I rarely post a very direct blog. Usually, my intent is to keep this column very effervescent, but this incident has left me very distraught. Perplexed even. See, it has been very difficult for me to reconcile my emotions over this event because the line of what I deem right and wrong is now hazy.
If you have not heard, the winningest coach in D-1 football, Joe Paterno, was fired amidst a sex scandal involving an assistant coach. Paterno was allegedly notified of a sexual assault incident in 2002, reported it to Penn State officials, but failed to take further action. The assistant coach, in the meantime, had allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct for years and was even seen on the Penn State campus weeks before the scandal emerged, despite being relieved of official business nearly a decade ago.
The rub is that Paterno was fired and this angered many Penn State fanatics. Paterno is not accused of any actual misconduct; however, he was the head coach, overlooked the program, and as a result, is at least partially to blame for the scandal….right?
How does this relate to MPA? There are numerous times when certain people in a firm engage in poor practice and put the jobs of many employees in jeopardy. Nevertheless, even those who engage in poor practice in a firm are usually on a larger team and whatever work they do should be reviewed multiple times.
Yes, I said that: someone did something unethical, it was reviewed several times and it still got through.
The question is how does this happen? Are those who let such actions occur necessarily bad? I don’t think that Joe Paterno is bad…
One could look at the Milgram experiment. This experiment delves into how people react to taking orders. Rather, it looks at people’s lack of response to orders against one’s moral beliefs. The surprising find of the study—because it was in response to lower officers during WWII—is that most people follow orders instead of standing for their moral beliefs. Most follow the status quo! There was only one exception. One lady stopped the experiment: she was a Holocaust survivor. She swore that, after witnessing the horrific genocide, she would never stay silent or refuse action in the face of dilemma again. It is amazing that only a life-changing experience could be the exception.
Where am I going with this? As MPAs, we will be faced with challenging situations and ethical dilemmas everyday. As accountants, (1) we need to act in the face of a challenge because failure to do so doesn’t let us off the hook, and (2) we don’t need to actually commit the crime to be associated with it and be guilty. Especially as an auditor, I am not only auditing for the big institutions but also for the small mom and dad investors. It is my job to fight for fairness and protect these people. The work that I will engage in carries a magnitude of gravity that, if not performed admirably, has the potential to harm many people.
In my life, personally encountering situations of discrimination, disability and other adversities, I have grown accustomed to speaking my mind. In the face of helplessness, some do not have the voice to speak up in their own defense. And as an auditor—and a friend, brother, cousin, etc.—it is my responsibility to be courageous for those who are unable to be themselves.
It has taken me several days to make sense of the entire mess at Penn State. Like I said, Joe Paterno did not actually commit a crime. But Coach, you didn’t do enough. You didn’t stick up for a child who needed you. You didn’t speak up for my brother, nor did you protect the everyday investor. You let a Ponzi scheme escalate, and you turned your back on the trust that was put in you by many. Slapping a hand or shaking a finger just isn’t enough when you’re the head of a program.
With remorse, I agree and can finally see that Joe Paterno needed to go. Even though Paterno did no wrong himself, he failed to prevent wrong when he was potentially aware it was occurring. Unfortunately, sometimes justice cannot be served in retrospect.
Dear Paul,
Saying “this isn’t right” and making a public statement requires attention and conviction. I am confident you will be paying attention your whole career. Please stay in touch post-graduation about times where you stood up for others! We’ll want to tell our students about you.
Dr. Mills
Good post. I attended Penn State University in the late ’90s and like you was deeply saddened to hear that several people had an opportunity to act and didn’t. There is a quote that goes “What makes you a leader is having the courage of your convictions.” This case and the Milgram experiment you describe show how important both convictions and courage are.
Let me point out that Mr Sandusky was no longer an assistant coach under coach Paterno’s jurisdiction in 2002. He was a private citizen with university access, allowed by his emeritus status, overseeing activities of a non-profit he founded. As such he was allowed access to football facilities by PSU administrators. Coach Paterno was following the rules set down by the university and state law in how to report the incident.
He had no authority to do any more. Those he reported to were required to investigate the matter. They apparently took no action other than to restrict Mr Sandusky’s bringing of boys on to campus. Again coach Paterno did the right and legal actions required of him. Statements about a moral obligation have no place here. As the only recognizable person in this whole mess coach Paterno was fired by a cowardly board of directors in an attempt to limit the media firestorm. In calling Mr Sandusky an assistant coach it seems clear to me that you do not have access to all the facts in the case. In fact, NO ONE has all the facts yet. Of all the people tied into this sad affair ONLY coach Paterno has expressed regret at not doing more. This is totally in character of a man who has placed the well being of those he was in charge of and the institution he helped grow, above his own. I believe coach Paterno was horribly wornged in this matter, and until someone can present evidence of his participation in a coverup, I will continue to defend him whenever I can. Respectfully: Jim Kramer
Mr. Kramer, I want to clarify that this column was in no way intended to disrespect Coach Paterno. As of this day, there is still no testimony that Paterno himself committed any crime, and I do not hope to ostracize him in anyway. Rather, this column was intended to draw parallels between the scandal on the Penn State campus and the business world within today’s ethical milieu.
Societies define their own ethics and legal codes. They change and evolve all the time. To name a subtle change in law and ethics, please recall that Congress’ constitutional right to levy income taxes is less than one hundred years old. And, of course, there have been far more radical social political movements since then as well. At the same time, because societies define their ethics and the inertia with which they change is by no means predictable, those in professional services must be alert to society’s expectations of them.
After all, as an auditor, I’m selling assurance—an emotion.
The essence of this column was not that Paterno did wrong, but, rather, that we must remain cognizant of the standard that society holds. Paterno did not commit a crime, but society thought that, ethically, he should have pursued Sandusky harder. Likewise, every auditor for Arthur Anderson did not commit a crime, but the whole firm went down in wake of its scandals too.
Additionally, I am not saying that Coach Paterno was faced with an easy decision either. Paterno probably faced an internal dilemma that Syracuse men’s basketball Coach Jim Boeheim exhibited publicly—not my friend! Faced with the same facts, I empathize with both coaches in their personal conflicts. It would be arrogant and naïve for me to write that I would certainly have acted differently because when circumstances this dire arise, fear and a smorgasbord of other emotions begin to play into the equation.
American society—at least the Penn State board—felt that between personally pursuing further legal action against Sandusky and accepting the lax nonexistent investigation initiated by whoever Paterno reported the incident to, more action was deemed ethically necessary. This sends a message to professionals that, when faced with a crossroads, it is safer to err on the side of too much action. Contrasting with the Milgram experiment, we should resist the urge to just do “the right and legal actions required” of us; rather, we are encouraged to, in the face of adversity, be attentive, be alert, and act upon our convictions. Act.
Mr. Kramer, I have a lot of respect for Coach Paterno for what he did on the football field, and by no means do I chastise his actions during his tenure. My dad always used to warn me: “Don’t criticize others. You’ll have your own chance one day; hopefully, you’ll do better.” As MPAs, we must take events like these and learn from them going forward, lest we make the same mistakes. Finally, in doing so, we hope to achieve and uphold the ethical standard that society expects from us.