Penn State University Scandal - Research Paper Example

Penn Scandal Introduction The scandal happened when one of the football coaches Jerry Sundurky was alleged to have been sexually abusing underage boys of the school even three years after his retirement in 1999. This act was done within the school properties. After an extensive investigation of the jury, Jerry was found to have committed about 40 cases of sex abuse. Many of the school officials were charged with false swearing as they covered up these wrong acts of the couch for years. The coach, Joe Patterno, was fired and the school president Graham Spanier resigned from his post. He was in a happy marriage with several foster and biological kids. He was a highly recognized football coach of his time and this explains why his misbehavior was put under cover to preserve his good reputation. The university prioritized the good image of the football team over the welfare of the children put under their care (Haight 2004). This paper analyses the social psychological concepts applied in cover up of the misconduct. Development One of the theories that have been applied in the cover up of Jerry action is Systematic Justification Theory of social psychology. According to this theory, people’s actions are motivated by their desire to maintain a certain status or reputation. At one point, a graduate witnesses an incidence where Jerry was taking a shower with one of the boys who accused him of sexual abuse. The graduate could hear sexual noises from the shower and reported that behavior to the head coach Joe Parterno who never took any action against his junior. In the court happening where the graduate and Parterno were accused of perjury for failure to report an allegation, the graduate said he had reported the incidence to be inappropriate and of a sexual nature while Parterno denied and said that he only termed as disturbing. Ray Gricor who was the center country district attorney chooses not to prosecute Jerry on the sexual offences. At another different incidence in 1998, a mother reported that Jerry had showered with her son. One of the university detective overhead a conversation between a mother and the coach about inappropriate touching of her son. Jerry denied having done such a thing and promised that he would not shower with the boy again. The officer took no action against Jerry (Haight 2004). President Graham was dismissed from office after trying to cover up two of his members of staff who knew about the allegation but choose not to file charges. This was all in a bid to uphold the position of the university and endorse the faith of parents. It is also uncomfortable to talk about such issues since it is unthinkable that an adult of a position such as Jerry could engage in inappropriate sexual contact with minors; that is why people choose not to converse. It is human nature to want a thing to run properly and they would naturally ignore unpleasant things hoping that they will go away (Delamater 2006). Another concepts closely related to what has been discussed above is expectation confirmation. Jerry was a well performing coach guiding his team in bringing home many awards. From all public appearances, he looked like a good man. In expectation confirmation, we analyze the people around us and overlook their negative attribute because we already have formed a public image in our minds about them. This is very evident from the scandal. This situation can also be explained in terms of reflected appraisal process where people take time to think about how other people will think of us if we act in a certain way. This implies that the society influences our self-image and the way we perceive ourselves (Fiske et al 2010). The authorities of the university failed to take action thereby guarding the image of the institution to the outsiders. According to a research done, the scandal will cause considerable financial losses to the institution. It presumed to cause rapid credit reduction and increase the university borrowing in the coming months. The academic performance is also believed to reduce since the president Graham is said to have influenced the high academic Excellency of the institution largely. The scandal will no doubt repel students and donors (Delamater 2006). After the story got out and created the scandal, the university responded in several ways in a bid to preserve its public image. The people in authority that were involved in the cover up including the then president Graham were forced to leave office by the board. Sundusky image was erased from a mural just outside the university. The ice cream that bore his name retail shop was also renamed. After the sucking of Patterno, he was removed from the list of the trophy for the conference championship game of the Big ten Conference. The college however did nothing to protect the victims and victim number one is reported to have dropped out of the high school he attended due to bullying (Haight 2004). The students responded to the scandal in many ways. During the trial, the students were infuriated by Graham support for Curley and Schultz. They created a face book page calling for firing of Graham. Termination of Parterno employment provoked a different reaction. The students were incensed and they showed their dissatisfaction by rioting. Parteno happened to be a darling to many and thousands of students joined in the riots giving the police a hard time. The announcement of his ousting was made at 10pm in the night making the situation even worse with few injuries and extensive damage of property. Later the alumni of the college organized a fundraiser against sexual abuse and aggression. The whole scandal had shaken the community, as they never expected anything like this from the state university. The response of the people to the scandal can be attributed to one of the social psychology theory called Terror Management Theory. According to this theory, people actions are motivated by things that threaten their own existence. The exposure of the sexual abuse by Jerry was a shock and petrified many who gave the different responses given above (Fiske et al 2010). In the Penn State university scandal, the position of the perpetrator made it hard for people who witness the crime to file suit against him. The nature of the crime was embarrassing to even talk about in public. It was unthinkable that such a reputable man would have sex with minors and yet he was happily married. The human being is naturally inclined to expect a positive upshot and tends to ignore the negatives. This made the people keep the story undercover until it finally came into light creating a great scandal in the college. Social psychology has been used to explain why people behaved the way they did in this case. For instance the issue of conformity has been seen where it influenced the behavior all people who witnesses the crime refrained from reporting the case to the higher authority (Fiske et al 2010). References Delamater, J. (2006). Handbook of social psychology. Berlin: Springer. Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., Lindzey, G., & Jongsma, A. E. (2010). Handbook of social psychology. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Haight, D. F., & Haight, M. A. (2004). The scandal of reason: Or shadow of God. Dallas: University Press of America. Read More