Penn State Scandal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Penn State Scandal - Essay ExampleOn the hand of the social bond theory, the strong register is on the lack of social attachments amongst the juvenile delinquents. Effect on lives is as a derivative of friends, family and other members of social network (Rankin). The application of these theories supports the Penn State raise scandal. Penn state University being one of the best universities least expected such crisis. The society expects the athletics functionarys and cultivateing staff to be role models of youngsters. The university and the family of Sandusky had a fraud eye in his association with wrong peers (Jenkins). In 1999 after the resignation of Sandusky, the Penn state football authorities still gave him access to campus premises and facilities. This gives him an open fortune and advantage to make sexual advances to the male childs. Gary openly assumes the Sanduskys investigation. Instead of coordinating the solution to the scandal, he is a cause and only the bans Sandusky from bringing children to the campus. Graham Spanier, the chairman of the university neglects the report of crisis at an early stage that later deteriorates the Universities legacy (Frank). Reaction of the students has a basis as internal control in support of social bonding theory. Firing of Paterno had a controversial information upload. This was a weak unethical decision by the Penn board of state. The explanation was that the famous football coach did not act as a leader. His hesitation to report to the pre-informed case to police is a support of a crime. Paterno had the responsibility to his career goal as a coach and neglected organizational activities. Reputational recovery from the states university riots tarnished its image to a long-term crisis. There is also some information that Penn State issues is of a maffia family interest (Becker). This gives birth to reason as to why Paterno had no impact to make rather choose to be quiet. The two main characters behind t he scandal are from the same school of thought and provide the solution to their problems in their own way. Some part of this case delay may be to obviate negative opinion on the University. This serves the same purpose as image restoring theory. This can cause pain and disappointment and fracture the relationship between the official and other involved parties. This serves as an indirect control of the case theory. Back in 2002, McQueary happened to report seeing Sandusky raping a very young boy in the showers of campus. He also informed Joe Paterno. Upon informing the director of athletics, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz who is the university police overseer, but the report did not appear before the prosecutor (Becker). The mother of the affected boy reported the case to the university police in 1988, but no step is into consideration. The university should have enacted sharing of information to students, stakeholders and proper audience to diffuse the crisis. This supports the tend ency of woeful participation because Sandusky had nothing to lose from deferral antisocial behavior (Frank). Through the satisfaction of the involved parties needs, there was reluctance in the scandal investigation. Several important people have supported the cover up of this scandal. The governor of the state who is the board of trustee assumed informing the authority (Jenkins). Even after make up evidence from the detectives who had eavesdrop of some conversation between Sandusky and the mother of the molested boy attorney Ray pressed no charges. Because of political and