Penn State University, Title IX, Clery Act and Sexual Harassment: Was the Old Boy Network at Work?

Abstract

IntroductionThe researcher Gary Martin (2013) stated that, left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing (p. 2). He explains that, one's varied interests are kept separate (Martin, 2013, p. 2). Martin further commented that a person should keep their pursuits totally distinct in business. With the scandals reported in higher education, one cannot help but think this advice was applicable for the leadership in the Title IX, sexual abuse/harassment situation at Penn State University. This event has cost one of the top universities millions in lawsuits, civil penalties, damaged reputation, and possible loss of accreditation. The purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons behind the Sandusky scandal at Penn State University, and how higher education can avoid this type of a situation in the future.BackgroundSandusky, the convicted child abuser, began his first charity (The Second Mile) in 1977 to benefit underprivileged boys. He was investigated in 1998 for potential sexual abuse of young boys. Then a report appeared of him showering with a boy at Penn State in 2001 (Blehar, 2013).Dawson (2013, March 14) stated that, 'Freeh's investigation revealed email conversations from 1998 to 2001 among leaders Graham Spanier, Tim Curly, and Gary Schultz that allegedly suggest they discussed responding to concerns about Sandusky. The emails were used by Freeh to make his conclusions that the men, and former head football coach, Joe Paterno, hid the abuse allegations in fear of bad publicity (p. 2). The investigation was initiated by an interview that Jerry Sandusky gave on television. When some victims saw Sandusky on television, they decided to tell what happened to them. Hearing his voice and his words proclaiming no wrong....was a trigger for some who say they were abused by the former Penn State defensive coordinator (Ganim, 2011, p. 1). The main scandal hit the press in 2011 through a Grand Jury investigation.The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) sanctioned Penn State University. This 'includes a $60 million dollar fine, a ban from postseason play for four seasons and vacate all wins from 1998-2011 and a five year probation. The sanctions' goals are to force a change of culture at Penn State as it signed an agreement to institute a series of compliance measures (Smith, 2012, p. 20). Penn State will lose money from football since the made approximately $94 million each year (Wolverton & Sandler, 2011).Pennsylvania filed suit against the NCAA in response to the sanctions. Gov. Tom Corbett said he wants the US District Court in Harrisburg, Pa., to throw out all sanctions...accusing the organization of trying to illegally benefit from a $60 million fine it imposed against the university (Guarino, 2013, p. N). During June, 2013 a federal judge dismissed Corbett's suit against the NCAA (Associated Press, 2013). The judge stated that she could not find any factual allegations supporting (Corbett's) allegation of 'concerted action'... (p. 1).A question to be addressed is, was there a tremendous lapse of accountability on the part of the leaders of this institution? If this can happen at a top national like Penn State, what is at work here? Was this a case of the old boy network protecting its friends? What can higher education do to prevent a scandal of this magnitude from happening on their campuses? This paper will attempt to answer some of these questions.Title IX, the Clery Act, Title VII (1964 Civil Rights Act), Sexual Harassment and Sexual AbuseTwo hallmark pieces of legislation that are applicable to all institutions of higher education are Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Clery Act. Borowski (2012) explained the impact of both Title IX and the Clery Act on higher education.Title IX'prohibits gender discrimination and sexual harassment by any educational institution that receives federal funds. …