The Penn State Nittany Lions football team, begun in 1887 , has been a powerhouse. The team has had seven undefeated seasons, two national titles, two Big Ten conference titles, and five other national championships. In addition, the team has tied with Stanford University for the number 10 slot on player graduation percentages, with \(87 \%\) in 2011 . The team was referred to as a "grand experiment" for its devotion to performance both on and off the field. From 1966 through 2011, the late Joseph "Joe" Paterno, fondly known as JoePa, coached the Nittany Lions. He was recognized, prior to the events covered here, the "winningest coach" in college football, accumulating 409 wins to 164 losses and three ties.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) stripped Mr. Paterno of 112 of his wins (from 1998 through 2012), required Penn State to pay a fine of \(\$ 60,000,000\), banned the team from bowl games, cut 10 scholarships for the 2011-2012 season and 20 scholarships from 2012 to 2016. These levels of sanctions, just shy of the rare death penalty in college athletics in which a sports program is shut down, are generally the result of recruiting violations, payments to student-athletes, or falsification of academic records. However, these sanctions were not the result of violations in any of those areas. Penn State suffered from a near death-penalty from inaction related to the criminal activity of one of its assistant coaches, Jerry Sandusky, and the failure of Mr. Paterno, the athletic director, and other university officials to take action to stop Mr. Sandusky at any time during his long history of child abuse, from 1998 to 2011. Those events have resulted in a forever-changed atmosphere in State College, Pennsylvania, the home of Penn State that once carried the nickname, "Happy Valley".

However, in 2014, the NCAA lifted the postseason ban. In 2015, the NCAA restored the 112 wins to Penn State, 111 of which belonged to Paterno. This case has strong emotions on both sides, but its purpose in being used in a textbook is to teach you the skills of evaluating ethical issues in real time. No matter your opinion about the Penn State events and outcome, there are two important concepts to keep in mind: (1) lives and an organization were forever changed by these events and (2) opinion is not ethical analysis-feeling something as right or wrong does not help you to see the issues in situations. As you read the case, think about the decision points each of the individuals faced as events unfolded. Think about their reasoning processes, list any issues or perspectives they missed, and think about who was affected by their decisions. Regardless of hindsight, your ethical education involves learning to spot ethical and apply reasoning to determine choices that help the organization, not bring sanctions. To help you as you read the case, the following is a chart that identifies all of the individuals involved in the case...................................

Discussion Questions 1. "Penn State is an honorable institution that is trying desperately to defend it's [sic] othics and all of the individuals who had nothing to do with this horrific scandal, which have been destroyed by the actions/ inactions of a few individuals ..."
The quote comes from a blog on the Penn State scandal. Evaluate the accuracy of the blogger's thoughts. Why does it happen that many are punished for the actions of a few? Or is that an accurate assessment-is it the actions of a few?
2. Oregon State President Ed Ray, who announced the Penn State sanctions, said that what happened occurred because of the Penn State culture, that the football program had consumed the values of the university. What does he mean? What can you point to in the case that illustrates his point?
3. List all of the categories of ethical issues you see that occurred over the course of the events.
4. Make a list of all the stakeholders in this case.
5. What does the case teach us about the importance of speaking up? Of raising objections? Give examples of why people did not speak up in this case.
6. What do you learn about the differences between legal and ethical conduct from this case?