Joe Paterno, head football coach of the Nittany Lions for 45 years, lost his job after failing to report child sex abuse to legal authorities. He did alert proper university authorities.

As you have probably heard by now, Penn State’s illustrious football program is in shambles following allegations that several boys were molested by Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator, in a Penn State facility as part of a program hosted by the school.

The school officials’ decision not to report the assault to the police is disappointing, shocking, and unfathomable for many.

The events are not only an embarrassment to the school, but raise serious issues about the school’s quality of ethics in its leaders. The university fired legendary coach Joe Paterno and several other high-ranking officials since they failed to report the abuse to authorities.

A letter from Penn State University president Rodney Erickson stated his commitment to reinforce the moral imperative of doing the right thing, to lead by example, to be transparent during investigations, to respect the victims and their families, and to provide resources to help prevent future attacks.

Sadly, however, this is not the first time Penn State (and other colleges and universities nationally) has turned a blind eye to sexual offenses. It’s common practice, according to a 2010 report by the Center for Public Integrity.

46 forcible sex offenses were reported at Penn State from 2008-2010 as part of the Clery Act, yet only two were deemed actual offenses by Pennsylvania State Police. No arrests were made.

So the questions are:

How do we ensure that our leaders lead with integrity? That power is held through doing what is morally and ethically correct? That our children are raised in a world of upstanders instead of bystanders and abusers?

How are you starting the conversation in your classrooms or homes? Does one bad act make someone a bad person? How is character fostered, and how can it be shattered? What’s more important: reputation or character?

What can character educators and leaders do to better stress doing what is morally and ethically right, rather than just doing what is legal?

Matthew Davidson, leading researcher and expert on excellence and ethics, posted an interesting and insightful reaction to this case. Read it here.

Share your thoughts here. We care what you have to say!

Friday, May 15, 2009 4:28 PM
Hi Marvin,
Thanks for the feedback. There was much discussion on the panel [the Blue Ribbon Panel who selects the National Schools of Character]  this year about extrinsic motivation (they were tougher on this than sometimes in the past) and about integration into the curriculum and wanting to see sample lessons.
Janice

Friday, May 15, 2009 5:30 PM
Janice,
Integration into the curriculum in prepared lessons is vastly overrated. (1) For novice schools, it is very hard to do. (2) For mature schools, it is constantly spontaneously addressed in academic lessons.
Marvin

Friday, May 15, 2009 4:48 PM
Marvin,
What about the ones in the middle? Are you saying people shouldn’t look at their curriculums and find ways to integrate? That’s a whole different message from what I hear from other experts. As a former high school English teacher, I think I could point to specific content where I addressed character and moral issues. I agree that it doesn’t have to be a blow by blow description in a book somewhere. Although if teachers saw that the district had done that, they would get a strong message that it is an expectation.
Janice

Friday, May 15, 2009 5:51 PM
Janice,
Not saying it should not be done. Just saying that intellectual discussions of character probably only impact moral reasoning and moral knowledge, but not values, motives, social competencies, etc. So it is a good strategy, but less important than creating a social climate of respect, caring, etc. that is lived out by all community members.
Marvin

Sat May 16, 2009 2:53 AM
I agree, I agree. The social climate is the most important part.
Janice

Janice,
Was thinking about our exchange this AM. One thing most people don’t seem to “get” about character ed and academics is that character ed actually promotes academic achievement. When they do get that, they assume it is because we integrate character ed into the academic content. There are two nuances to this. First, the content does not have to be about character (Ron Berger never thought he was a character educator until Tom Lickona pointed it out). Second, it is more about the pedagogy than the content.

Integration is most effective when we teach academic content (any academic content) through character-building methods; e.g., a pedagogy of empowerment (student-generated service learning projects), a pedagogy of collaboration (cooperative learning was found to promote character development well before character ed got its hands on it…look at how many best practices are about collaborative work), a pedagogy of relevance (content that is connected to the lives of students), etc. This is where the rubber really hits the road.

Now, I think it is still a booster shot (turbo-charging?) if you also mine the character specific content in the academic curriculum at the same time (Ron Berger does many of his projects around service to others, but not all of them).

And finally, peer discussion of ethical issues does promote socio-moral critical thinking capacities.

Well, it is 8 AM on Saturday, so I better go to the gym (soccer senior olympics in a week and I am still rehabbing a muscle tear) and then do chores.
Marvin

Sat May 16, 2009 4:04 PM
Marvin,
Thanks for your very thoughtful analysis. I agree with you 100% re academic achievement. But if we want people who are honest, etc., we have to talk about moral issues at some point. Through the curriculum is a logical place, yes?

Good luck on your senior Olympics competition. I just got back from a 60-mile bike ride and I’m whipped.
Best,
Janice

Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:43 AM
Janice
I disagree (not about being whipped by the bike ride). There is too much research in disparage arenas that suggests that learning ABOUT a content is not a very powerful impact on character related to the content (e.g., preventing unhealthy behaviors, participating in public service or civic arenas, honesty and other character issues). It doesn’t hurt, but the real change in the heart and hand comes from how others treat you, the models others present, the experiences you have related to those contents (e.g., working collaboratively alongside others), and from direct mastery of SEL skills you need to act effectively in those ways (e.g., peer resistance to drug overtures).Learning ABOUT helps in providing accurate information (social norming in drug prevention so kids know how much is actually used) and discussions of it help stimulate critical thinking about those contents (e.g., moral dilemma discussions promote moral reasoning competencies). But in the latter case, it is the wedding of the content with the pedagogy that matters, not just exposure to the content.

I know this stuff gets pretty complex and that is why I say character ed IS rocket science and why so many fall so short in effective implementation. They simply don’t know why they are doing what they are doing nor know what really works.
Marvin

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:13 PM
Hi Marvin,
I don’t disagree with you at all that learning ABOUT a content doesn’t change behavior. However, learning content from a teacher the student respects, admires, etc. is another story. I’m just arguing that the content needs to be there.
Janice

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:47 PM
Glad to stir up a controversy. I would argue that learning physics from a teacher who is respectful, responsible, caring etc. would promote character development whereas learning character from a teacher who is not a role model will not (and in fact will hurt). Sure, both together are ideal, but I think more of the developmental power comes from what others do and not from what they say (and there is data to back me up).
Marvin

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:28 AM
No controversy here. I agree with you 100%, but the physics teacher would be even more successful in teaching values if he/she also talked about/taught them. I know you agree.
Janice

–John Maxwell, leadership and management author

Recently, we have witnessed and celebrated the heroics of two captains.  The first was Captain “Sully” Sullenberger, who successfully landed his jet on the Hudson River and then made sure that every passenger was safely out of the cabin before stepping to safety himself.   The other was Captain Richard Phillips.  He surrendered himself to pirates off the coast of Africa to protect his crew.  These incidents could have been tragic, but they turned out okay.

Both captains were in positions of leadership.  They were responsible for the lives of others.  And, when tested under the most stressful of circumstances, they demonstrated great character.  They both put others ahead of themselves, risking their own lives in the process.   The two men further demonstrated good character after the fact.  Many of us were struck by their genuine humility and thought it was so nice to see them recognize others involved in their two miracles—the “true heroes,” as they called them.

In an editorial following the rescue, three different leadership scholars commented on the actions of Captain Phillips.  One of them said, “Wow.  What remarkable courage.  Not many people would have done that.”  The other two basically said that he merely did what was expected of any captain. 

I disagree. If Captain Phillips’ behavior was merely the expected, then why don’t we see such behavior more often? 

My hunch is that neither Captain Sully nor Captain Phillips had to even think about what to do at “crunch time.”  Instead, they likely just responded on instinct to do the right thing.  That is true with all people of good character.  As Aristotle observed, we are what we repeatedly do.  Although I don’t know it for a fact, I also have a hunch that both captains were raised to do what was right, and then had it reinforced later in school, for example at the Air Force Academy, in the case of Captain Sully.

Good character is more than talk or a title.  It is doing what is right, especially when the stakes are high. Maxwell said, “Adversity forms a crossroads that makes a person choose one of two paths:  compromise or character.”  These two captains were at a crossroad of adversity.   They were tested but did not compromise.  They chose character and did the right thing.    

Wouldn’t be great if everyone, especially our current “Captains of Industry,” were cut from the same cloth as Captain Sully and Captain Richards and put others ahead of themselves?  How can we ensure that children growing up today will have this strength of character?

Joe Mazzola

Executive Director, CEP

This year’s conference will feature many exciting and motivational speakers, for information on the upcoming conference please visit CEP’s official website. Also, be sure to add this blog to your RSS feed and please feel free to contribute your comments on articles found here. We hope to extend CEP’s Forum on Character throughout the year and create a presence for ongoing sharing and collbaoration.

http://www.character.org/cepforum