DukeEthicist: chain of command

So what about Joe Paterno?

As the sordid details of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal continue to trickle in it’s not a bad idea to take a step back and get some clarity on what transpired.   There is little argument that if grand jury testimony and victim accounts are upheld beyond a reasonable doubt Jerry Sandusky should rot in federal prison: his pattern of behavior was deliberate and contemptible.   The story, however, does not end with Jerry Sandusky and it is here where I would like to focus.

The Sandusky scandal set into motion a series of ethically problematic events, chief being the firing of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.   In the wake of the Sandusky accusations, Paterno, a Happy Valley fixture for nearly half a century, was promptly relieved of his duties for failing to do enough to stop suspected abuse after he caught wind of possible indiscretion from one of his trainers.   This firing occurred despite the fact that Paterno made the athletic director aware of Sandusky’s questionable behavior.   The face of the Penn State program for 8 US presidents, Joe Paterno was not even given the courtesy of being fired in person; instead he was fired over the phone like a stranger.

Poor taste aside, Paterno’s firing brings up important questions about where responsibility falls in multi-level organizations?  Does the buck stop at the top of the hierarchy or does everyone share in responsibility?   A look at the professional world for guidance only muddles the picture of how we as a society assess blame.   When a rogue trader at HSBC, for example, lost the firm $1 billion it was not only the trader who was fired but most everyone on that trader’s desk.   Contrastingly, when a patient files a lawsuit nurses and staff are typically not effected; instead, most of the heat falls on the lead physician who had the power to give “orders.”  Even in our own Duke bubble we’ve had to deal with questions of leadership accountability.   Early this semester Duke administration codified a policy in which student organization leaders, for the first time, can be held liable for the actions of their members.

How then should we think about who should be held accountable for an action?   On a primary level we might say that those directly involved in the decision-making should be held liable.   If Joe Paterno had any power to directly effect the athletic director’s action on Sandusky but chose to protect a friend, he should face culpability.   On a secondary level, anyone with immediate knowledge of impropriety who failed to reveal or act on it should also be held liable.   If Joe Paterno or others, held information of additional possible cases but failed to proffer them to superiors, they too should be held liable.

On the other hand, is it fair to hold someone accountable for an action as a kind of symbolic gesture?  Victims of Sandusky are experiencing incredible pain as details of their childhood trauma are publically revealed but does the university owe it to these families to “clean house” irrespective of culpability?  As a PR move, perhaps but as an upstanding decision no.   Penn State should have waited for more information before terminating an employee that has added tremendous value to their institution.