<p>I know I am repeating myself…but can somone explain why the local economy should be spared in this instance, but it’s ok to punish other programs? </p>
<p>Whenever the NCAA acts someone is punished…the current students, the students who don’t receive a scholarship, the vendors/local economy, lots of people. </p>
<p>The NCAA has to act in this instance, knowing the horrors that occurred in order to preserve the clean record of Penn State, to preserve the Paterno legend, to keep the PSU football program going. If they do not act now, how can they ever act in the future? If this is not a lack of institutional control, what is?</p>
<p>The school and the football program that were so important in the community were supposed to act in the best interests of the community. They didn’t. They were the ones that let down the community and they should bear the blame.</p>
<p>But how do you know that they are not in fact the majority viewpoint? Your world must be admittedly small. Perhaps you and the friends in your circle actually are the minority viewpoint.</p>
<p>“Are you always so rude and disrespectful to people you don’t even know?”</p>
<p>Cow is short for cowards. To call them cows is insulting to bovines. I’m sure the English professor knows a lot about Jane Austen. She might want to learn something about human solidarity and standing up for human dignity.</p>
<p>And they don’t have my respect. They staff at Penn state have cowered under the paterno power grab. Yu just need to fire a couple of people to put fear into everyone else. Speak out and you will be gone. </p>
<p>And psu needs to stop the secrecy they fought to hard to have.</p>
<p>Hundreds if not thousands of PSU so-called faculty are on campus this summer, doing research and teaching classes. The Communications Professor who was interviewed (apparently for the University) was off-campus at the time, called for “faculty and staff” to speak out publicly. The silence is absolutely deafening. </p>
<p>How about something from Spanier’s so-called “College of Health and Human Development”? How about the fencing coach? Hello? Is anybody out there?</p>
<p>I mean I’m glad they’ve cancelled the Professor Emeritus’ football tickets, so that when he gets out in 442 years, we won’t see him on the 50 yard line. But, if I read the posters here correctly, every professor at Penn State benefited from the football program. They are very much a part of issue at hand, and the future of the university. Large numbers of them have tenure, and have absolutely nothing at risk. They are, one would think, members of the Penn State community (though perhaps that’s in doubt?)</p>
<p>All right small one. Congrats. You and your minions have made my ignore list. I know you are enjoying yourself but Im done believing you have anything worthwihile to add anymore.</p>
<p>mini, perhaps they fear non-academic reprisals, even violence. Remember that at least one of the victims, and McQueary, had to go into hiding because of threats. I’m sure that’s not lost on the tenured professors and others at PSU who might want to see the end of the football program.</p>
<p>Lasma, that is a good point. The BOT should step up police for protection of anyone who speaks up. That the BOT is not acting more timely is a disgrace – most of the students are not back yet, and they can more easily take action NOW.</p>
<p>Had an interesting discussion with a PSU alum this morning. He is avoiding posting on most forums because he feels his voice will be lost anyway.</p>
<p>He does think football should take a leave of absence, but he was never a big football fan.</p>
<p>He sees the whole argument about the economic harm from a ban on football as a red herring, and explained why. The idea behind economic harm is that without football, nobody will visit the school and support the local businesses - during 6 weekends. But those same people who who would be visiting and supporting those businesses during those 6 weeks are the ones making the argument. Nothing is preventing them from still visiting PSU during a ban, and perhaps they could spread their visits out, and support the school in other ways.</p>
<p>Why must there be football game to show support? If these football fans truly want to keep football “alive” to survive the ban, they can still fully support the campus. Think of the number of people converging on Happy Valley for a football game - why not put those same people to work for a local charity? Hold a “build” for Habitat for Humanity and build a few houses for the needy in the area. Find other charities that could use some help.</p>
<p>This is an opportunity for those fans to show that they support PSU, not just PSU football. There’s no reason why the “collateral damage” has to be nearly as severe as some think it will be. If those who are a part of the “culture” are not complicit in what happened, let them show it by remaining supporting of PSU without football.</p>
<p>When a recent study showed 43 rapes occurred on my alma mater’s small campus in the past year, the President of the College wrote three letters to the entire campus community (and alumni), called on faculty to discuss the issue with their students, and convened an all-campus convocation. It was discussed in the faculty senate.</p>
<p>The reason the discussion was so robust is that everyone agreed that this was an issue about the “campus culture”. (I’m not going to mention the ‘sports’ connection.) The leadership of the college wanted everybody on board, because they know that culture change is hard work. I don’t see any evidence of hard work going on at Penn State. I’d like to, but I really don’t. (Which leads me to believe that a five-year ban is likely too short. And that’s not about punishment, but what Penn State needs to survive as a reputable institution, which it isn’t currently.)</p>
<p>That’s my impression, too. There is no point in trying to make my personal thoughts and feelings clear because no one is really interested in them anyway. </p>
<p>Whatever happens at Penn State will happen without the input of anyone here. If the football program is shut down, so be it. The university will survive. The students will rebound. The academics will still be top-notch. The graduates will still be sought-after employees. And I will still be a supportive and proud Penn State parent.</p>
<p>I am, however, amazed at the “meanness” of several people on this thread (and other similar ones). I guess I’m just a nice person. Makes me wonder what some of these folks are like in real-life.</p>
<p>Now I’m off to watch some drum corps. Such a better use of my time.</p>
It’s true that shutting down the football program won’t “help, compensate, or ease the pain of the victims.” But it is an important step towards reclaiming the institution, and rebuilding PSU into a healthy university in the true sense. </p>
<p>This is why outside intervention is so important in this case. The Penn State community won’t be able to grapple with the big picture issues if they can’t even see them. There are certainly some individuals within the PSU community who are able to step outside the culture, and appreciate the entire scope of the problem. But there aren’t enough of them to effect the complete transformation that’s required here.</p>
<p>In Rick Reilly’s article for Sports Illustrated, he mentions receiving a call from a Professor alerting him to what was really happening at PSU, and he regretted dismissing him as a “jealous egghead’” Maybe there does have to be some sort of process that Professors (and others) can come forward without fear of retaliation–and perhaps some already have–do we know who provided all of the interviews in the Freeh report?–it would be nice to think that they would rise up and advocate for what is morally right–but, I fear, there would be tremendous backlash, even though it would be vehemently denied.</p>
<p>Does disagreeing with your stand make one “mean?” Are you referring to posters who think the football program needs to go and that the economic hardships which may result are unfortunate but really irrelevant as being “mean?”</p>