There have been too many perversions that have gone unpunished at Penn
State, or punished too little too late.
The former assistant coach engaged in unchecked child abuse, often many
times with one victim. The head coach of the program refused to report the
matter to the city authorities. Trustees and administrative leaders also swept
the allegations under the rug. To the leadership and head coaches involved in
the up-keep of this multi-million dollar program, sacrificing the well-being of
young children was worth the price of keeping a lid on the rampant perversion
by one of its staff members.
Following an extensive investigation by a former FBI official, Louis Freeh,
the NCAA has hit back, hitting all the way to vacating fourteen years of
football victories, shutting the Nittany Lions of out of four years of Bowl
games, and even levying a $60 million fine.
It is a perversion of justice to judge those who had nothing to do with the
perversions unjudged. The young men and women who played and supported the game
do not deserve to be punished for the wicked choices of a select few.
Another, more subtle yet pervasive culprit in this whole moral massacre,
however, has remained unconsidered.
Penn State is a government institution, funded by public monies, founded by
the General Assembly of the Commonwealth in 1855. The state of Pennsylvania
administers the school through the state legislature, and the state has lent
its authority and prestige with its name.
The collusion of government and education is evoking the elements of a
greater scandal, the reluctant of individuals on the public dole to blow the
whistle on egregious misconduct.
By separating the power of the state from higher learning, tuition would
increase, but the quality of care and morale would increase, too, as private
institutions which depend on drawing consumers instead of drawing upon
taxpayers have a vested interests in presenting a commanding integrity.
This line of thinking may be too abstract to some, but private firms risking their
own resources do less harm to the community and the state whether they expose
wrongdoing or not, and the incentive to end misconduct is far greater, since
the market punishes private firms more swiftly with a dissolution of trade and
conduct, whereas citizens must seek redress through the state when opposing
public institutions.