Flagler College
Ethical Dilemmas in The
Sandusky Controversy
Media Ethics Final paper
Bunder M. Shageer
6/11/2013
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
Ethical dilemmas in the Sandusky Controversy
Media ethics and morals that should be followed by all professionals that provide a
service or product to their publics have an obligation to provide true facts, remain unbiased and
work diligently to provide the highest quality of fairness for all parties involved; whether they be
media outlets, organization in which the professionals are working for the public that is
entrusting them with hopes that they will be honest and transparent in their actions.
In the case of the Sandusky misbehavior and inexcusable actions controversy where
victims were being exposed to sexual misconduct and lewd behavior in exchange for gifts and
rewards. The public relations department, the University heads and football staff all played major
roles in the cover up and thus further allowing damage to the many victims. This was completely
unethical.
The argument that arises is whether the parties that were “protecting” those individuals
who were committing these heinous acts were justifiable by terms of the greater good for all, the
greater good for society as a whole. Even though the victims were hurt, lied to and deception had
taken place the crisis management team should have addressed the issue prior to the explosion on
media outlets nationwide proclaiming the actions Sandusky was involved in were inexcusable
and morally wrong. Even though they perceived the actions they were doing as “right”, they
were not and will never be determined as such. The amount of harm and damage that was caused
to the victims could never be justified by allowing them to take place and the greater good of
society is more important because the crimes that were committed should not be justified under
any means. As Mill says on pleasure and happiness, “By happiness is intended pleasure, and the
absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” (p. 10) With that in mind
we can see that maybe their reasoning behind it is that the amount of pleasure that was being
achieved for the remainder of society was greater than the amount of pain that was being forced
upon the victims.
1
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
In accordance to the utilitarianism moral system the value of an act is purely determined
by its consequential result, even though at times a debate over just how much consideration
should actually be given to consequences, predicted consequences and planned consequences.
With this theory by John Stuart Mill of the “greatest good, for the greatest number of people,”
we can see just how it is applied in everyday events, throughout the media and high profile cases
as well that might have an adverse effect on a small group of people, but the benefit for the
greater population outweighs the risks of that smaller percentage. Now how does this exactly
apply to ethical dilemmas in media? The theory of Mill’s can be applied to present day ethical
dilemmas that occur on a regular basis in today’s media. With one example of just how serious
an ethical dilemma can affect an organization which will follow soon along with the ethical
values that are being violated within this specific case.
The case at hand deals with the former long-standing Penn State Assistant football Coach
Jerry Sandusky, who was well known for his charitable work with “at-risk” youth, was found
guilty of 45 of the 48 charges which consisted of him sexually assaulting 10 boys over a 15 year
time period in Centre County, PA, in a disgrace that ended the 46-year tenure of the Head
football Coach Joe Paterno, it also had damaged the Penn State football program and brought
extensive implications. Furthermore the Penn State Athletic Director Timothy Curley and the
school's Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz were charged in
November 2011 with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse in relation to sex-abuse
charges against Sandusky. Former Penn State University President Graham Spanier says an
investigative report released early this month is inaccurate regarding his role in the alleged
2
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
cover-up of a sexual molestation scandal involving Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant football
coach.
In addition to all the details of the case we will use an example of just how the moral, of
honesty was betrayed by the Penn State employees to the media. First is a statement made by the
former President Graham Spanier who claims he wasn’t aware of such lustful behaviors also he
tries to make everyone believe he was not involved nor did he know what was going on with
Sandusky, Spanier said, “Never would I stand by for a moment to allow a child predator to hurt
children. I am personally outraged that any such abusive acts could have occurred in or around
Penn State and have considerable pain that it could perhaps have been ended had we known
more sooner." (p. 2)
Also in the same article it states the internal investigative report which was prepared the
former FBI Director Louis Freeh, had determined that the years of admiration that was once
affiliated with Penn State's football program had ultimately led to include but not limited to,
former President Graham Spanier and the once-famed head coach Joe Paterno for basically
looking the other way once they found out and became completely aware that Sandusky, a fellow
football coach, was actually molesting minors which would take place in the athletic departments
locker room showers. Furthermore the former Penn State University president Graham Spanier
along with two other previously charged school officials were accused in a criminal conspiracy
to "actively conceal'' the actions of the now convicted child sex-abuser and former assistant
football coach Jerry Sandusky, the authorities said the new charges, which also include criminal
obstruction and endangering the welfare of children will be taken very seriously and justice will
be served. (p. 02a)
3
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
The reason I use these specific examples of ethical dilemmas that deal with the Sandusky
trial is because the values that were destroyed along the way which includes but is not limited to;
transparency, honesty and fairness. In addition to these values, the code of ethics was not
properly represented within their organization and can be seen by their actions, whether it was
the deception by the Coach Sandusky or the lies that the former President Spanier was caught
trying to defend the reputation of the University along with their own reputations. As reported by
The Washington Post about the ethical dilemmas that were encountered within this case, “A
victim of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky sued Penn State late Friday,
saying the “university deliberately concealed and misrepresented” Sandusky's serial sexual
abuse of young boys. The lawsuit was the third civil action filed against the university by a
victim of the longtime defensive coach, Penn State spokesman Dave La Torre said. It was filed
on behalf of a boy identified by a grand jury as Victim 1, who testified in court that Sandusky
abused him when he was 13 or 14 years old. The boy is now 18.” (p. 1)
Now with all these instances and negative acts of conduct that have been discussed are all
prime examples of just how values were not kept with the standards of conduct that should have
been followed. Transparency, consists of the level of openness that one might be dealing with an
issue, in this case the higher ups on the ladder were aware of the misconduct taking place and
decided to turn the other cheek and not disclose this ill-mannered behavior which they were
aware of, but had feared the lash back that would occur if the public had known of this
treacherous action that Sandusky was taking part of. In addition, Honesty, which can go handand-hand with Transparency, was also a value that was broken and stepped on consistently by
4
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
both guilty parties and those defending them due to the nature of the crime committed and case
being tried.
Furthermore, when we evaluate who has been affected by the behavior and values that
were broken it is easy to identify those groups, first would be the victims and their families who
are first and foremost directly affected, second would be the actual organization which is the
Penn State as an entire entity because the coach was an employ of theirs making them
responsible for his actions to an extent. Now when the media is taken into consideration they are
affected by the actions which occur at Penn State, because they are supposed to base their
information on core facts and detailed accounts from witnesses and victims along with the
hierarchy at the University to get a better understanding of the whole situation making their jobs
quite difficult along with the task of reporting truthful and accurate news becomes harder with
these hindrances.
Lastly if we apply this tragic event to the utilitarian system of moral beliefs to get a better
understanding of just what the officials at Penn State were thinking when it came time to apply
their moral and ethical beliefs, but they were interested in the “greatest good, for the greatest
number of people,” which meant that they would cover up any scandals and turn a blind eye to
any kind of behavior that might shed a negative light upon the University which begins to be
inconsistent with the true moral and ethical beliefs system that should have been applied when
the consideration of honesty and transparency were thrown to the way side.
Nonetheless we are now able to address the philosophical approach that is being taken
here by way of utilizing John Stuart Mill’s theory on Utilitarianism, the Utilitarian approach
5
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
taken by John Stuart Mill seems to best fit the situation at hand dealing with the Sandusky
controversy that had previously been discussed. Mill’s touches on the areas of Transparency and
Harm in quite a few of his literature pieces, along the lines of Harm, he stresses more towards
harm prevention in sense of doing what you can do to prevent harm rather than concern with the
result of harm but rather how can we prevent it from occurring. Furthermore when the concept of
Mill’s “principle of harm” is brought it up it is usually more associated with Mill’s “principle of
liberty”, merely for the fact that Mill’s sees both going hand and hand with one another and they
are in a sense intertwined within each other. Mill’s always says in regard to Liberty, “That the
sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the
liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection That the only purpose for which power
can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
prevent harm to others.” (p.123)
Moreover the issue arises in the Sandusky case where the people that were aware of the
misconduct and malice behavior had kept quiet and not spoken about the information that they
knew about the behavior that was taking place behind closed doors, also the harm factor comes
in accordance to Mill, where the parties that were aware of the misconduct such as Paterno Head
coach for the football team and the former University President Spanier as well because both
were turning a blind eye to the actions that Sandusky was doing and they should have put his
liberty at stake by preventing harm to the young male victims who in the end were harmed.
Lyons says, “If the principle of liberty says flatly, that the prevention of harm to others justifies
interfering with my liberty, then it might justify interfering with my liberty in this sort of case.”
(p.92)
6
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
This just helps back the point that the media that covered the issue, the University itself
that was aware of what was going on or even had an idea or Sandusky’s actions would lead to
the allegations which were harmful that later had been revealed, according to Mill, they have the
right to intervene and stop him from harming any other people even if it means affecting his
liberty in order to do so. So to conclude on Harm, the individuals and groups who were aware of
the horrific acts that were being done by Sandusky should have intervened and prevented the
further harm from taking place and the fact that they didn’t, places this value in conflict because
the steps for the minimization of harm were not implemented.
Furthermore as we analyze more about what Mill thinks on transparency, liberty and
harm to others, in one of his works Mill says when talking of Liberty, “This Essay is not the socalled Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical
Necessity, but Civil or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be
legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” (p.3) I feel the power of this statement
dealing with Liberty is a great example of just what duties or actions should and can be taken by
society over a single person for the greater good of the entire society, thus the actions taken by
the higher ups on the ladder such as the head coach and former President that they should have
taken the power into their own hands and ended the horrible actions of the convicted Sandusky.
The fact that they didn’t even lift a finger to intervene with what they knew was going on
becomes a major issue because they allowed harm to come unto others i.e. the victims and even
the reputation of the University along with the staff and faculty. In addition, along these same
lines we can see the conflict with the value of transparency being tampered with, in the sense that
the levels of their transparency in dealing with the issue once it became public was one of their
7
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
flaws, because they persisted to stay along the lines of them not understanding or being aware of
these at the time “allegations” so in essence they actually had caused more harm due to their
lack-of-transparency.
Also Mill has clear and concise statement on transparency, Mill says, “There is a standard
of altruism to which all should be required to come up, and a degree beyond it which is not
obligatory, but meretricious. It is incumbent on every individual to restrain the pursuit of his
personal objects within the limits consistent with the essential interests of others. What those
limits are, it is the province of ethical science to determine; and to keep all individuals and
aggregations of individuals within them, is the proper office of punishment and blame.” (p.51)
There is the great deal of emphasis on the person who goes against the value of transparency that
he or she needs to take responsibility for their actions and take the according punishments that
follow and with this said it shows just how Mill see those who are not transparent in their actions
with society and the great deal of complications which can arise from it.
In addition we can see that even though the values that are in conflict have been violated,
i.e., transparency, honesty, liberty and harm to others through some points of view or
perspectives you can see that the actions taken by the guilty parties in question; The University,
faculty and staff that were aware and kept secrets along with the actual perpetrator himself.
Nonetheless we are not evaluating it from the view that what was done can be considered right,
but rather than what was done is and was wrong. The steps that were taken to try and remedy the
issue were not the correct steps, so in turn the victims who were affected by Sandusky are just
that, victims, they did not have a proper defense at the time of the incidents, who should have
8
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
been the staff and high ranks who were aware of what was happening and did nothing to stop it
or prevent it from occurring again.
Furthermore we can evaluate the moral duties that were either right or wrong and why I
feel that way about the actions that were taken by the Public Relations department at the
University, also I will go into further detail about what the duties of the PR department should
have been and where they went wrong.
The moral duties of the Public Relations department at University along with Sandusky
the one who was actually committing the harmful acts had a moral duty to the public, the
University and the victims to prevent harm, be truthful and keep transparency open and not
conceal anything that would be potential harmful or risky. After intensive reading, analyzing and
compiling information, I have concluded that the actions taken by all the parties involved were
wrong and should not have occurred the way they did the parties include; Penn State, former
long-standing Penn State Assistant football Coach Jerry Sandusky, once-famed Head Coach Joe
Paterno, the University President Graham Spanier, Senior Vice President of Finance and
Business Gary Shultz, Penn State Athletic Director Timothy Curley and the victims that ranged
from nine verified to upwards of 20 unverified according to USA Today.
When we analyze what the University’s PR department did right or wrong we are able to
see just what exactly they should have done better to avoid such a crisis, instead they in turn had
to utilize their crisis-management team to try and clean up a mess that should have been avoided
from the beginning. The public relations department at Penn State, made some vital mistakes that
ultimately damaged the reputation and loyalty that was strong from the supporters of the
9
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
University, the aspect of the their PR department breaking the ethic of being honest and
transparent they should have addressed the situation differently. Even though the PR agency has
an obligation to their client they still have an obligation to the publics in which they serve, the
harm that they had caused to those victims by keeping things secret and not being transparent
about the issues that were occurring behind closed doors.
I would like to first see, what does it actually mean to do right and do wrong and how do
they differ and what do people really consider each to mean. Anna Wierzbicka Right and wrong:
from philosophy to everyday discourse, says “That the use of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ as parallel
concepts and opposites increased; and it notes that the use of right as an adjective increased
enormously in relation to the use of true.” (p. 228) With this is mind we can begin to see what
the parties involved in this breach of trust with the public, such as the University or even Coach
Sandusky might have seen as to what is right or wrong based on their actions and the outcome of
their actions that they had not taken to prevent further harm and damage to the victims and the
university.
Also Wierzbicka says, “But what applies to good, bad and true does not apply to right
and wrong.” (p. 231) With this definition of the usage of right and wrong, the University and
coaches might have thought their actions were wrong, but not bad or even vice versa the actions
they took were right, but in the same essence bad because they were protecting a small few for
whatever reason they might have seen fit, whether financially, for the lack of publicity or for the
fear of public humiliation.
Furthermore Wierzbicka also says, “Here, it is not a question of wronging other people,
but of choosing, consciously, one of two clearly distinguishable, ways to act ‘right’ and
10
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
‘wrong’.” (p. 238) “The idea of a ‘rational ethics’, an ethics based on the notions of ‘right’ and
‘wrong’, was linked with the broader ideas of a ‘rational religion’, favoured by the
Enlightenment and perhaps congenial to the ‘spirit of capitalism’.” (p. 247). Now that I have
discussed briefly what we can see to be either right or wrong and how they were derived, I would
like to discuss into further detail about human rights and how they apply in this case of what’s
right and what’s wrong along with something that might be considered right or wrong within
society. According to Fathali M. Moghaddam, Toward a Cultural Theory of Human Right, he
says, “Although the term 'human rights' is traditionally taken to refer to fundamental rights
enshrined in formal documents, certain basic 'normative rights', such as turn-taking, are central to
everyday social life … referred to as 'primitive social relations', are inherent in human social life
and relative to the local political orientation can appear as rights or duties. Second, normative
rights/duties are maintained through evolutionary developed social skills that are integral to local
cultures.” (p. 291)
The reason I brought this example in to context is because we can evaluate the actions
taken by the University, the coaches and those on the upper ladder by simply applying what’s
wrong or what’s right to do for the entire society and whether their actions did just that or did
they ultimately harm the society as a whole by trying to protect a select few of what they
perceived to be elite individuals. This concept plays a major role in this situation due to the
nature of the parties that were affected because they should have had a fair chance and not been
violated and after the offenses had occurred they should have been given a fair voice in speaking
up for what’s wrong and what had occurred. However the officials at the University and even
those who were involved in the Athletic department viewed the overall obligation to the public
11
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
for avoidance of social disapproval they continued to conceal the horrific actions that had taken
place and have been acknowledged.
Additionally we can also use Michael Hauskeller’s No Philosophy for Swine: John Stuart
Mill on the Quality of Pleasures, he says, “To suppose otherwise…doing so the utilitarian seems
to imply that human beings are in no way better than animals and should, and can, only pursue
the same ignoble ends as they do. Thus, it is claimed, utilitarianism is ‘a doctrine worthy only of
swine’. What Mill needs…even though perhaps not all pleasures are noble and good (that is,
worthy of being desired and pursued by a human being), there are some that definitely are, and to
the greatest possible extent, so that there is in fact nothing better and nobler to desire and pursue
than those pleasures.” (p. 428) The reason I used this quote is because some of the media outlets
were comparing Sandusky to animal because of his actions and horrendous behavior, however
through his eyes he was seeking pleasure and achieved so by performing lewd actions and
treacherous crimes against humanity.
Moreover Hauskeller says, “Since happiness, for the utilitarian, is nothing but pleasure
this can only mean that despite frequent bouts of intense pleasure…some displeasure will
eventually creep in and shift the overall balance of pleasure and pain toward the latter. Thus we
may enjoy having good … but if there is nothing else in our lives we will, after a while, more
likely than not become bored and depressed.” (p. 429) This goes into almost a motive for the
actions that were committed by Sandusky, because he seemed to chase after this pleasure he was
receiving from taking part in the lewd acts which continually occurred over an extended period
of time. He was almost applying his animal pleasure sense searching for more pleasure and
constantly after it and more of it.
12
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
In addition, I find the actions that were executed by the University along with the staff
that were either directly involved or played a minor role in allowing the wrong behavior and
action to take place are completely and utterly in the wrong for the roles they played in either
covering up the behavior or turning a cold shoulder to it, allowing the accused and now
convicted Sandusky to continue on with his pleasure seeking masquerade and the victims that
were later revealed had to suffer due to the lack of concern that was shown by the University and
the parties that knew about what was going on.
I would like to end with this quote from, Christian Skirke, Do our actions make any
difference in wrong life? Adorno on moral facts and moral dilemmas, he says, “We expect moral
philosophy to tell us something about the good life and to highlight values or principles which
make our relations with others worthwhile... and Theodor W. Adorno, His topic is not the good
life but a life – the moral life of us moderns – that he calls ‘damaged’ or even quite literally
‘wrong’.” (p. 738) I feel we are all after the good life in some sense, whether that journey affects
those around us or not that is another question, however almost all human beings are on a quest
for the good-life in their understanding of the words “good-life”.
13
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
In conclusion the way the public relations department had handled this crisis was wrong
and should not be viewed as the correct action by any means. They took the public safety and
concern in complete disregard and had focused on covering up the issues instead of exposing
them and finding a solution for the dilemma that was at hand. The philosophical approach that
was taken might almost justify their actions in the sense of the University wanting to determine
the greatest good for the greatest number of people even though the amount of harm that was
occurring was tremendous and further permanently damaging to those victims of Sandusky.
The perception of what is right and wrong became unclear in this ethical dilemma
because the parties that had been informed of the misconduct preceded to do nothing in order to
maintain their high reputation and economical gain that was ever so important from the sports
programs specifically the football department which had a leader who was dishonest, deceitful
and secretive in his behavior and words.
Furthermore the solution for the present issue would have been for the Public Relations
department, the University and those key figures within the football department to act
accordingly with the moral and ethical obligations that they have to the public and to those who
have remained loyal to the university and all the justice in which it stands for. Lastly as Mill says
on harm, “The existence of accumulative harms challenges simple views of liberty. The
prevention of harm to others is commonly thought to delimit a person's liberty…one hand, we
have the more usual interpretation, the individual harm principle: The activity of an individual
may be regulated only if it is, by itself, causing harm to others.” (p. 51) Thus his activities should
have been regulated due to the harm it had caused to others.
14
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
Bibliography
Library- Psychology Database Combined Search
Baker, S., Randle, Q., Carter, E. L., & Lunt, S. (2007). Democratic learning and the sober
second thought: The effect of reading John Stuart Mill's essay 'On liberty' on tolerance for free
speech among highly religious, politically conservative students. Journal Of Media And
Religion, 6(1), 41-61.
Guarino, M. (2012, July 24). Penn State aftermath: Fired former president denies
knowing of abuse. Christian Science Monitor. p. N.PAG.
Flagler library -EBSCOhost Electronic Journals Service & Academic Search Complete
HAUSKELLER, M. (2011). No Philosophy for Swine: John Stuart Mill on the Quality of
Pleasures. Utilitas, 23(4), 428-446. doi:10.1017/S0953820811000264
Kernohan, A. (1993). Accumulative Harms and the Interpretation of the Harm Principle.
Social Theory & Practice, 19(1), 51-72.
Kevin, J., Doug, S., & USA, T. (n.d). Former Penn State president charged. USA Today.
Library- 2nd Floor book
Lyons, D. (1994). Rights, welfare, and Mill's moral theory (pp. 42-117). New York City,
NY: Oxford University Press.
15
Bunder Shageer
Dr. Pickett
COM 362
6/11/2013
FINAL PAPER
MOGHADDAM, F.M. Toward a Cultural Theory of Human Rights. Theory &
Psychology, Volume 10, Number 3 (June 1, 2000), pp. 291-312,
http://research.flagler.edu:9069/direct.asp?ArticleID=XWAF1Y4W22AXP757VJ5H
Mill, J., Bromwich, D., Kateb, G., & Elshtain, J. (2003). On Liberty. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1966). John Stuart Mill, a selection of his works. Edited by John M. Robson
(pp. 3-223). New York City, NY: Odyssey Press.
Mill, J. S. (1871). Utilitarniasm (Fourth ed., pp. 2-42). London, England: Longmasn,
Green, Reader, and Dyer.
Reuters. (8). Sandusky victim sues Penn State for hiding abuse. Washington Post, The.
SKIRKE, Christian . Do our actions make any difference in wrong life?: Adorno on
moral facts and moral dilemmas. Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 34, Number 7
(September 2008), pp. 737-758,
http://research.flagler.edu:9069/direct.asp?ArticleID=4F19801D0C48A2F5E4C3
Smith, C. (2012). Jerry Sandusky Gets 30 To 60 Years, But Fallout Is Far From Over For
Penn State. Forbes.Com, 25.
WIERZBICKA, Anna. Right and wrong: from philosophy to everyday discourse.
Discourse Studies, Volume 4, Number 2 (May 1, 2002), pp. 225-252,
http://research.flagler.edu:9069/direct.asp?ArticleID=71FD07KCBXPNXALCL24Q
16