Penn State’s penalty/punishment by the NCAA was released today. The major elements are:
There were other penalties/punishments of lesser impact to the university but were of some significance to individuals on the university’s staff.
What is justice in such a crime or in any crime as regards the penalty for the crime? The concept of Justice is of high importance to society because some in society bend the concept to include emotional sympathies toward the “perps” where they do not deserve such sympathy. However, neither do they deserve to be penalized beyond what their crime merits. If this is done, it is not pure justice in action. Pure justice is what we see in the image of Madam Liberty where the scales weigh the crime against the penalty and they are balanced.
I’m reminded of an old rationale where a man was speaking about this kind of justice. It was in relation to Capital Punishment but still applies here. He said, in effect, “If someone steals the hubcaps from my car, I want the thief to be punished. But, I want him to be punished for stealing the hubcaps from MY car, not so other thieves will not steal the hubcaps from other people’s cars.” This is an element of justice. The man went on to say, “IF it keeps someone from stealing the hubcaps from other cars, that is icing on the cake but I want the man punished for stealing my hubcaps, not so others will not do the same thing.”
The NCAA said that the penalty to Penn State was to “send a message,” in effect, and this is the same as keeping people from stealing others’ hubcaps. It goes beyond justice. Now, if the penalty is a just penalty for the crime/s committed on the Penn State campus, well and good and I believe this cannot be faulted. But if the penalty is primarily to “send a message” and not to mete out punishment in a justified way, then the priority is wrong. However, if this is indeed a just penalty and other teachers/coaches see that if they abused the young in their area of responsibility and this caused them to put this kind of activity out of their minds, then this reaction would no doubt be “icing on the cake.”
If someone goes into a crowd and contemplates mayhem, as seen in Colorado, that person may have other goals in mind if he began to wonder if some in the crowd were “carrying” or had a handgun in their pocket. Even a man who goes into a bank with intentions of robbing the bank and sees an armed guard inside, that man would be wise to consider the possibility of not achieving the robbery but that of his own undoing. Thus we can see the value of good citizens being armed. In this regard, Academia is now “armed” with the NCAA decision.
What do Unions have to do with the decision of the NCAA and in regard to Penn State? The idea of “sending a message” is what Unions have in mind when they go on strike. That message is that if anyone dares cross them, the Unions will provide penalties. This concept is a parallel with the NCAA’s message-sending with the penalties meted out to Penn State unless they are looking at this as an icing-on-the-cake side effect, apart from the concept of justice being provided. Their mentioning it was to remind those who are on the wrong side of society in the sports arena that they will face similar action if they do the same that was apparently done at Penn State. In this regard, the comment was appropriate. But the penalties should relate directly and specifically to what was done at Penn State and not be with the intention or have a bearing on making sure others do not do the same. This is speaking of Justice and not of posting a Warning Sign.
This commentary is provided for various reasons, the most significant being, perhaps, that what happened at Penn State is an indication of what has happened to our society in the past half-century or so. Sometimes I wonder if such disregard for upholding a decent society goes back farther than 50-60 years and the people back then were merely better able to hide their activities.
The old saying: “Truth will out” is appropriate here. Modern-day society is apparently less concerned about the repercussions of a crime and more into people having their own way and gratifying their own lusts and desires. But, with the kinds of communications available today, few things can be hidden as in the past. Information and data transfer is almost instantaneous in these modern times while what some people did in past times usually only came out some time after their death.
Most of what the NCAA decided seems fair and appropriate, as was explained by the spokesman and head of the Association when the penalties were announced. Some may feel that the penalties were yet not sufficient; they or their loved ones may have experienced things that those penalties do not address. However, it was no doubt a move in the right direction. In this case, it is an example of people in society holding their own court and attempting to provide a just decision. The judgment, of course, will be felt by Penn State in an appropriate way, hopefully, and I suspect that many parents will feel less anxiety about sending sons and daughters to that or other schools.
We of society can all benefit from the NCAA decision. We are often surprised sometimes to suddenly find out what is going on in the shadows and kept hidden from public view. That surprise is often appalling in nature to match the disclosed event. The NCAA’s decision, however, proves that there are good and decent people in society and an overview; we need not mark everyone in Academia as evil. This kind of generalization would prove to be even more appalling to society.
Keep in mind that “society” is best seen as a complex “machine” that works sufficiently well if maintained properly. Sometimes, a few doses of strong medicine are needed to make society strong and healthy. While the Media had a holiday with the Penn State problem (as typical of the Media axiom of “if it bleeds, it leads”), it is only but one example of Media interests.
Some societies around the world see us as a gun-loving nation while many of those same countries are led by dictators who are not shy about using guns to keep their people under control. In this regard, I sometimes wonder why so many in our society care what others think about us; it is more important to do what we know is right and acceptable in our society and not care so much what others think. Aside from this, if we in American opined on the activities of other societies around the world, they would resent it — and rightly so!
We may make remarks about surrounding societies and, at the same time, not respect them no matter how wrong they may be. To hold such public opinions is to ask for like response in return. However, the majority of those who are so caring about what other societies think about US are people who are deep into the Globalization concept and reside mostly on the Left. They are the same kind of people who crave being part of a Global Community. They totally disregard that the universal language of commerce is English and other countries see America as the economic standard to reach for and not really care all that much about what happens on our streets.
Other countries love our lifestyle, our style of dressing and many other things that the majority of people in other countries see in movies/films. If they see us in a bad light, then it is usually from the Media and, in this respect, it is often the light from the Big Screen. Therefore, it would be better if people here in America, who are so concerned about how we are seen around the world, would make an effort to get the message back to Hollywood that they are not helping matters in our society if what people see in America through films is not the real America but, instead, a fictional America, a story-land America, and in many cases a lie. We are used to it, we know that much of what we see is the misguided imagination of a Michael Moore-like mind but people in other societies are not as enlightened as many of us here.
Where movies are like a documentary about true events or possible events, it is much more acceptable. But to elevate such things as cannibalism and other similarly evil things does not make our country look good at all and effectively promotes a lie. Cannes and other film popularity judging events should not accept those kinds of films. True artists should turn down such films. If the need for better, more decent scripts is shown by movie-makers, writers will respond. Movie makers do not realize that they would make more money with films that whole families could attend and appreciate instead of the relatively few who enjoy evil and depravity. The movie industry would change unless they are so evil minded and money-hungry that they prefer to push aside thoughts of decency. For one, I appreciate checking the bio of an actor and find that he/she has turned down an R-rated movie or one that is strongly PG for language, sex, violence, etc.
I love science fiction. However, even here some in Hollywood seem to promote extreme sexuality or mix in an episode of pure nakedness. Sure, I know the old axiom relating to advertising, that if you want to get buyers’ attention, it is necessary to show some sex or monetary advantage. But, with some kinds of movies, one begins to wonder what they are actually “selling.”
Unions want to involve everyone possible. Movie-makers are the same way. Let’s hope that Penn State’s penalty provided by the NCAA is not merely thinking of causing Academia as a whole to avoid such penalties, except as an additional side-effect.
These days are explosive. We find almost on a day-to-day basis many new things happening around us and we are wise to keep up with the times and not grow more apathetic to what is happening in society. This kind of apathy is a large part of what brought us to this point in history.
