Here is a decision that demonstrates the conflict between consequentialist and deontological thinking. At Penn State University (home of one of the authors), the newly appointed President (after the child sexual abuse scandal in 2011 involving a former football defensive coach) had to make a really tough decision. He contends (and we believe him) that the NCAA threatened to levy the "Death Penalty" against Penn State football. You can read about the last time that was done. (Southern Methodist University in the 1980s). That football program never came back. To avoid this fate, the President agreed to accept a series of sanctions that included a $60 million fine, limits on football scholarships for several years, and no post-season play for the football team for several years. Alumni, students, and other observers were angry and incredulous. The NCAA had conducted no investigation of its own. Penn State had violated no NCAA rules and had one of the best reputations in the country for graduating athletes. The school also had NEVER had an NCAA violation. So, these observers were angry - why? Because they saw the sanctions as completely unfair (a deontological perspective). There had been no due process. And, they were angry with the President for "caving" to the NCAA. They wanted him to fight, a process that would likely have taken years - likely while the football program was shut down.

But, our analysis suggests that the President made the decision from a consequentialist perspective. The list of stakeholders was huge. Penn State is in a college town that depends heavily on football weekends to generate business for restaurants, hotels, and Penn State paraphernalia shops. All would have been at risk. Football players who had no responsibility for the scandal would have been seriously harmed. Perhaps more importantly, every other sport is financially supported by the football program. So, hundreds of student athletes and coaches who were in no way involved in the scandal would have been affected - their programs likely decimated or ended. The list of stakeholders and potential harms goes on. So, our assessment is that accepting the sanctions allowed the football team to play (and they have actually had decent seasons doing so, winning the Big 10 title in 2016 and playing in the Rose Bowl in 2017). And, because Penn State was so cooperative, the sanctions were actually reduced after a couple of years. So, this is a great example of how the deontological and consequentialist approaches can lead to very different decisions.

(1) What do you think about the above based on the readings and class discussions?

(2) What side do you think applied the "right" ethical standard?