PENN STATE: FRAMING ETHICAL ISSUES 1
Penn State: Framing Ethical Issues
Star Student
International American University
MGT 860: Business Ethics and Social Responsibility
David Johnson, Ph.D.
Month Date, Year
, PENN STATE: FRAMING ETHICAL ISSUES 2
Penn State: Framing Ethical Issues
Review/Analysis of the Case
Penn State's scandal is a dramatic and intricate look at ethical challenges, institutional
culture, and the far-reaching effects of inactivity. The story highlights essential questions about
institutions and individuals and the consequences of silence and inactivity. We will evaluate the
accuracy of stakeholder statements, dissect institutional culture, categorize the many ethical
issues, identify the diverse stakeholders affected by the unfolding events, and examine the
importance of speaking up when ethical violations occur.
The Morality of Punishing the Majority for the Actions of a Few
Penn State had people not directly involved in the scandal and bore the consequences.
However, significant individuals' actions and inactions allowed the issue to fester. Failure to
disclose child abuse and take measures to stop it had far-reaching effects on the university and its
community (Jennings, 2018). Systemic institution failure penalized many for the acts of a few.
Those who did not report or act allowed the problem to escalate, leading to the assumption that
the entire organization covered up the scandal.
Penn State’s Culture
Oregon State President Ed Ray's claim that Penn State's culture caused what happened
shows that the football program had become too dominant and influential. It suggests football
success had trumped the institution's beliefs and ethics. The case supports this view in several
ways: It shows how much the university values football, especially its performance and
reputation (Smith & Pegoraro, 2020). Key people made decisions and acted out of concern for
the football program. The football program's culture, especially loyalty to Joe Paterno and its
image, prevented the child abuse claims from being reported and addressed. The university's
Penn State: Framing Ethical Issues
Star Student
International American University
MGT 860: Business Ethics and Social Responsibility
David Johnson, Ph.D.
Month Date, Year
, PENN STATE: FRAMING ETHICAL ISSUES 2
Penn State: Framing Ethical Issues
Review/Analysis of the Case
Penn State's scandal is a dramatic and intricate look at ethical challenges, institutional
culture, and the far-reaching effects of inactivity. The story highlights essential questions about
institutions and individuals and the consequences of silence and inactivity. We will evaluate the
accuracy of stakeholder statements, dissect institutional culture, categorize the many ethical
issues, identify the diverse stakeholders affected by the unfolding events, and examine the
importance of speaking up when ethical violations occur.
The Morality of Punishing the Majority for the Actions of a Few
Penn State had people not directly involved in the scandal and bore the consequences.
However, significant individuals' actions and inactions allowed the issue to fester. Failure to
disclose child abuse and take measures to stop it had far-reaching effects on the university and its
community (Jennings, 2018). Systemic institution failure penalized many for the acts of a few.
Those who did not report or act allowed the problem to escalate, leading to the assumption that
the entire organization covered up the scandal.
Penn State’s Culture
Oregon State President Ed Ray's claim that Penn State's culture caused what happened
shows that the football program had become too dominant and influential. It suggests football
success had trumped the institution's beliefs and ethics. The case supports this view in several
ways: It shows how much the university values football, especially its performance and
reputation (Smith & Pegoraro, 2020). Key people made decisions and acted out of concern for
the football program. The football program's culture, especially loyalty to Joe Paterno and its
image, prevented the child abuse claims from being reported and addressed. The university's
