In Kinsinger’s text (pages 13-14), review the “Cultural Concerns” section on moral relativism and then read the following article about the Penn State case: http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2011/11/inaction_of_paterno_mcqueary_b.html
Discuss with your group how this case illustrates moral relativism as outlined by Kinsinger. Is it acceptable for professional standards of right and wrong to vary from one person to the next? Why or why not? Submit a blog post focused on how the actions or inactions of either Joe Paterno or Mike McQueary demonstrate moral relativism. Also, your group’s thoughts on what impacts Paterno’s or McQueary’s decisions will have (both short- and long-term).
Post a summary of your team’s comments to the blog before noon on Wednesday, December 7 and remember to include your team’s number--thanks!
Group 4
ReplyDeleteAs a group, we discussed mainly the actions of all four men in this case, Mr. Sandusky, Mr. McQueary, his father, and Mr. Paterno. Mr. Sandusky is obviously the person at fault, and should be the main focus for his immoral acts. Moral standards should not vary from one professional to the next, but clearly does. As not only an assistant coach, but just a human being, Mr. McQueary should have known what to do when catching such an inhumane act. The fact that he ran right to his dad and Mr. Paterno rather than stopping the act or even calling the police tells us he obviously has some sort of psychological issue that has not allowed him to know how to react in such a situation, even though it's common sense. Mr. Paterno, and Mr. McQueary's father have worked with younger ones for many years, and the fact that they didn't call the police either, shows their low morals. They tell us in the article that there are many people who continue to cheer on Coach Paterno, yes he may be a good football coach, but what kind of good coach hears of such a disgusting act and leaves it alone. The reaction of all of these people cheering him on, have a lack of morality as well, and seem to more so care about the sport itself. This poor child was abused and all these people care about is still football, rather than what this child went through and the mental problems he will have from this. It's quite obvious that the actions of Coach Paterno will never be condemned, while Coach McQueary must remain in hiding. Our question is why was it okay for Coach Paterno to not tell, but an inexcusable act on Coach McQueary. Three men knew what was going on, but don't tell. All three are at as much fault as the next, but again, the focus is on Mr. Sandusky and his barbarous act.
Our group believes that in this case, no individual displayed any acceptable moral concern for the children who were molested by their fellow coach. Many people may believe that others who did not participate in the actual molesting should not be held at as high of fault as the actual molester (Sandusky). For a grown man, McQuery, to witness another in the middle of these acts and not come straight forward to the police raises a bit of concern for us. Moreover, the individuals that he contacted with this information, Father McQuery and Paterno, never came straight forward either. Instead Paterno went to the heads of the University to inform them of the possible acts that were taking place. As one of our group members stated, "Going to the wolf to report a problem in the henhouse" is exactly what was happening here. In my opinion, each one of these men were more concerned with the reputation of the school rather than who was actually being hurt, the children. Not one of these men displayed true morals in regards to what one should do in this situation. Each culture has slightly different standards on many situations, but anyone with a "true north moral compass" can clearly tell that it is wrong. In the short-term, Paterno and McQuery may be feeling sorry for themselves because they are being cut short of all their great opportunities they had at Penn State, but in the long-term they may look back on the situation and wish they would of done more because the ones who were really suffering at the time were the children.
ReplyDeleteTravis Ritz- Group 16
Group 13
ReplyDeleteOur group discussed the double standard for professional standards of right and wrong. We believe that the standards should stay consistent regardless of professional status--- or how many football games you have won. We took into account the differing opinions of both Mr. McQueary and Mr. Paterno. We agreed that both men were in the wrong in this situation, but there is clearly a difference in how people perceive the moral standards of each man. Mr. McQueary caught Mr. Sandusky in this immoral act and reported it to only his father and Mr. Paterno. This is such a serious situation that the fact he didn’t think he should report it to the authorities is beyond belief. Moral relativism varies from person to person depending on how they were raised, but in this situation, how could someone not report it? Our group tried to look at the situation from Mr. Paterno’s point of view. Mr. Paterno did not witness the act himself, but still had someone tell him it happened. We tried to imagine someone addressing us with a serious accusation about someone we knew. Since we were not the ones who witnessed the act, should we report it? This was a very serious accusation and even if he didn’t witness it himself, he should have made sure that the authorities were contacted so they could look into the matter further. He should have reported that one of his staff was making these accusations or continued to tell Mr. McQueary that he needed to contact the authorities about this matter. Something needed to be done about this situation. It was very serious and they should have taken it as being so, but it seems that neither of them did. Just because Mr. Paterno won a lot of football games for the college, does not mean he is blameless in the situation and that people need to go on praising him. This shows the low morals, not only of the coaching staff involved, but the groups of people that continue to act like Mr. Paterno did nothing wrong. It seems like no one is holding him accountable for the situation at all, but all the blame is going on Mr. McQueary. Mr. Paterno’s situation was slightly different than Mr. McQueary’s but the standards for professional right and wrong were the same. These were men that people looked up to and they didn’t do the moral thing. The most drastic effect that this caused was letting Mr. Sandusky get away with this awful act. He got caught and they didn’t do anything about it so he was free to go about abusing other children in this way. This is absolutely unthinkable that two men that were such huge influences in the community let this go on and didn’t have the moral decency to do anything about it. Both men are at fault in this situation and it is clear that their morals are very questionable---if they have any at all.
Group 11
ReplyDeleteKinsinger defines in his text “… moral relativism, this “whatever I choose” approach to life allows anyone in the public domain to claim themselves as morally acceptable, and hence beyond reproach (p13).” Which coincides with the article “Inactions of Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary breed disparate reaction” in that neither one of these men in the public’s eye felt that they needed to take appropriate action and inform the police of the incident that occurred. Yet the public’s reaction to these two men is very dissimilar. Our group chose to focus on the inaction of Joe Paterno. Joe Paterno being the head coach for Penn State was informed of the incident by McQueary and did not notify the police. Now that the incident has been brought to the forefront he is making all the right moves to try and save face: “He’s called for prayer for the victims. He's thanked the fans on his lawn. He's encouraged continued love for the university (Jones).” Even though he did not take action at the time of the incident, people are trying to vindicate his inaction: “Paterno still has multitudes attempting to excuse and rationalize and, indeed, even cheer for him (Jones).”
All professionals should be held accountable to the same standard of right and wrong. “Every professional needs to know where the ‘line’ is (p.13).” Paterno knew by not notifying the police about an alleged sexual abuse with a minor he was doing wrong. As an experienced coach he knew the correct protocol but choose not to follow it, resulting in the loss of his position. Professionals should be aware of their role and purposefully fulfill and protect those they are meant to serve “these standards protect the public by ensuring the highest level of trust (p14).” Paterno at Penn State is a legend; he is beloved by the student body and Alumni who lovingly call him Joe Pa. Because of who he is the public is more willing to let him off the hook for his lapse of moral responsibility. As far as short or long term consequences go Paterno lost his position but Penn State’s board of trustees had been trying to replace him for years. This whole incident just gave them a valid excuse to finally replace the legendary head coach. Although, Paterno had already planned to retire at the end of this season; Paterno is 86 years old there probable will not be any long term impacts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGroup 18
ReplyDeleteAs our group discussed this issue with Penn State and the moral standards behind the issue, we could not help but realize the track this country went on throughout the years of it's existence. The United States of America is a country that was founded by a people of very high moral fiber who based their countries laws off of truth and gave their lives to defend that truth. Somewhere along the way this truth in which we fought so hard to defend and protect turned into a culture of "what's right for you may not be right for me" kind of thought process. This new American way of thinking is a cancer in the American society. It has effected the professionalism in the workplace, the way we treat one another, the way we bring up our kids, and most of all the nasty and crude things this country accepts as normal. In the middle of this culture of moral relativism we see crime rates sky rocket, divorce rates start to out number successful marriages, international economic embarrassment , and we wonder why our country is the way it is. Kissinger puts it perfectly when he states, "It is now fashionable to believe that decisions of right and wrong are personal, subjective and relative to the situation at hand" (13). One member of our group used a life experience as a good metaphor when he explained that he moved here from Arizona and back home he did not have any one-way streets. The other day he was navigating the streets of Davenport and accidentally went the wrong way down a one way street. When faced with this situation he was not able to say, "Well for me it works best if I can just go this way down the street today, what's right for them does not have to be right for me". This mentality would have gotten him and possibly many others killed. We agreed at the simple fact that there is right and there is wrong and that is as complex as this issue gets. The issues concerning Penn State are disgusting and inexcusable. Penn State is a prime example of what has gone wrong in this country. We are faced with a group of men in leadership positions, who also have an influence on the future generations of America who's role should be to protect and defend what is right and teach it to the men they are coaching and the millions of onlookers. Grown men with this high authority took a situation in which they could have been examples of doing the right thing and they blew it. The biggest example of moral relativism in this case is the vast majority of young people that are supporting Joe Paterno. This is a man that should probably be in jail according to the standards of 50 years ago and they are praising him for what he did for them on a football field, a game. We talked about the point that the people who are looking at Joe Paterno and feel sorry about him getting fired are looking at his situation relative to the party that was responsible for the action. By no means are we saying that it is okay to judge one person according to another. We all have faults and are all responsible for our share of downfalls. However, as professional men and woman in this society we live in, we are called to seek justice and love mercy. In order to seek justice there has to be an undebatable truth to defend, which is why there is no room for moral relativism anywhere in our society, especially people in a professional career.
Group 23:
ReplyDeleteThis case appears to be a perfect example of moral relativism as outlined by Kinsinger for a number of reasons. To begin, it is apparent that both men--that is, Paterno and McQueary--acted similarly in the situation, but are now being viewed by the public in very different lights. Whereas Paterno has received little criticism for his inaction, McQueary seems to have received almost as much negative attention as the victimizer himself. This directly portrays the message that Kinsinger alludes to on page 13 of his text where he states that "standards of right and wrong [now] vary from one person to the next" (Kinsinger 13). In other words, an action that may be considered wrong for one individual no longer holds the same weight when the same action is committed by another individula--presumably of professional status. Instead, as Kinsinger points out, it should be the case that all individuals, regardless of status, in a professional field should "know where the 'line' is" and should be held to such a responsibility when viewed by others (13).
As far as our group was concerned, Kinsinger is correct in making this claim because, as this case clearly exemplifies, individuals now appear to place blame on others based mainly off of their professional status, rather than the actions that they committed. Of course, this is not a very effected method for placing blame since it could very easily result in the mindset that status can allow individuals to commit action, or a lack therof, without consequence.
Following this thought, we believe that the decision made by Paterno not to notify authorities will unfornately allow others in such a position to attempt similar actions. This is because he seems to have faced little consequence as a result of his inaction due to the legacy that he has built up, so others may attempt to use their status incorrectly as well. In a long-term perspective, we hope that this will not be the case as people will begin to notice that such a mistake has been made thanks to articles like that written by David Jones.
Our group agreed that Mike McQueary did not carry out his moral responsibility fully. He witnessed a crime inside of the team’s locker room and did not go to the authorities. McQueary could have confronted Sandusky immediately. He could have called the police immediately and waited for them to confront Sandusky. Society’s popular trend is that it was wrong for him not to say anything to the authorities. Since the ethics of the actions of McQueary and society’s beliefs are not aligned, it can be interpreted that McQueary has incorrect morals given in this specific situation.
ReplyDeleteLeaving the scene was a mistake. An assistant coach has a moral obligation to protect a vulnerable young boy inside of his team’s locker room. McQueary’s decision making was poor. The role of a coach is to be a leader. A leader does not allow an incident like this to occur. A coach holds a position of trust and responsibility. The decision to leave a child in a moment of need is unacceptable. McQueary's character and decisions will be questioned every time this situation is brought up, in the short term and in the future.
As chiropractor’s, we are held to a higher standard ethically and morally than the average person. When we are faced with moral dilemmas, we will be expected to do and make the right decision. Our actions and decisions will be subjected to more scrutiny because of the position we hold in the community. Our actions and decisions can send “shock waves” through the entire chiropractic profession.
A group member added a different perspective than the one above which is worth noting. If a Chiropractor is held to a higher moral standard than other individuals, than McQueary may have viewed himself as not having to act as morally as his higher authorities which he notified of the situation. If we were all held at different standards, when it comes to morals, then the downward spiral of disaster will continue for society. In Kinsinger's book, He emphasizes the CONSCIENCE of each individual and the gauges we use to judge those decisions. The "line" should be drawn the same for everyone.
Todd Nowicki
Group 1
Group 12
ReplyDeleteAs a group we had very mixed feelings about the events surrounding the Penn State coaching staff, but we did find common ground, which is what we will be talking about. First we believe that all involved acted inappropriately. McQueary told the school authorities and Paterno of Sandusky’s actions, but he, McQueary, did not pursue further when no actions were taken against Sandusky. McQueary saw the alleged actions and did not do everything he could to stop Sandusky’s actions nor did he call the police directly at any point. Anyone who takes on the responsibility of becoming a public servant, be it a coach or a chiropractor, that person has to act in the best interest of the people that they serve. By taking inaction against Sandusky actions, Paterno, school authorities and even McQueary are just as guilty as Sandusky.
Then there was the irresponsibility of the school authorities and Joe Paterno. Both were told of Sandusky’s alleged actions and at surface value neither the school authorities nor Paterno acted in the defense of the victim, rather it seems that they acted in defense of their fellow coach. People try to follow the path that is the easiest, much like the path of a river. Following the path of least resistance makes the river crooked, it will do the same to a person (Quote outside of library).
When something is wrong those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action. If one doesn’t they should be held responsible for their inactions. With this being said we all agreed that other parties involved were not held accountable for their actions.
By Eric Warne
Group #21
ReplyDeleteThe article illustrates moral relativism, because multiple individuals made decisions to ignore the violation of a child. By not taking legal action, this crime was allowed to go unquestioned all to protect the “integrity” of the athletics at Penn State. The actions of Joe Paterno demonstrate moral relativism because his dedication to protect the “athletics” at Penn State hindered his dedication to protect another human soul, a child. Why did Head Coach Paterno not call the police? He is a man of authority and if McQueary’s first reaction was to run away, Paterno should have taken action. As coaches they are both mandatory reporters in which they have to inform the police if something illegal has happened. McQueary was a young, only 27 yrs old, man who clearly made a poor decision to not instantly stop what he had seen. He panicked. However, he did go to Paterno, who was in an authority position and told him what he had seen. After that, it should have been over. Each and every person that knew or personally saw what was being done by Sanduscky had the MORAL OBLIGATION to report it and stop it! There were multiple children that were sexual abused. There could have been less if just one person would have reported the rumor. If even one child could have been saved from the disturbing acts of Sandusky that would have been enough.
Professional standards of right and wrong do vary from one person to the next to some degree. This is evident because more people are mad at McQuerry because he is the one who actually saw something without telling the police. While Joe is given less blame since he did not actually see anything. Even though Joe didn't see anything he still had an obligation to report the incident to the police. His failure report the incident resulted in his termination, as would be expected when people of authority turn their backs to important information. The way the people are treating these two individuals, by praising one and making a villain of the other, is not fair. They should receive the same treatment because they both did the same thing wrong.
Regarding Kinsinger’s virtues, none of the parties involved displayed any of them. Coach Paterno had a responsibility to abide by all of Kinsinger’s virtues. McQueary and his father should have shown compassion and fortitude, at the very least. Living people sharing the world need to look out and care for one another, especially caring for the defenseless, children. The impacts of Joe Paterno’s decisions will affect so many people short and long term. It goes without saying the victims lives will never be the same, but also anyone involved or having even just read the article. Hopefully the story will bring awareness to all and also encourage people to stand up for morals and values of all living things.
Group 2
ReplyDeleteOur group shared the opinion that more action should have been taken by both Paterno and McQueary. However the degree, and to what extent was varied a little. Dr. Kissinger thoughts that moral relativism is now a whatever the person chooses makes almost anyone following the law morally acceptable and off the hook for punishment. This couldn't be more blatant in how the masses have responded, the articles view, and our groups opinions. Most people like the masses, the article author, and our group disagree with McQueary's action and view it as morally wrong, because our "choose your own moral" would have been a different approach. This has led to McQueary being hated and spurned. However, McQuery acted by what he thought was appropriate for the situation, and was probably morally acceptable. This only proves further the distinctions of moral relativism between people. Our group for the most part also believe Paterno was at fault for not taking more action. We are surprised how he seems to be receiving hardly any criticism, when the same people are condemning McQueary. This demonstrates that professional standards of what is morally right and wrong are varied. McQueary is hated and scorned, while Paterno is almost given a free pass. Their actions were not the same, but some may even argue Paterno's were worse, and it was his final responsibility for the police to be called. When comparing Paterno and McQueary our group and most people would probably view Paterno as the professional. This shows how standards of a "professional" can be viewed differently even if a "professional" and a "normal" person both commit a morally wrong action. In our opinion, this is not right. All people should be held accountable for right or wrong actions, and if anything professionals, like Paterno, should be held more accountable for actions considered immoral.
Our group was quick to come up with effects these decisions by these men will have. In the short term the school's credibility, their personal reputations, and the sports programs will for sure take hits. When we talked about long term we had some opposing views. We hope that this raises awareness for other programs to make sure they educate actions that should be taken if this situation arises. Unfortunately the support still shown for Paterno may lead to others believing they can get away with it or don't need to take situations like this that serious.
The situation at Penn State is a perfect example of the moral relativism in our society. Coach McQueary witnessed the abuse of a child in the Penn State locker room by a former assistant coach Sandusky, and instead of immediately stopping the atrocity being committed and reporting it to the police, he left the scene and told his father and later Coach Paterno. Coach Paterno, upon hearing this very disturbing accusation, told his superior, Athletic Director Curley. No police report was ever filed. No follow up with the authorities was ever made by Coach Paterno or Coach McQueary. Their inaction in this matter displays a very clear set of personal morals, "Do the minimum that is required, but not enough as to jeopardize the Penn State brand." In their conscience they were doing the "right" thing. The consequences of their skewed version of right and wrong meant that more children were abused in order to temporarily preserve the storied tradition of Penn State athletics.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pennsylvania law, Coach McQueary and Coach Paterno fulfilled their duty in reporting the abuse to their superiors. In the eyes of the public and our group, this was morally reprehensible. The public obviously has a very different idea of what Coach Paterno and Coach McQueary were morally obligated to do. Coach Paterno has been coaching at Penn State for over 50 years which our group thought would easily qualify Coach Paterno as a professional. As such, our we believe he should have been operating on a much higher set of standards than the average person. This makes his failure to report the abuse even more egregious than McQueary's actions.
The fallout of this debacle is only just beginning. In the short term Penn State will suffer severe damage to its reputation as a school and as a brand as more investigations are initiated. Coach Paterno's glorious coaching legacy will be tarnished by scandal and Coach McQueary will have the stigma of being a coward. What our group wanted to highlight as the most significant long-term effect of this nightmare is the impact on the victims. Reputations can recover, but the lives of these children, now men, are irreparably scarred indirectly by two men's failure to do the morally right thing.
Group 22
Group 15
ReplyDeleteIt has been hard to miss the recent news involving Penn State and Jerry Sandusky concerning the alleged child molestation charges. Our group, prior to reading this article, had already developed strong opinions over how this situation was handled. On one hand you could overlook the fact that a serious and appalling crime had taken place and you could strictly look at the legacy that coach Joe Paterno had previously built through the Penn State football program. On the other hand, you could acknowledge that something terrible did happen and somebody should bear the consequences. Paterno’s football credentials are not what is in question with this article, it is the plain disregard for the inappropriate way he and Mike McQueary handled this situation. Now that all the secrets kept within the university have come to the light, it is hard to imagine what kept either Paterno or McQueary from contacting the police. We felt that both Paterno and McQueary let the events slide to the back burner much too easily. It was their responsibility, not to be cliché, to pursue that the proper actions be taken. We feel this is what most of those fans that the article referred to praying outside Paterno’s house seem to overlook. We felt as though he was partially at fault because of the power that he had and what he did with that power. It seems as though Paterno was more concerned with his reputation at the national level and was unwilling to risk it in the pursuit of justice. The punishment handed down by Penn State on Paterno was fair, he was partially at fault. More of us should be asking him questions concerning his actions rather than praising them.
Tying into the world of Chiropractic, we too, will be viewed as prominent social figures and will be expected to act accordingly. It is easy now to look at the Penn State case and analyze where they went wrong in dealing with the crimes committed by one of their staff members. However, if the allegations were never brought to the public, Paterno would have preserved his elite status. Instead, he tried to sweep it under the rug, and now that it has become a household story, he is beginning to look just as guilty as Sandusky. The lesson to learn from this incident is this, if you are a respected member of a community it is your responsibility to act accordingly. Make you decisions as though everyone is watching and you will never have anything to hide from.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGroup 6
ReplyDeleteSince every profession is composed of a multitude of people each with a different background and upbringing it is left to the profession/state to mandate the moral code of which the professionals will follow. A singular moral code allows for a standard of practice. As stated by Kinsinger, “These standards protect the public by ensuring the highest level of trust” (Kinsinger 14). A professional that acts upon a moral code and makes decisions incorporating a moral code will most often not fall victim to “the changes in society’s moral standards” (14).
Paterno and McQueary are both professionals who are guilty of being morally ambivalent. These men did not measure up to their moral obligation to uphold the university code of conduct when they had the power to do so. [University Code of Conduct for Athletics: http://www.greaterallegheny.psu.edu/StudentLife/Athletics/29913.htm]
Professionals are required to act and make decisions based on a moral code of conduct. It is obvious to many that the moral compass of the world is changing and the “standards of right and wrong vary from one person to the next” (Kinsinger 13). This can be seen in the public’s support of Paterno and abandonment of McQueary. Both men are guilty of the same “crime,” yet the public champions one as a hero while the other is hated. Why is this?? When directly compared: Paterno is older, has more experience, more authority and did not report the crime to the proper authorities; McQueary is younger (at the time 27), has fewer years experience, works as the assistant to Paterno, and reported the crime to Paterno. So, though both are guilty of inactivity, Paterno may be even guiltier than McQueary. Yet in the public eye the opposite is true. Paterno’s age and experience helped him because he had more time to establish his character with the public. The community knew what kind of guy he was, because of his history with the Penn State football program. Also people are quick to point the finger and it was easy to blame McQueary.
This case shows us that while the world seems to lack an absolute standard of moral relativity, such a standard is essential. Our own happiness and success cannot be what guides our decisions in life.
Group 15
ReplyDeleteThe Sandusky trial should never be forgotten for professionals like Chiropractors. Before we read this article, our group knew about this event quite well. What is troubling for me is that I am a Penn State fan and when this event occurred I was almost heartbroken especially considering how much I admired Joe Paterno. Talking to my group was a difficult situation for me as a fan of the university. But the actions Mike McQueary and Joe Paterno made affected their future drastically. We believe that both of them are in equal fault because a sexual crime is to be reported immediately not spoken about to another person. Although their might have been strong friendship bonds among these three men, something as horrible as this should have been reported to the police immediately. Joe Paterno as a mature respected almost national hero in sports should have had the courage and wisdom to report this crime when McQueary explained it to him. Kinsinger made a good comment on page 13 about how everyone should have almost a grasp of what the line is dealing with moral relativism. Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary did not show any courage or moral behavior by letting Sandusky commit a crime while not telling the police.
As Chiropractors, our group have taken good notes over this article. As explained before, we are a shining light to the community. We must be the leaders of this country and when something wrong like this occurs, as leaders we must demonstrate leadership qualities. Our group put it this way, if someone with no importance does a crime, that person is punished; but when a Chiropractor does a crime of this value, all Chiropractors are affected.
Sorry Group 5 not 15!
ReplyDeleteGroup 14
ReplyDeleteThis incident at Penn State clearly explained to my group how people can have varying moral standards. The conflict resulted by this moral relativism mainly of coach McQueary and coach Paterno significantly impacted us how to set the "line" as a professional in the future. We quickly agreed on how both coaches and Penn state should have called the police right at the incident instead of trying to protect their reputation. We were strongly accusing especially two coaches because we believe that they are considered as professionals. They have their own set of morals in managing a reputable sports team but from this incident we were totally disappointed by those. We said that nothing can come first than the people, in this case the victim, and we are just surprised that this judgment was made from those professional who work with people, the players mostly who show many different characters. We are not sure if the reputation and the brand of Penn state have influenced them to have erroneous moral standards (relative to our standards and most of the general public's), however, as a professional we believe professionals need to have similar moral standard because it can heavily affect the people. We saw that the coaches actions followed by their moral standards influenced the society and people, especially for those who cheered and supported Paterno. They must have commonly shared the same moral standards and again this shows the importance of moral relativism because one's moral standards, especially coming from professional can affect people extensively. In short term the coaches' and Penn state's reputation will be damaged because of this incident and more importantly the victim will suffer from this memory for a long time.
Group 19
ReplyDeleteKinsinger states that, "All professionals have the moral imperative of doing right. In the context of the professional-client relationship, the professional is obligated to, always and without exception, favor the well-being and interest of the client." When our group read this quote the part that stood out to us the most is "all professionals." Kinsinger didn't say some professionals. Professionals have a duty of care that extends to individuals, professional colleagues, and to society as a whole. In the case of the incident at Penn State, Paterno and Sandusky would be classified as Professionals. Joe Paterno had been coaching at Penn State for over 50 years and Sandusky was the assistant coach. Many teenagers, players, alumni, and fans looked up to these men as authority figures. This is one of the reasons why McQueary didn't go straight to the police. He was probably in shock from what he witnessed and he went to the people he respected most, his dad and Joe Paterno. He went to these two because he trusted that they favored what was best for him and the school. As chiropractors we will be trusted and respected. An understanding of a higher ethic of care will compel us as individual health practitioners to consider our calling to the high standards of professionalism as a moral imperative. We need to advocate for high standards and strive for the greater good.
It is no doubt that Joe Paterno built a legend at Penn State. What is disheartening is that as this legend he did not uphold to his moral obligation to do what's right. There is a responsiblity for maintaining high professional standards that rests exclusively on the person or people holding the position of trust, power, and authority. Our group believes this is why, even though he wasn't the original witness that so much blame and criticism was put on Paterno. It was his obligation as a professional. With this being said, our group also noticed even more criticism about McQueary. Why is this? Our group believes that our society views "professionals" in a different light. Although McQueary and Paterno acted in the same way without going directly to authorities, McQueary got the bulk of it. We felt that Paterno should have been criticized more because it is his moral duty as a professional. Kinsinger states on pg. 13,"Every professional should know where the line is." However, in our day and age, society usually gives the professional more slack. This just proves that the professional standards for what is considered right and wrong varies.
There are many effects to McQueary and Paterno's lack of responsibility. The scandal has engulfed Paterno and his beloved school in controversy and shame and will leave an inedible stain on an otherwise exemplary record. The advertising, marketing, tv exposure, and recruiting are just some of the effects of the scandal. It is going to be hard to undo the media lock of the words, "Penn State" and "Child Sex Abuse." Most of all when you think of the effects of their actions you think of the children that were abused. You think of the long term effects it will have on them. These victims will be scarred with this for life. You can't erase your memories.
Group 20
ReplyDeleteOur bottom line to our discussion is that both men should have taken action and should be held accountable for their actions regardless of their reasoning for not going to proper authorities at the time. When you are in a position of professionalism there is a certain amount of authority and respect you automatically receive from your peers as well as your subordinates. However, just because it is given does not mean it was earned a professional needs to remember to embody the definition on pg 10 always “… holding oneself to the highest standards of thought, word, and deed.”
Focusing on the unpleasant event we have mixed views on whether McQuery was in the wrong for leaving the scene without stopping the incident when it happened but in such a horrific situation it is hard to say how any of us would act. Maybe he was so shocked fleeing was all he could think to do, maybe he was fearful of the guy’s reaction and maybe he couldn’t even think clearly until he left. It makes sense to go to those he looks up too or to those who have authority above him for help or advice in times of need we look to those we hold to higher standards, to our mentors, but when nothing was done he should have not let the incident rest. He should have taken it upon himself to seek justice, to notify the police.
It is also sad but clear why McQuery is being treated more harshly by the media than Paterno, he is a legend. People love him for the victories he has earned on the field (and they should!). McQuery has not made a name for himself like Paterno, yet (and has now lost that chance) so people feel less connected to him, more likely to persecute him for these actions. Fair or not this is just how it is. We are humans and we become more understanding and accepting to those we feel more linked or connected with.
It has been brough up in our discussion as well that possibly these people were caught up in the “football scene” which may come with a bit of a sense of being above normal society. This nails the concept of (pg 13) “moral relativism, this “whatever I choose” approach to life allows anyone in public domain to claim themselves as morally acceptable, and hence beyond reproach.” One member likened this situation with that of the catholic church finding that it was as though they feel in their status (mostly the man committing this crime) as though they are untouchable due to their position in society that what is right and wrong for them is different than society. Given this as this case unfolds it is felt that more cover-ups may be discovered. It could be no one went to the proper authority because of fear of losing their job, tarnishing the school’s reputation, or even possibly threats. It’s hard to say without hearing their side which we won’t until their lawyer says it’s time.
One member did some research and mentioned possible past events and considered that maybe Paterno did not mention anything due to this. Maybe if he did it could forever tarnish their reputation or that of other colleagues and merely just be opening a can of worms. Although, he was the head coach and should know right from wrong and set an example for those who work under him and for the players that give their sweat and blood for the team. In such a position as he was there is a “line”. As mentioned on page 14, there are standards and those in such positions need to uphold them more strongly than anyone. Those standards are there to “protect the public” and if the head coach cannot take action it is no wonder that others may have a hard time finding the strength the be the ones to take a stand for those being harmed. And as shown if that line is crossed and standards are not upheld issues may arise.
Both men were in a position where they needed to take action and they decided not to. Therefore both men have not only tarnished their own reputations and lives but they have allowed the lives of many others to be harmed and to possibly lost or lowered societies respect for others in the sports world.
Fred Hauch
ReplyDeleteGroup 2
This incident will ultimatley go down as one of the biggest scandals that can happen with in a institution or business. The information that these high standing men knew was the result of there fate. If you are in the situation someday and someone comes to you with in your institution with a complaint with this power then you have no choice but to call the police and make a statement that leads to an investigation. These men including Joe Paterno lost there jobs because of complete carelessness. If they would have followed threough with the propper actions 9 years ago then this whole issue wouldnt be where it is today and State College wouldnt have a bad wrap. The bottom line is if you or I are in this situation and in the position where we are governing a body then the propper steps needs to be taken. I believe this whole issue is a slap in the face to many mangers, owners, CEOs. Many issues with certain references are made every day and are left un touched because we as a society think what would they think if i let thiis slip. Actions are louder then words if you follow through with your ethical principles then you will have a successful career if you do not follow through and indicate certain issues to be fatal then you will be taking a seat on the curb.
Group 24.
ReplyDeleteMoral relativism, defined by Kinsinger as "decisions of right and wrong are personal, subjective and relative to the situation at hand" (14), is not ideal for society and thereby professional standards because of the vast variety in people`s judgement and opinion of right and wrong.
Regardless if the punishment for Paterno and McQueary should be the same or not, how they acted in the Jerry Sandusky episode is a very good example of how wrong it can get when moral relativism is performed as professional standards. Because of the subjective judgement of right and wrong by two professionals, the young boy was neither helped, protected nor defended. Is this how we want our society to become? If not, performing moral relativism should at no point be acceptable in professionalism due to the risk of professional`s subjective judgement of right and wrong. There must be a professional standard to follow.
Kinsinger states, "If the changes in society`s moral standards affected the profession, there would be an erosion of the high standards demanded of professionalism. These standards protect the public by ensuring the highest level of trust" (14).
Our group showed a certain disagreement when it comes to McQueary. Part of the group means it`s fair that McQueary gets a higher punishment by the society due to the fact that he was the one who actually witnessed the episode. His non-action makes him accomplice. We all agree on that Paterno absolutely should not go blameless, but part of the group thinks Paterno is less to blame because he is lack of the physical observance of the young boy being abused. "To take words from someone else and bring in authorities is a huge risk if the "rumors" were to be false" (anonymous) and therefore Paterno is somewhat less to blame (but not blameless!).
In opposite, part of the group means McQueary should not be the one to get the biggest punishment because of several reasons; he was younger, his background as from a Roman Catolic Family lends its own issues to the scenario, and he did actually report the scenario to his higher authority figures. "Perhaps he thought that by going to the police he would be overstepping his bounds and going over the heads of his superiors" (anonymous).
Because of moral relativism, Paterno`s and McQueary`s individual judgements on how to act in this situation, the horrible episode was never stopped. To prevent similar situations, we therefore mean it must be defined professional standards of right and wrong.
Group 10
ReplyDeleteAs a group we have come together with our resolve that professional standards of right and wrong CANNOT differentiate between professionals. If the opposite was to prevail the trust that not only clients and patients have in the professionals would be demolished, but also the trust between professionals. Ultimately there would be a downward spiral in communication, as well as a continued decline of validity to the phrase,"your word is your bond."
There has been standard lines drawn for acceptable and non-acceptable behavior: Policies, Procedures, and best yet - the law. However, it seems as if some people have have made or conglomerated their own lines of standard, and therefore have expressed their own "Moral Relativism."
Throughout our group discussion we attempted to put ourselves in the shoes of every person involved in this pathetic pediphilic presentation.
First of all, McQueary. He, according to the article, was probably not expecting to see this horrible act when entering into the locker room. Therefore, our group comes to the conclusion that his body went into overload while his sympathetic nervous system took over not only his "flight" actions of hurrying away from the situation, but also his mental and emotional state psychologically. He did the only thing that he knew how to do- vent and talk to those you trust. This is how males generally ask for help. Where in some situations some guys would have become the bear in the shower that day (fight), McQueary became the runner from the bear (flight). It was a natural response for him. just look at the article pertaining to before football games. His father would be the one to hug him and tell him he will do great. he was conditioned to go back to the basics- Dad and Coach.
Paterno and McQueary's father however, area a different story. Once they heard the case they needed to be the source of action. Sure, at some point Paterno went to the "school authorities" (Whomever that is), but that is not the Police. Either Paterno and McQueary's father should have #1 advised younger McQueary to go to the police, or #2 go to the police themselves.
Did they not perform these acts for a reason? Possibly they thought young McQueary had done that after their discussions, or maybe they were in fear of publicity. Publicity of themselves, other coaches, the school, or it's beloved football program. If the case was to protect anything pertaining to the school, then the price for that protection was pretty high considering Sandusky molested even more boys after young McQueary had discovered this problem!
Was Paterno aware of the severity of these events or of the habits of Sandusky? What about the other coaches? Player? Were there not any other warning signs of trouble?
The consequences of these actions, or lack thereof, are wide spread. If the phrase, "guilty by association" still rings true, and if something was not reported to the police immediately, should not Paterno, and both McQueary's be inprisoned together? Afterall, Sandusky will need all the protection he can get within those prison walls. (To be continued...)
(Group 10 continued)This is a case where the Moral Relativity philosophy of "I will do whatever I want and it will have no effect on you" is proven to be false. It is actually quite the opposite. What Sandusky has done, and what the McQuearys, along with Paterno, have NOT done, not only affected themselves, their careers, the school and their beloved football team, it has effected the lives of the boys who were molested after McQueary walked in. That is the most damning thought of it all- innocent lives have been abused in such a way that it cannot be forgotten. That is the long term effect that will penetrate through generations.
ReplyDeleteAnother potential consequence is that next time a person walks in on any act of violation of anyone, they can use the sympathetic nervous system in order to become that bear that is needed to take control of the situation at that moment without delay. Who knows what can happen and waht we can accomplish if we as professionals, or as a nation rather, take a stand and make a choice to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right purpose, without delay!
Group 3
ReplyDeleteIn our group we discussed the actions or lack of action by all the men involved in the incident. First, there is Sandusky who is apparently the one at fault, we agreed that he should be punished for the horrible acts he engaged in. Next we discussed McQuery. He witnessed Sandusky committing this horrible act. Instead of stopping it from continuing and alerting local authorities he informed Paterno and did nothing else. In the article there is an argument that under the circumstances McQuery was shocked by what he had seen and did not make the right decision but with that said he should have acted appropriately given his position at the institution. Since McQuery did not alert the authorities he passed the responsibility to Paterno. Paterno did not alert authorities either and informed the athletic director. In our group we discussed how the responsibility of taking action in this act was just passed down the line until no action was taken. Instead a child was abused. In conclusion we believe that these individuals are held to a high standard and should have taken the appropriate action in the situation.
[Group 8]
ReplyDeleteIn the article, "Inactions of Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary breed disparate reactions," David Jones highlights an interesting phenomenon relating to how people respond to leaders in different hierarchical positions, and the influence that one's authoritative position has on the interpretation of who is to blame. In the highly publicized Sandusky case, we believe that it is safe to say that the general public assigns blame to both Paterno and McQueary for not acting in the best interest of the victim by calling the police. However, as the writer points out, it does appear that McQueary received a large part of the blame because he was a direct witness, and Paterno was somewhat shielded from being assigned much of the blame.
Moral relativism allows judgments of right or wrong to be based, not on a clear set of standards, but on personal and situational factors. In the Sandusky case, the public's response of not attributing as much blame to Paterno as McQueary demonstrates a different set of standards. We believe that there are a few factors that could have influenced this response. Paterno's position as head coach and reputation may have contributed some bias. The fact that McQueary was the one who actually witnessed the act and did not call the police could have also influenced the public in assigning him more of the blame. What is overlooked is the fact that both men had a clear duty to alert law enforcement regardless of who saw what or who was in what position. Both men did not do so.
It is not acceptable for professional standards to vary for different people. There must be a clear set of standards. While it is understood that some situations call for a case by case analysis, there should always be a "base level" of understanding between all parties. Differing standards may result in confusion, inconsistency, and a tendency to migrate toward the lowest possible standards or the path of least work/resistance.
Paterno’s and McQueary’s decisions will undoubtedly spark conversation among organizations regarding the duties and responsibilities of leaders in sensitive situations that have legal implications. We may see a push to adopt higher moral standards, improve organizational communication, and take appropriate action despite one's position in the hierarchy.
In this article we are subjectively assessing the in-actions of Mike McQueary who was the direct eye witness in the largely publicized Jerry Sandusky case where he was forcefully performing sexual acts on a minor 10 Yr. old boy in the PSU football locker room showers. Kinsingers book discusses moral relativity as the modern take on moral judgement based on an individuals personal perception of events and actions and their ability to rationalize it based on ones guilt, shame or conscious. To some extent moral relativity has to exists because times have changed and the fact is life is much more complicated now and moves at a much faster pace and that simply doesn't allow things to be cut and dry as they used to be. We have changed our liberties and freedoms to allow individuals to be who they want rather then fitting the stereotypical mold like life would have it many years back. Fact is we no longer live in a world where the woman stays home and cooks while the man works, or colored people sit on the back of the bus and use different facilities.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe there to still be some boundaries regardless in extreme situations that greatly effect others safety, health, or mental well being. Especially if that act is deemed criminal in nature by our judicial system and consider a major criminal offense. I think despite different upbringings and values or beliefs our families and friends have instilled there is still general truths that can't be overlooked, such as a helpless minor being essentially raped and made to perform or receive sexual acts by a much larger adult. To some extent there are laws set forth to ensure people act in a socially conscious manner such as the good Samaritan law. Regardless of the position he held or the chain of command or the possible impact on the schools reputation that was a situation where an adult with a sane mental capacity without a doubt should have intervened by means of physical interaction or by contacting the police immediately. I believe the impact of McQueary's decisions will and already have shock and disappoint nearly everyone who is aware of it and make people question how this could have come about short term, and long term will put all colleges and similar institutions under the microscope essentially implementing strict monitoring and regulations of any situation the remotely resembles this forcing people to act even if not on their own moral relativity but also on the fear that others might not see it in the same light and it may have dire consequences.
As a group, group number 12 to be exact, we feel that we were guided by authoritive figures such as parents, teachers, or grandparents, at a young age. Even though we are guided by these figures, we are still left to determine if we want to follow or stray from the guideline. So we all agree that ethics is ultimitely up to us even after we are instructed by our elders through rules and discipline.
ReplyDeleteAs for the quote, we believe it is would be more directed towards an adult rather then child. As an adult we are capable of choosing our actions whereas a child we are aware but not fully. As we have learned in psychology, we don't have reasoning until a certain point in development. This is typically seen in adulthood. The quote is more directed at an individual determining their own direction in ethics between right and wrong, than a child who still needs direction.
Group 12