Thompson 1 The following are two writing samples.

They are two papers I did for my organizational advocacy/rhetoric class during the Fall 2012 semester. above The Penn State Way: Success with Honor It has been almost one year already since Jerry Sandusky was arrested for child molestation. Since this happened both the histories of Sandusky and Penn State have changed. Reading can give one a basic understanding of what happened in this scandal. However, my goal in this paper is to take a look at this tragedy from a variety of angles. In this paper I will cover what happened in the years leading up to the arrest of Jerry Sandusky last year and how these previous actions enabled the molestations to carry on for as long as they did along with what Penn State has been doing to handle this crisis after it unfolded in November 2011. The context of this situation was that former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison after being charged with 45 counts of child sex abuse (Scott, 2012). One of the most striking things about the situation was that the Penn State administration knew the entire time about the sexual assaults on the young boys yet failed to take proper action. They tried to cover it up in order to protect their legacy football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State football. The scandal was unanticipated because excluding Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz, almost nobody knew that the scandal was taking place until 2011. A second thing that is appalling about the scandal is how much power Paterno had and lack of accountability he was forced to deal with. Vicky Triponey, former head of Student Affairs at Penn State clashed with Paterno numerous times when it came to disciplining the school football players. She questioned Paternos method in disciplining his team and tried to stand up to

Thompson 2 him. It ended with her resigning in 2007 after being pressured by the University to do so. Paterno had the power to get rid of anybody if he pleased and he wanted her gone (ONeill, 2012). While Triponey had no ties to the sex scandal, other faculty saw the molestations happen first hand and were did not speak up because they were afraid of losing their jobs. A janitor saw Sandusky first-hand sexually assaulting a young boy. He decided not to tell government officials because he said it would be like going against the president of the United States (Rudnitsky, 2012, p.2). The janitor was afraid he would lose his job if he spoke up. The situation was extremely threatening and very harmful. Not only was Penn State hit with very severe punishments from the NCAA, but also they lost the trust of many people that believed in them. Penn State boasted a reputation that had academic and athletic success and integrity. People believed PSU when they said Success with Honor in the way that they would hire law-abiding employees and prevent any crimes from occurring. It is now hard for one to believe Penn State football when they say Success with Honor (Queen, 2011). The most important piece of information about this scandal is that Paterno and the PSU administration knew Sandusky was sexually abusing young boys and did hardly anything to stop it. This sex scandal reflects the former administrations values that winning football games was more important than the safety of young boys. Before this scandal occurred Penn State had a history of having issues with disciplining people apart of their football program. From 2002-2008, Penn State football players had been charged for 163 counts of crime with 45 of those counts guilty (ESPN, 2011). This goes to show that although Penn State has had a winning tradition when it

Thompson 3 comes to football, they had a tremendous amount of off-the-field issues. While most of Penn State had nothing to do with the molestations or knew that they were even happening, many individuals kept it sustainable. Penn States past of off-the-field issues was an obvious red flag that Joe Paterno and the former Penn State administration could not discipline their staff or players properly. Especially when it comes to issues related to confidentiality and crime (ESPN, 2011). Yet they were not questioned about these previous incidents and carried on with business as usual. Penn State target audiences were enabling, functional, and diffused audiences. Their enabling audiences would be people such as alumni. Functional audiences would be the students, staff and faculty of the University. They need to keep the University together if they want to make it through this tragedy. Their diffused audiences would be people that live in Pennsylvania and the media. The diffused audiences such as young boys in Pennsylvania were attacked by Sandusky so it is very crucial that PSU addresses this audience. The media is also an important enabling diffused audiences because when an organization goes through a crisis, they need to have an organizational spokesperson tell the media what is going on early on. This will help an organization because it will help them make friends with the media. An organization wants to have the media on their side because they can frame an organization to the public in a good or bad way. By giving the media accurate information early on in the crisis, they are more likely to be a friend of the organization and not frame them as a villain to the public (Hoffman & Ford, 2010, p.90). Diffused, and functional audiences are all addressed in publicly released statements from the University. These would include the five promises President Rodney Erickson made when he took office and the public announcements Erickson has made via

Thompson 4 Penn States Youtube channel. Both the promises and public announcements show how deeply sorry PSU is what has happened and the University will do whatever is needed to aid the victims and cooperate with the Special Investigative Committee with this though, Erickson has emphasized moving forward and implementing changes so something this tragic will never happen again. Before looking towards a brighter future though, Erickson says that the Sandusky scandal must be handled in the right manner. The first step to handling this situation correctly is attending to Sanduskys victims. (Erickson, 2011) (Penn State, 2011). Penn State will have many constraints from this scandal. The first constraint is not the fact that the scandal happened, but the fact Penn State knew it happened yet failed to stop it. This will permanently stain Penn State footballs reputation because they could have protected those children by firing Sandusky and reporting him to government officials but failed to do so. PSU even gave Sandusky emeritus status when he retired in 1999, after there was a report in 1998 of him inappropriately touching a young boy in Penn State football showers (Chappell, 2012). His emeritus status meant that he still had full access to the University football facilities whenever he pleased. Penn State knew this man should not be trusted alone on University facilities yet they still allowed him to do whatever he wanted (Chappell, 2012). A second constraint that Penn State is the trust they have lost from some people. The lost of trust along with the sanctions the NCAA handed out to PSU are already taking a toll on their ability to recruit high school players to come to Penn State. As of August 2012, five PSU recruits have chosen to decommit from the Nittany Lions. One of the five players includes Dorian Johnson, who is ranked the second best offensive tackle in the nation for the class of 2013 (Shanker and Moyer,

Thompson 5 2012). It is difficult to get the fans to regain trust in the football program again when future players are leaving the team. While there have been many horrible things that have happened to Penn State from this scandal, many of their current fans and players have remained loyal to them. This is an advantage for them because it shows the world that the Penn State community is demonstrating strength and unity. Fans have said they are more determined than ever to support their Nittany Lions and it will take something bigger than this to tear them apart (Gelston, 2012). To prove this, Penn State received more than $208 million in donations for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2012. Not only did the quality of donations from fans increase, but also the quantity. The number of Penn State donors rose slightly to over 191,000 (MSNBC, 2012). Along with this, more than 90% of the roster stayed at PSU even after the NCAA issues the severe punishments for the Sandusky Scandal (Gelston, 2012). The Jerry Sandusky Scandal has been one of the worst scandals in the history of sports. As we have seen above, before this scandal unfolded in November 2011, the culture at Penn State was a mess and Joe Paterno was the king. Paterno and the Penn State administration were hit with an awful tragedy when their coworker Jerry Sandusky was accused of inappropriately touching young boys in 1998. However, Paterno and his staff did not handle the situation properly. The result was many other boys went on to be sexually abused by Sandusky. Due to this, Jerry Sandusky will most likely die in prison and Penn State will have to deal with the long-term consequences of a man and a former administration that failed to put the safety children ahead of football

Thompson 6 The Hot Seat of Hell Since November of last year, Penn State has been handling the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal. Two ways Penn State President Rodney Erickson has addressed the nation regarding this scandal is by talking about the situation many times in short videos and making a page on the schools website. The page has a list of five promises that President Erickson plans to use in going forward with what has happened (Erickson, 2011). Along with this, the Board of Curators issued a report on national television immediately after the sanctions from the NCAA were given to Penn State (PBS News Hour, 2012). Both the videos and the page on the Universitys website containing the five promises are clear examples of how Penn State University (PSU) utilized Aristotles means of persuasion (Pathos, Ethos, Logos) in an attempt to address the unfortunate event and to provide answers to the community. In the following pages, I will describe how these means of persuasion are present in the messages that PSU issued in the midst of the Sandusky scandal. Pathos is defined as an appeal to values and emotions so that the audience will believe in the speaker or organization (Hoffman & Ford, 2010, p.3). It can be any rhetoric that attempts to get the audience to identify with an organization. An organization can do this by sharing the same values with their audience. The ultimate goal of pathos is for the audience to be driven to take a specified course of action after listening to the organization. The artifacts in this paper have shown President Erickson saying We are Penn State multiple times. He is doing this to find common ground with the audience. Another way Pathos is seen is when Erickson tells the victims of Sandusky This has been one of the saddest weeks in the history of Penn State my heart goes out to those that

Thompson 7 have been victimized. I share your anger and sorrow (ESPN, 2011). He wants to be seen as empathetic to the victims and that he condemns football being put ahead of child abuse. Sharing similarities with the audience helps an organization identify with the audience because no longer are they seen as an outsider. Penn State also appealed to pathos by taking responsibility for their actions. The Board of Curators could have easily pointed their fingers at Sandusky, Paterno, Schultz, or Curley and said its their responsibility therefore the blame should be put on them. However, the Board of Curators and President took responsibility and made a value appeal by saying: We are accountable for whats happened here. We failed to ask the right questions, the tough questions or to take definitive action. Put simply, we did not force the issue (PBS News Hour, 2012). To address the damage that has been done, President Erickson is committed to being respectful and sensitive to the Sandusky victims and their families. However, the past is the past and actions must be taken so this does not happen again. President Erickson plans to raise broader awareness on the issue of sexual abuse. A question that was on the mind of many people was what the future of Penn State would entail. A situation such as this can cause much uncertainty and needs to be addressed. Penn State did this by emphasizing in the artifacts that they will become a stronger and better community from this tragic incident. This can be seen when President Erickson stated in one of his videos that We remain committed to our core values and we will rebuild the trust, honor, and pride that have endured for generations. Please join me in this effort. We are Penn State (Penn State, 2011). The PSU president Board of Curators has given their community a light of hope that things will get better and they will rebuild. Penn States objective here was to show the public that they share the same values with them. These

Thompson 8 values are things such as responsibility, good ethics, accountability, and ending child sex abuse. Aristotles second cannon of rhetoric is Ethos. This is anything done by the rhetoric to enhance the credibility of the organization (Hoffman & Ford, 2010, p.3). One primary way an organization appeals to ethos is by demonstrating competence which is understood as when an organization can accomplish its goals-that it can produce a product or deliver a service that meets societal standards (Hoffman & Ford, 2010, p.27). Penn State did this by having credible speakers or sources vouch for the rhetoric they are trying to put across because audiences typically believe the words of experts or people they respect (Durham Tech, 2011). Penn State appealed to ethos by using the recommendations from Judge David Freeh (former director of the FBI) for making Penn State a better and safe campus. Mr.Freeh offered 119 recommendations for how to make Penn State a safer and better campus. The Board of Curators stated that they are working on implementing these policies into Penn State (PBS News Hour, 2012). This is a clear appeal to show competence because Freeh conducted the formal investigation on the Jerry Sandusky scandal. He has both the credentials and knowledge to access the situation. Freehs recommendations are designed to create a more open and compliant culture, which protects children and not adults who abuse them (Freeh, 2011). When Penn State says that the policies they are planning to implement are from a man that held that high of a position, it makes the recommendations seem credible. The FBI (especially one with an upper-level position) helps Penn State to be seen as competent to handle this situation because the FBI is seen to many as a credible source when it comes to stopping and preventing child abuse. This makes them relevant to the situation because stopping

Thompson 9 and preventing child sex-abuse is the overall goal of the new PSU. A second element that organizations use to appeal to ethos after a scandal such as this is being involved in the community. However for this to be accepted an organization must demonstrate that it operates as a responsible member of the larger community (Hoffman & Ford, 2010, p.28). Penn State gave back to the community after this scandal by raising awareness of child sex-abuse. To raise awareness, PSU is hosting a national child sex-abuse conference, wearing blue ribbons on the teams football helmets, and creating the Center for the protection of children. Along with this they have given $1.5 million in bowl revenues to the Pennsylvania Coalition against Rape (ESPN, 2012). Penn State does not only want to make the campus itself a better place, but the whole state of Pennsylvania as well. The third and final canon of rhetoric that Penn State used to address the Jerry Sandusky scandal is Logos. This means to persuade the audience with strong claims and reasoning (Hoffman & Ford, 2010, p.3). PSU used inductive reasoning in many of its artifacts evidence. Inductive reasoning begins with specific instances accepted by the audience, and ends with a more general conclusion that had not been accepted by the audience before they saw or heard the argument (Hoffman & Ford, 2010, p.39). An example of this would be if a political figure made a comment that was misinterpreted by the audience and they issued a statement trying to fix the situation in hopes of clarifying what they actually meant to say. In applying this situation to Penn State, some people may think after this whole scandal that the administration and Board of Curators are greedy and lied about the situation so they could keep the revenue flowing into the school. However, President Erickson and the Board are coming out and saying that they

Thompson 10 did not know about this scandal. Yes, they are taking responsibility for what happened. But they do not want people to make the assumptions that they promoted the child abuse or did not try to stop it. Penn State is trying to get rid of this cloud over their head with all of what they have done and said in response to this scandal. In many of Penn States artifacts they emphasized rebuilding the University from this scandal. The only way this can be done is by implementing better policies in the future such as the ones given in the Freeh report. Some of the recommendations include President Ericksons plans to establish an Ethics Office that will report directly to him, being in better contact with the University Administration and hold the administration more accountable. One of the big reasons this scandal was so long is because of the lack of communication between the Board of Curators and former administration. The Board failed to ask the tough questions and let the former administration get by lying. This time around PSU knows that it is important to keep one another accountable by asking the tough questions (PBS News Hour, 2012). Penn State used a few different ways to show the serious tone of the message. One element that that can be seen in all three of PSUs videos was President Ericksons eye contact and facial expressions. For the entire duration of all the videos, he always looked directly into the camera, rarely blinked, and always kept a straight face. He did this because many Americans think that if one is on camera, one must show respect and credibility through eye contact and a lower and serious tone. One is more likely to believe in what they are actually saying if they look directly into the camera with a serious face (Penn State 2011). Penn State used a variety of ways to deliver their message to the public. One of

Thompson 11 them can be found on the home page of Penn State President Rodney Erickson on the University website. The page shows five promises that Erickson plans to use to guide himself in his presidency at PSU. A second source was from the Penn State Board of Curators in July 2012 responding to the sanctions Penn State received from the NCAA. President Erickson can be found multiple times speaking on YouTube in regards to the scandal. All these video clips seemed to have benefited Penn State because it allowed for more audiences to be reached. This was helpful because anybody that may be curious about how Penn State has responded to this situation can simply look for this video at anytime. Penn States used their University website, Youtube channel, and an address to the country on national television because they needed to reach as many individuals as possible regarding this tragedy. This scandal has spread rapidly throughout the country and many people know about it. The term Penn State scandal has over 12 million hits when it is searched on Google. The wording for both the videos and five promises by the President were very indirect. It could be seen that President Erickson was not directly referring to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. However, it is very obvious when he says in the wake of this tragedy that he is referring to it. The following is an example with just one of the promises he gave to show this: My administration will provide whatever resources, access, and information are needed to support the Special Committees investigation (Erickson, 2011, Page 1). With a little common knowledge, one can easily tell that he is referring to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. The tone and wording of all the speeches, made it seem as if Penn State was talking in a way where they had accepted the truth of the awful tragedy that has occurred. Along with this, much empathy and sorrow could be seen. Penn State wanted to have a connection with their viewers so they could

Thompson 12 prove that they know the pain that has been caused and do not want to feel that way again. Much work is still to be done to restore hope and dignity into the Penn State community and to the world after this terrible scandal. Penn State continues to work on competence and credibility in their response to this via ethos, pathos, logos, style, and delivery. Can Penn State rebound and grow as a University from this? Only time will tell how Penn States rhetoric impacts their goal to become a better PSU.