State College, Pa.—a town usually known for successful football seasons—is now gaining national attention under less auspicious circumstances. Scandal has rocked Pennsylvania State University since it came to light that Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach, was charged with sexually abusing several young boys, at times on the property of the university.
This terrible ordeal, swept under the rug by university officials since the late-1990s, raises important questions that any university with a high profile athletics program must face. The Penn State scandal marks the most recent, as well as most egregious, in a growing trend of university missteps in the realm of student athletics.
These episodes have varied in severity, often centering around academic dishonesty or inappropriate financial incentives. At the University of Miami just a few months ago, several players and athletics staff purportedly curried favor with a university booster, Nevin Shapiro, who provided the Hurricanes with financial favors, including use of his yacht, from 2002 to 2010.
Another case hits closer to home, where the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been the target of an NCAA investigation since 2010. The NCAA alleges that several UNC football players committed academic fraud, and that former assistant coach John Blake was paid to funnel players toward a professional agent.
These three examples provide only a snapshot of what is becoming a rampant issue at universities with Division I athletics programs. The case at Penn State takes the problem to a new level, as it involves violent crime as opposed to mere academic or financial fraud. This incident should prompt us to examine just what role athletics ought to have in a university setting.
We certainly support the existence of university sports. In particular at Duke, athletics define University life in very positive ways, bringing unity and pride to campus. However, as the examples mentioned above reveal, high-profile athletics can be too influential for their own good. Athletic clout can compel university officials to act unethically, compromising the reputations and legitimacy of the very institutions that they represent.
In particular, the Penn State example reminds us that even iconic figures in athletics—coaches like Joe Paterno or Mike Krzyzewski—do not live above ethical standards. Duke’s record in this regard has remained positive. Although athletics holds a prominent place in the life of the University, it has not compelled us into the realm of the unethical or illegal. Students often criticize inequalities between athletes and non-athletes at Duke, citing athletes’ plentiful tutoring opportunities and early registration windows, but such advantages are small and do not signify a breach in ethics.
We commend the University for its policies in this regard and urge administrators, in response to the Penn State scandal, to enforce policies with renewed vigor in recognition of potential for influential programs to run awry.
Duke’s athletics should continue to be a large part of the University. Duke basketball is and ought to be a staple of student life, but its influence should never push individuals to commit acts in violation of the law. Penn State now faces repercussions on both its finances and its public image. This is a fate Duke would do well to avoid in the future.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.