Who Pays?

The NCAA has taken time out from its primary task of trying to guarantee that the big-time college football and basketball programs it represents are able to benefit from free labor on the playing field. The sanctions imposed on Penn State seem intended to repair the image of college sports following the Sandusky scandal. Now that these punishments have been announced, let's look more closely at who is hurt by them.

Penn State has been fined $60 million, the money to go to child abuse prevention and treatment. In addition, the Big Ten athletic conference has taken away Penn State's share of bowl revenue for the next four years, another $13 million. Penn State has announced that the $60 million fine will be taken from the athletics reserve fund, the capital maintenance budget, and if necessary, an internal bond issue. The athletics reserve fund contains $17 million, so the majority will have to come from capital maintenance. The phrase “capital maintenance” does not appear in the online version of the 2012-13 Penn State budget. In general, capital maintenance refers to the amount of capital, either financial or physical, an institution wishes to maintain. My best guess is that they plan to spend less money maintaining their physical facilities, although their budget indicates that they already have a substantial backlog of deferred maintenance. At the present time, it's impossible to tell what percentage of the fine will ultimately be taken from the university's operating budget, and what percentage will come from private contributions.

Whenever a university announces that they're spending big bucks on a nonacademic project, they try to pacify students, faculty and the public by assuring us that the money will come only from private contributions. But given the relative ease with which universities can transfer funds one budgetary category to another, this is about as credible as the claim that proceeds from the state lottery “benefit senior citizens.” The athletics reserve fund, for example, could be temporarily drawn down, but quietly replenished a few years later when no one is paying attention. The fact that Penn State is a private university, not subject to Pennsylvania's sunshine law, makes budget manipulation easier. As they file into their delapidated classrooms or try to cope with the latest round of cuts to the “Paterno Library,” students and faculty might want to ask themselves what that $73 million would have been used for had it not been spent on paying the fine.

By the way, 14% of Penn State's operating budget comes from state appropriations. If all $73 million ultimately comes out of the operating budget, that means the citizens of Pennsylvania have just been fined $10.22 million by the NCAA and the Big Ten. I'm not sure what gives them the right to do that. I must have missed that meeting.

The number of new football scholarships at Penn State is reduced from 25 to 15 per year for the next five years. Obviously, this delivers a big hurt to a small number of prospective students on the football team.

There is a four year ban on Penn State bowl game appearances.

These last two punishments, along with the ruling that current football players may transfer to other universities and play football without the usual waiting period, will affect the competitiveness of the Penn State football team, since it will be less attractive to new recruits. This will have a negative ripple affect on the economy of central Pennsylvania, especially hotels, restaurants and bars, which depend on the football season for much of their revenue.

All of Penn State's wins from 1998 to 2012 are vacated. This primarily affects Joe Paterno's legacy. He will no longer be referred to as the winningest coach in the history of college football. I'm O. K. with that.

Penn State is placed on probation for five years. The consequences of this are unknown.

The primary losers appear to be the students and employees of Penn State and the citizens of Pennsylvania. None of these people have been specifically identified as folks whose behavior requires modification.

These penalties are not directly relevant to the NCAA's claim that Penn State's football culture had come to dominate the university, at the expense of academic and moral values. To address this issue, the university is required to take “other corrective actions,” including adopting some of the recommendations of the Freeh Report (“especially section 5.0”) and appointing a full-time athletics integrity monitor.

Section 5.0 of the recommendations chapter of the Freeh report, entitled “Athletic Department: Integration and Compliance,” deals with claim that it had been allowed to become a closed community, not subject to university rules and procedures. The section contains recommendations that are somewhat related to that claim, such as revising the organizational structure of the Athletic Department and ensuring that it is subordinate to the university's Athletic Compliance Office.

Section 1.0 is entitled “Penn State Culture,” but all it seems to do is appoint a large committee with representatives from all university interest groups to study the local culture and suggest changes.  (For an interesting take on the culture of the Alabama region of Pennsylvania, see this article by a former Penn State instructor.)

In my judgment, none of the NCAA directives address the real problem. Athletic Departments, especially men's football and basketball programs, have become directly involved in university fund-raising. They play a major role in entertaining wealthy alumni. The university becomes dependent on them. This gives them special access to these large contributors. When they don't get their way, coaches and athetic directors can threaten to go over the heads of administrators, including the President of the university, in order to influence university decisions. Administrators know this, so they comply with the Athletic Department's wishes.

Jerry Sandusky's behavior was tolerated for 14 years primarily because Coach Paterno was able to persuade his nominal bosses to look the other way. It's too bad we have no transcripts of their conversations, because I'm not sure “persuade” is the right word to use. Maybe he made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

Addendum

Sportswriter Dave Zirin has pointed out that neither the Freeh Report nor the NCAA have questioned the role that former Attorney General, now Governor, Tom Corbett played in delaying the prosecution of Jerry Sandusky. While the Attorney General's office began investigating Sandusky in 2009, he was not charged until November 2011. Corbett assigned only one or two—depending on whom you believe—staff members to conduct the investigation. Zirin argues that Corbett delayed charging Sandusky until after the 2010 gubernatorial election in order to avoid offending Central Pennsylvania's wealthy ruling class, on whom he was counting for political and financial support during the campaign. For example, he received $650,000 in political contributions just from board members of Second Mile, Sandusky's charitable foundation.

While Corbett has built a successful political career around prosecuting high profile political corruption, many would argue that he manipulated those prosecutions in a partisan manner. Corbett has stated that state legislators from both the Elephant and Jackass parties used taxpayer money for political purposes, but Corbett, an Elephant, ensured that the Jackasses took most of the blame by prosecuting them first with a series of highly publicized show trials, while allowing the Elephant defendants to quietly plead guilty later on.

Freeh At Last

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh's Report accuses four powerful Penn State officials of “callous and shocking disregard” for the victims of now-convicted child abuser Jerry Sandusky. Football coach Joe Paterno seems to have persuaded the other three—athletic director Tim Curley, vice-president Gary Schultz, and president Graham Spanier—not to report the accusations against Sandusky to the authorities, in order to avoid negative publicity for the university and its football program. For almost 14 years, they did not take any action to protect children on their campus.

Published excerpts from the Freeh Report reminded me of findings from research on the effects of power. In psychological studies, power is manipulated either by creating a heirarchical relationship to accomplish a laboratory task, or by priming the concept of power by reminding subjects of past incidents in which they had a lot of or very little power.

The four men who made the decisions in the Sandusky case “exhibited a striking lack of empathy” for the least powerful people in this incident—Sandusky's (at the time) alleged victims.

“There is no indication that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, Curley or any other leader at Penn State made any effort to determine the identity of the child in the shower or whether the child had been harmed.”

First, an exercise. As quickly as you can, with the index finger of your dominant hand, draw a capital letter “E” on your forehead.

Did you draw the “E” as if you yourself were reading it, or as though a person facing you was reading it? Social psychologist Adam Galinsky has found that drawing the “E” in the other-oriented direction is the dominant response, but when people are made to feel more powerful—in this case, by recalling an incident in which they had power over another individual—they are three times more likely to draw the “E” in the self-oriented direction than when they are made to feel less powerful. This is an exercise in perspective-taking. High power people are less likely to take another person's perspective, which in turn makes them more likely to show in-group favoritism and to stereotype other people.

Susan Fiske has studied the consequences of high and low power for people's perceptions of those with whom they interact. She defines power as control over other people's outcomes. People pay attention to those who control their outcomes, in order to predict and attempt to influence what is going to happen to them. As a result, powerless people form fairly detailed impressions of the powerful. On the other hand, powerful people have no incentive to form accurate impressions of their subordinates, since no important outcomes are at stake. To the extent that powerful people think about their subordinates at all, they tend to stereotype them rather than treat them as unique individuals. Thus attention flows upward in a social hierarchy. The secretaries know more about the bosses than the bosses know about the secretaries.

In a clear demonstration of the effect of power on its holders, Goodwin and Fiske gave college participants the power to evaluate summer job applications by high school students. The researchers varied the weight given to the participants' evaluations in the final decision. The more power these participants had, the less attention they paid to the qualifications of the applicants. It should be noted that this effect can be reversed by explicitly reminding powerholders of their humanitarian values, but these ethical prompts are unlikely to be present in everyday life.

Although the Penn State decision makers were not concerned with the welfare of possible victims, they were concerned with the reputation of the university. Ultimately, however, they disregarded these concerns.

“[Mr. Spanier] concluded with: 'The only downside for us is if the message isn't '
"heard" and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road.'”

Anderson and Galinsky reported five studies showing that people primed to take a high-power perspective had a more optimistic perception of dangers in the real world, recommended more risky courses of action in hypothetical dilemmas, and reported behaving in a more risky manner in actual negotiations. Their final study shows that the effect of power on risk-taking is mediated by optimistic risk perceptions. Regardless of what Mr. Spanier meant by “down the road,” the actual course of events suggests that they waited to engage in damage control until it was much too late.

“(T)here is an overemphasis on 'The Penn State Way' as an approach to decision-making, a resistance to outside perspectives, and an extensive focus on athletics that can, if not recognized, negatively impact the University's reputation as a progressive institution.”

Even before this scandal, the general perception was that Joe Paterno was more powerful than his nominal bosses, including the university president. The Freeh report describes the athletic department as a closed community that followed its own rules rather than those of the university. In a 2007 incident in which 15 football players participated in a downtown brawl, Paterno told players not to cooperate with the campus judicial board or they would be kicked off the team, and ultimately decided on a ridiculously lenient punishment for them (picking up litter at the stadium).

I don't know any university faculty member who doesn't think that athletic departments, especially men's football and basketball programs, have far too much influence on college campuses. They use their power to bully not only their own players, but faculty and administrators as well. They provide entertainment for the students and the community, but their activities are largely irrelevant to the educational goals of the university. Because most athletic departments lose money, they are a drain on resources that should be used for academic purposes. They often involve the university in ethical violations, including grade-fixing and covering up criminal conduct.

There has been discussion about an appropriate “punishment” for the Penn State football program. Supporters point out that suspending the team would punish the wrong people, since current and future Penn State players and coaches are not guilty of any wrongdoing. Rather than focusing on punishment, I would suggest that Penn State enact structural reforms to bring the athletic department under university control. This should include removing coaches and athletic directors from direct participation in university fund-raising. 

The great god Joe-Pa hails a cab:  This statue must come down.

 All rights reserved by Catriona Cornett

A final note: Regular readers of this blog will recall than I am not convinced that Jerry Sandusky is guilty of all the crimes of which he was convicted, due to the suggestive questioning techniques used by the Pennsylvania state police. However, regardless of his degree of guilt or innocence, it is obvious that Penn State administrators should have reported the charges to authorities rather than covering them up.

"We Need You to Tell Us That This is What Happened"

Not surprisingly, news coverage of Tuesday's defense presentation at the Jerry Sandusky trial focused on the testimony of Dorothy Sandusky. People are understandably interested in the reactions of a woman who, if her husband is guilty, has been publicly humiliated. However, there was other testimony that day that is potentially more important, testimony about the possibility of suggestive questioning of alleged victims by the Pennsylvania state police.

First of all, it is important to remember that Victim 4 was the prosecution's star witness. He was the first alleged victim to testify, and he gave the most detailed account of his alleged molestation. He is the one who claimed that oral sex happened “almost every time I'm over there. And I'm over there two or three times a week.”

The following four paragraphs are from the inside page of Wednesday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, about halfway through the article.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Amendola [Mr. Sandusky's attorney] called state police Cpl. Scott Rossman and retired Cpl. Joseph Leiter in a bid to show jurors that investigators led the accusers to make up stories about the alleged abuse. He played a tape of an April 21, 2011, interview in which Cpl. Leiter tells the man who later would become known as Victim 4 that he was not the first person interviewed, that there were nine others, and that their stories were similar.

“There's a pretty well-defined progression in the way he operated and still operates I guess to some degree,” the officer said. He went on to tell the would-be accuser that in some cases, Mr. Sandusky allegedly went beyond touching or fondling children. “There have been acts of oral sex that have taken place,” and an incident “classified as rape.”

“I don't want you to feel ashamed because you're a victim in this whole thing. What happened happened. He took advantage of you. We need you to tell us that this is what happened. We need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place,” the corporal said.

Under questioning by the lead prosecutor, Senior Deputy Attorney General Joseph McGettigan, Cpl. Leiter defended his method and said he never intended to elicit anything but the truth from the interview.

Although I only know what I read in the paper, this seems almost like a textbook illustration of how not to interview a possible victim of child abuse.

In the ' 80s and '90s, there were a number of high profile cases—such as the Little Rascals Daycare in North Carolina and the McMartin Preschool in California—in which adults were falsely convicted of molesting children on the basis of testimony elicited either by police officers or by psychologists and social workers employed by the prosecution. The existence of false memories is well documented by research. The false memory syndrome refers to cases in which people who sincerely believe they have been sexually abused, but where their recall of abuse is apparently a memory disturbance, or confabulation. Elizabeth Loftus, among others, has shown that adults can be induced by repeated suggestive interviews to have highly emotional false memories about events their childhood that actually never happened.

At the root of suggestive questioning is the fact that interviewers often exhibit confirmatory bias—the tendency to search for information that confirms their beliefs and ignore information that might disprove them. Stephen Ceci and Maggie Bruck have summarized the research literature on interviewer behaviors which encourage false accusations of child abuse. Among them are:

• Stereotyping the suspect as a bad person.
• Telling the witness that peers have reported abuse.
• Suggestive questioning. A suggestive question refers to a possible answer in the question itself, i.e., “Did he touch your privates?” rather than “What did he do next?” In the worst cases, interviewers describe an abuse scenario reported by others and ask the witnesses whether something like that happened to them.
• Repeated questioning. Interviewers ask the same questions several times until they get the desired response.
• Selective reinforcement of responses. We usually think of reinforcement as attention and praise that occurs after a response. However, reinforcement can be anticipated before the fact when interviewers state or imply that they will be pleased if the witness can make an accusation.

All of these conditions can be read into the description of yesterday's testimony except repeated questioning. The New York Times fills in that particular blank.

The interviewers acknowledged that some of the witnesses at first insisted that nothing untoward occurred and told of abuse only on a second or third police interview, but that such reluctance was not unusual.

It is important to remember that this is not just hearsay. We don't have to speculate about what was said to Victim 4. The interview is on tape. How many other interviews were tape recorded? Was the same interrogation strategy followed with other alleged victims? How many suspected victims were interviewed who did not report abuse despite repeated questioning?

The fact that the investigators knew that the tape was running makes it clear that they were not consciously attempting to falsely implicate Mr. Sandusky. It suggests instead that they were poorly trained in the technique of interviewing alleged victims of sexual abuse and were unaware of the implications of their behavior.

The existence of suggestive questioning does not directly address the question of Mr. Sandusky's guilt or innocence. In either case, this is an unfortunate situation. If he's actually guilty, the incompetence of these officers could have jeopardized the case against him. If he's innocent, it may have contributed to a false conviction.