Because, to paraphrase Dave Zirin of the Nation, at this point the NCAA doesn’t even have enough moral authority to credibly condemn child rape. 7/14/2012.
Because, to paraphrase Dave Zirin of the Nation, at this point the NCAA doesn’t even have enough moral authority to credibly condemn child rape. 7/14/2012.
The NCAA’s calling card now is: “a day late and a dollar short”. Too much has been had by not being definitive.
One thing that should come out of the Penn State corruption scandal is a definition of terms. If they want to actually function with whatever degree of credibility they still have left, they HAVE to define explicitly, in however many words it takes, “institutional control”.
I don’t think the NCAA should be involved in any sanctions against Joe Pa U, unless the actions that occurred were in direct violation of NCAA rules. That said, I disagree with Zirin and think Penn State should seriously reconsider its football program – like, perhaps, take a few years off.
Josh Levin writes in slate “more better” than I could, so I will quote him here: “The NCAA doesn’t have the moral authority to stand up to the Nittany Lions. The students, faculty, and alumni of Penn State do have that authority, and they should celebrate the opportunity for the school to break away from its touchdown-fueled mission.”
Is it a football institution, or an academic institution? With the revelations of the past few days, it seems clearer to me that Penn State was the former, rather than the latter.
Perhaps that’s what went wrong.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/07/penn_state_death_penalty_the_case_for_putting_the_nittany_lions_on_the_sidelines_.html
“Perhaps that’s what went wrong.”
Sheesh. Next?
Forgot to include the irony tags. Sorry ’bout that.
Whatever the NCAA should do, the students and faculty of Penn State should certainly be focused on the corruption of their institution. But this is unlikely: believe it or not, Penn State has a large “Ethics Institute” (http://rockethics.psu.edu/)whose focus includes ‘ethics education’ and ‘ethical leadership’ – but which is completely silent on the problems at its own institution. This is the kind of moral cowardice that implicates everyone at an institution in its problems.