Pennsylvania State University Sandusky Scandal Analysis Erin Gilbert De Paul University

Running head: SANDUSKY SCANDAL ANALYSIS 1 Pennsylvania State University Sandusky Scandal Analysis Erin Gilbert De Paul University SANDUSKY SCANDAL 2 Pennsylvania State University Sandusky Scandal Analysis Introduction Looking at a crisis management case-study is much different than simply evaluating a previous public relations case for different aspects of the Potter Box Model. This case study took an in-depth look at how loyalties and values of public relations professionals can affect the decisions they make. In this analysis, I will be discussing the Sandusky Scandal at Pennsylvania State University and the problematic public relations decisions that were made immediately after the scandal became public. Facts of the Case On November 4, 2011, a Grand Jury in Pennsylvania issued a report which went into graphic detail about one of Pennsylvania State University's retired football coaches, Jerry Sandusky. The report was based on an investigation which had been taking place for more than two years, and ultimately described in graphic detail the criminally sexual behavior of Coach Sandusky with eight boys over the 15 years spanning 1994 to 2009. The report explained that at least three of the sexual encounters with underage boys happened on Pennsylvania State University grounds and two were witnessed by fellow employees. Jerry Sandusky was officially arrested for 21 felony counts of abusing children (Swann). The section of the report which detailed the encounters which were witnessed by other employees was highly speculative until the Grand Jury investigation. It was found out that in 1998 a mother called the high school that Sandusky volunteer-coached at claiming that the coach SANDUSKY SCANDAL 3 had bear-hugged her son in the showers. When approached and questioned about the incident, Sandusky apologized and admitted he was wrong. Charges were never sought and the DA never pursued the case. Then, in 2000, a janitor saw Sandusky with. Boy pinned to the wall performing oral sex. The janitor reported the incident to his supervisor, but they decided to not further report for fear they would lose their jobs (Swann). In 2002, there was another incident where Mike McQueary witnessed Jerry Sandusky pinning a boy to the wall and forcing him to partake in anal sex. Mike McQueary reported the incident to long-time, legendary head football coach Joe Paterno. Joe followed protocol by reporting the incident to his direct supervisor, the athletic director at Penn State, Time Curley. Curley set up an interview with the witness, McQueary, and Penn State's Senior Vice President Gary Schultz. After this meeting, it was decided that Jerry Sandusky's keys to the locker room would be suspended and he would be prohibited from bringing kids to the campus. No one in the chain of communication alerted the campus police or proper authorities, nor checked in on the welfare of the abused children (Swann). The Public Relations Team's Loyalties The University garnered a lot of backlash from the lack of communication within the athletic department and higher-up authorities at the institution. The public relations team brought in had to deal with blind-loyalties which caused the University to have delayed reactions to the crisis. It took days for the University itself, as well as many of the people affected in the case with charges against them to release statements to the public. When they did finally release statements, they were going around the truth and not stating exactly what the accusations were SANDUSKY SCANDAL 4 against Sandusky or themselves. There wasn't an instant apology from the University or Sandusky, but silence, which is worse than any statement could have been. When a Public Relations firm was finally brought in to help with the aftermath of the communications crisis, it would be safe to say that the University did end up being positively affected from the scandal. They put into effect new ways to enhance dialogue between the public and the University regarding proceedings of the case and campus culture and climate. They rewrote the ethical guidelines all staff at the University is expected to uphold and implemented positive communication streams throughout departments. They lessened power distance so no employee would feel uncomfortable or nervous about reporting any suspicious behavior or anything else they may feel the need to report. Of the four loyalties public relations professionals need to keep in mind, two stood out in this case. First, the public relations team needed to remain loyal to their client. At a time when Pennsylvania State University was under intense scrutiny and backlash, the public relations team needed to instill and uphold new communication standards within the University and follow with dictating these practices to the public. They had to stand behind the University as a whole, even if they didn't agree with or respect the crisis which was happening at the time. The public relations team had to bring forward the values upon which the University was built and stand behind those values once they were being upheld correctly throughout the school as a whole. Second, the public relations team had to remain loyal to society. Regardless of who is employing them, the team had to uphold ideals and values which will positively impact society. Child abuse is never okay, sexual abuse is never okay, sexual abuse of a child is abhorrent. SANDUSKY SCANDAL 5 While the public relations team was rebuilding the University's communications system from the inside out, they also had to remain loyal to the public and public interests. They had to regain trust and confidence from the public for the University, and convey to them that while there was a disgusting scandal surrounding part of the staff at the school, it does not represent the school as a whole or the happenings of campus as a whole. Values When evaluating this case, it is hard not to think about the values which the University and public relations teams had while they were responding to the case. The University should have responded with honesty about the situation. The PRSA Code of Ethics defines honesty as adhering to the highest standards of truth and accuracy while trying to advance the interests of those who are being represented while being in communication with the public (PRSA, 2000). The University should have immediately given an honest and apologetic statement to the public after news of the scandal was released in the media. Instead, they were busy trying to remain loyal to longtime staff members by not revealing incriminating information or information that may compromise their reputation. In the end, holding off on these apologetic and honest statements until days after the scandal became public knowledge ended up hurting the University's reputation as a whole. This loyalty can be seen as blind loyalty, or loyalty which has been given for so long that it is a reaction instead of a value. The value of loyalty in the PRSA Code of Ethics defines loyalty as being faithful to those which are being represented while still honoring the obligation to serve the general public interest (PRSA, 2000). While the University initially was trying to SANDUSKY SCANDAL 6 remain loyal to their employees, they weren't taking into account the public interest or the safety of the children who were affected in this case. When the public relations team was brought in, they began trying to restore the relationship between the University and the public audience by being transparent about the Sandusky case and the cases which came along after it indicting other Penn State staff members. They did this by standing behind the University and trying to change the culture of communication within the School. Ethical Principles The first principle described in our readings was "advertisers, public relations, marketing communications, news, and editorial all share a common objective of truth and high ethical standards in serving the public" (Snyder, 2011). It showed that sixty-five percent of people believe advertising only sometimes, which can be compared to the way those same people are viewing news stories or reading newspaper articles. Had Pennsylvania State University upheld this principle from the moment the scandal hit the media, or even taken preventative measures in communicating with the public about the scandal, their reputation may have suffered less than it had. The second principle which is parallel with the communications crisis that is the Sandusky Scandal is Principle 8, which states "advertisers and their agencies, and online and offline media, should discuss potential ethical concerns, and members of the team creating ads should be given permission to express internally their ethical concerns" (Snyder, 2011). Like advertising, where ethics are considered proactively, public relations could have been proactive when working on communication outlets throughout the staff members at Penn State. If SANDUSKY SCANDAL 7 employees were brought to feel open and free to discuss their ethical concerns, many children would have been spared the emotional and physical turmoil of being abused by Jerry Sandusky. Conclusion When looking at a crisis management case-study, many things are different than when simply evaluating a previous public relations case by using the Potter-Box Model. The Sandusky Scandal case study took an in-depth look at how loyalties and values of both the University Officials and of the public relations professionals which came in to fix the crisis affected the decisions they made. After discussing the values and loyalties of these people, it is clear that the public relations team brought in after the scandal helped to regain public opinion and trust in the University by rebuilding the communication system between employees and officials and reinforcing the the oval values of the University as a whole.

Load more