Protecting the Brand

The cartoon in today’s Sioux City Journal shows a man labeled NCCA pulling down a statue labeled “Culture of Football First.”  I certainly find some truth in that assessment of the Penn State conspiracy to shelter Jerry Sandusky and thereby allow him to continue to abuse young boys.

 I just happened upon something I wrote six years ago when Dordt was devoting oodles of attention and publicity to its newly created football program.  In response to an email critical of my criticism of this policy, I wrote: “You know, on many college campuses, football teams act as if they can live by their own set of laws.  What promotes that?  Well one thing might be the inordinate amount of attention we lavish on them.” So, the cartoon makes a valid point.  Still, it seems to me that the NCAA is, to a certain extent, a pot calling the kettle black.  For it has done as much as any group to promote this insane sports culture that governs many colleges and universities.

Having said that, though, I want to move on to a broader assessment of the problem.  After all it was not just Joe Paterno and the AD that participated in the cover-up.  The president of the college was also involved.  I believe that this cover-up was about more than sports.  It was about protecting the brand, the Penn State brand. 

Why did the president participate in the cover-up?  Was it just to placate Paterno and protect the football program?  I believe it was bigger than that.  He was worried about the negative effect exposure would have on the college itself.  It would blemish the university’s image.  Enrollment might be affected.  Revenue would be down.  So the president looked the other way.  It’s not so different from what the CEO of British Petroleum did when oil was gushing into the Gulf of Mexico:  Pretend nothing bad really happened or is happening—lie if necessary—and maybe it will go away. (Honda’s CEO tried to do the same thing a couple of years back.) The all important thing for a business or corporation, always, is to protect the brand.  In the end, for Honda, British Petroleum and Penn State, it becomes clear that facing the problem head on when it occurred would have been the best policy.

I don’t know much about large corporations—though I read and watch enough news to realize that they all have a special person—usually a woman—who attempts to distance the corporation or business from any problem or accusation that is associated with their brand.  Often they succeed; sometimes they fail.  But the technique always is to deny or deflect as much as possible.  To protect the brand. 

I know a little more about educational institutions.  I have watched them move gradually down a slope over the last forty years from being schools to being businesses.  A college I attended back in the sixties was so indifferent to enrollment numbers that it gave a rigorous grammar and writing exam at the end of the Freshman year with the explicit intent of weeding out those students who were not college material.  My point, of course, is that when the college is not engaged in a competitive business, it can do what it believes is right with no concern about selling its product or protecting the brand.  (Doesn’t that have an ugly sound when it’s associated with education—as if Philosophy and Chemistry and Mathematics are part of a brand.)

But gradually, colleges and universities became businesses.  “Faculty” became “employees;” their voice on matters of policy was muted or ignored. Presidents and provosts seemed most concerned with enrollment numbers and fund raising.  Students were called consumers.  College recruiters and marketers developed marketing strategies and focused on the college brand.

Many of these changes may have been inevitable and unavoidable—I don’t know.  What frightens me, however, is the headlong embrace of all things associated with the corporate world. One of these things is a method of dealing with issues of ethics and morality that is usuallly pragmatic rather than principled.