectations is important. Whenever you enforce a rule differently than you have in the past it creates confusion for those who have to abide by it, and that creates problems. Again, this is really moot for Penn State since A) they accepted the punishment the NCAA handed down and B) for most people this situation is so heinous and so terrible that people don't care what happens to Penn State. I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. But after we finish patting ourselves on the backs for a job well done, maybe we ought to pause for a second and think about the NEXT case and what all of this means down the line. These comparisons to other sports associations are irrelevant. The NFL is setup differently than the NCAA. I don't care what they do in Formula 1 racing. That has nothing to do with the NCAA. That's because no staff has been dumb enough to cover up and further enable something like this for over a decade. Furthermore: "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, may include, but is not limited to, the following:" So seeing as Sandusky, the original perp, was on the football team, and the coach and AD helped cover it up with the help of administrators, that is statisfied. It is in the realm of athletics. If that wasn't enough, think for a second why it was covered up. And again, ethics, 'may include, but is not limited to'... Covering up crimes that took place in your athletic facilities is absolutely non ethical. And it doesn't have to be spelled out for that to work. There doesn't need to be an apples to apples precedent for them to get punishment, and it's not a court of law. Unfortunately, we don't know that... It's possible similar situations have happened before and are ongoing. We really don't know TT. I'm sure there have been similar situations involving "lesser" offences getting covered up. And I'm pretty confident the NCAA was made aware of such incidents and chose to do nothing about it. But because of how publicized this scandal was and emotionally charged it was, the NCAA decided to get involved. Again, the definition you guys are using for "ethical" is reasonable if we're just having a conversation, but I don't think it's what the guys who wrote the NCAA bylaws intended when they created that section. That's pretty clear based on the examples it gives (yes I know it's not exhaustive, I pointed that out in my first post) and all past infractions cases involving violations of that section. Whether you go for the broader view or a more narrow view is really fair game, imo. I see good arguments on both sides. BigTony: I didn't mean to ignore your point on the "magnitude" of the crimes here. The question I put to you was where in the NCAA bylaws does it distinguish between "unethical conduct" and "REALLY REALLY BAD unethical conduct?" It doesn't. Since you kind of changed your tune about the sexual harassment example, let's take it in another direction (and I put this to the rest of you too): Suppose the coverup involves a coach using illegal drugs (a "victim-less" crime). This goes on for years. The school decides to keep it quiet to protect the program. NCAA sanctions? Why not? | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
In your hypothetical situation I'd be siding with you, but it's nowhere near the magnitude of the PSU case. The question I put to you was where in the NCAA bylaws does it distinguish between "unethical conduct" and "REALLY REALLY BAD unethical conduct?" It doesn't. Whatare you even saying? The bylaws say to conduct themselves ethically IN ALL AREAS, NOT JUST ON THE FIELD. Period, there is no arguing that. Where does it distinguish between magnitudes? It doesn't, just like it doesn't list every possible different infraction. They evaluate different situations individually and give a punishment as necessary, depending on the severity. Your argument has been the same for several posts now and multiple people have pointed out why it's wrong. Everyone understands the point you're making, it's just wrong. Peace. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 03:21 andrewlt wrote: What's with the sudden influx of arrogant internet lawyers trying to lawyer up everything and then accusing other people of "herp derp"? I thought we don't use that kind of crap language on this site. Precedent is a common law principle. Business organizations are not bound by such principles when they administer discipline among their members. Adapting to market conditions is far more important. There is no need to list every single possible violation under the sun because it is understood that members of the organization have a duty to look out for other members and for the organization at large. The Penn State scandal is a huge blow to the integrity of college athletics, the activity that the NCAA was created to represent. It's the same argument as Goodell's enforcement of NFL discipline. Why some people think that the process should exactly mimic the US judicial system is beyond me. Continued membership in an organization and the privileges that membership accords is a separate matter from the judicial process. Logic at last. | ||
|
jeeeeohn
United States1343 Posts
Molestation ^ | | |EVERYTHING |ELSE | | College football | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
More evidence will be released in the months to come. Personally though I believe Joe Paterno is morally and ethically wrong, he was at the very least negligent to the situation. | ||
| ||
