Penn State Penalties
Ten yard penalty, first down!
Just kidding.
A tipster writes with a list of the unfolding NCAA penalties on Penn State owing to the Sandusky child sex abuse scandal:
— $60 million fine
— banned from bowl games for 4 years
— scholarships reduced from 25 to 15 per year for 4 years
— transfers allowed immediately with no wait-out
— academic standards maintained
— Penn State football record from 1998-2011 altered
— formal reforms and reviews required as set forth in the Freeh report
— report to the NCAA on Penn State’s progress in making changes for 5 years
— no death penalty
$60 million, I’m told, is one year’s worth of gross revenues for the football program.
The immediate transfers provision seems close to a death penalty in practice, under the circumstances. According to the L.A. Times, the alteration of the historical football record means all wins are vacated — meaning Joe Paterno is no longer the winningest coach in history.
I think the ironic fallout is that these penalties, rather than Paterno’s inaction, are likely to be what changes locals’ views of Paterno.
I had to remove JD’s cross post. Sorry, JD!
Patterico (feda6b) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:35 amMy bad
JD (d1dc14) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:35 amI’m actually somewhat skeptical about the whole ‘blame Paterno’ thing.
The current leadership of Penn State were in second-tier leadership positions during the scandal. I am almost positive that they not only knew about the situation but were the ones carrying out the top tier folks’ instructions to hush things up. Now with the former top tier folks facing jail time, the second tier folks have *immense* self-interest in covering their backsides and shifting as much of the blame away from themselves personally as they can.
Who better to serve as the fall guy than a dead person who can no longer defend himself? Shift as much of the blame to Paterno as possible, scream the loudest about how awful Paterno was for letting Sandusky get away with things in the interest of winning and how bad things were that a legendary coach could through sheer hero-worship cause otherwise concientious and honest administrators like them to be sadly led astray oh woe oh woe not our fault!
These people didn’t blink an eye for *years* over Sandusky raping kids. I do not ascribe ANY benefit of the doubt to them, if they said the sky is blue, I will look outside to check.
The Freeh report doesn’t convince me at all, Louis Freeh has a history of saying whatever his patrons want him to say, and this just smells of a whitewash of the current crop of administrators to keep their fetid backsides from having to do perp walks.
Sunhawk (a80c29) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:37 amThe NCAA focuses on punishing institutions, and they just whacked PennState.
JD (d1dc14) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:41 am“I think the ironic fallout is that these penalties, rather than Paterno’s inaction, are likely to be what changes locals’ views of Paterno.”
Judging from the comments at the Patriot News website I think you are being optimistic.
glenn (877ee1) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:45 amNot at all. They went up at pretty much exactly the same time.
Patterico (feda6b) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:45 am==– Penn State football record from 1998-2011 altered==
Does anybody know exactly how this works with the record books of the other schools? While it’s a minor issue in the bigger scheme of things, since Paterno became the “winningest coach” ever on the win against a team that is rather near and dear to me I am especially curious about this aspect of the punishment.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:50 amOne question I have is: Could Paterno have been charged with anything if he had lived? Did influencing the Penn State hierarchy not to report Sandusky to law enforcement after the 2001 shower incident make Paterno liable to criminal charges?
As a (former) long-time football fan, I agree with Patterico that the penalties given to Penn State today will cause the locals to have a negative view of Paterno when his covering for Sandusky did not.
DN (5030ad) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:55 am“I think the ironic fallout is that these penalties, rather than Paterno’s inaction, are likely to be what changes locals’ views of Paterno.”
I don’t think this will change minds per se. The Catholic Church is just as big and powerful and with increasing membership post-child abuse scandals.
True believers are the world’s best deniers – no matter what evidence stares them in the face. Anything and everything can be rationalized or ignored. It takes a lot of inner strength and willingness to admit misplaced loyalties are just that.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:59 amSunhawk-
CNN recently had an excellent article about a woman dean named Tripony (sp?) who was hired by Penn State to help fix the football culture and was then forced from her job when she actually tried to do it. The article gives a pretty good insight into the ubiquitous role Paterno had at Penn State and how far his power and influence went. If you can google the article and read it, it may change your view on Paterno as “scapegoat”. I think JoePa did do many good things at Penn State and that many students do feel he changed their lives for the better. But when it really counted, Joe Paterno failed as a true leader and as a man.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:02 amScapegoats are much more useful when they are unable — by virtue of being conveniently dead, for instance — to refute the responsibility that has been heaped upon them.
Icy (b03626) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:02 amDo I think Paterno is blameless? Not at all, he was the leader, he should have handled the situation appropriately. Do I think he’s the ravening monster that the current crop of administrators are trying to paint him as in order to save their own skins? Nope.
I *do not trust* the current Penn State leadership in the slightest. That school needs a very thorough disinfecting from top to bottom with it’s administration put under a microscope and hammered flat.
This is classic scapegoating of somebody in no position to defend himself by guilty individuals with neither concience nor remorse who will do anything to save their own skins.
Sunhawk (a80c29) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:13 amElissa #7,
I’m not sure how it works but when USC was sanctioned over Reggie Bush, it lost its 2004 national championship but that didn’t mean Oklahoma was moved up as winner. This report says there was no BCS champion for 2004.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:18 amOf course, the USC sanctions were similar to these against Penn State — except for the money — and USC is doing fine.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:20 amPenn state did more than turn a blind eye to the abuse. At least the Catholic church attempted to move the bad priests around to different parishes to reduce the abuse, though obviously not effectively. (I am not trying to condemn or condone the churches actions, only pointing at the differences).
Not only did Penn state allow him to participate in the youth football camps, but allowed facilitated his charity for wayward boys.
Joe (a00dc1) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:21 am_____________________________________________
are likely to be what changes locals’ views of Paterno.
When I think of all the people in society who are either nonchalant about or supportive of those 4 justices on the Supreme Court who several years ago ruled that the Boy Scouts of America must change its bylaws so that gay males are no longer forbidden from becoming Troop leaders, I’d say those people you’re pointing out are very, very likely to reflect the mindset in question.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:25 am____________________________________________
I am not trying to condemn or condone the churches actions
The Catholic church deserves to and should be condemned, period. If an act of child molestation doesn’t make them want to immediately trigger ex-communication, than just how egregious does a person’s behavior have to be before they do act?
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:30 amMark: wow. I think it’s entirely possible to believe that gay men might be good scoutmasters, and to believe that legally the BSA should be required to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, *without* being the kind of person who would turn a blind eye to sexual abuse of children.
But then again, I’m a gay man. So it’s almost certain that i’m biased against the belief that gay are *per se* a threat to children.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:32 amSunhawk: I agree with you about the current leadership being untrustworthy and almost certainly having been complicit in the situation.
That said, I think Paterno deserves the blame that’s been heaped on him. In some ways it’s a tragedy; he did a lot of good for a lot of people and yet in the end betrayed himself and everything he stood for by not standing up against child abuse by one of his own. It would be fascinating, I suspect, to learn what character flaw caused him to do this, and to know the rationalization he used to justify it and the rationale for believing that what he was doing was OK – fascinating on the level that character flaws are basically *always* fascinating for what they reveal about the complexity of humans.
But whatever the rationale was, there was no excuse. This man had the power to stop the sexual abuse of *many* children, and he did not take use it, even though he knew the abuse was going on. Whatever his rationale, whatever the flaw underlying his failure, at the end of the day these are irrelevant; he failed in his responsibility to protect children. He deserves *every bit* of the opprobrium he’s earned for it.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:37 amI had to remove JD’s cross post. Sorry, JD!
Comment by Patterico — 7/23/2012 @ 7:35 am
It must have been a horrible thing. Too hard on the eyes, mind, and soul to stand.
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:45 am________________________________________________
and to believe that legally the BSA should be required to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,
And I guess the Boy Scouts should also be forced to change its bylaws so that, say, couples from Swingers clubs or involved in multi-partner relationships (eg, devout Islamicists or obscure segments of Mormonism) can’t be frowned upon too. After all, non-monogamous behavior is no less of a very innate, biological aspect of male sexuality.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:48 amThe Catholic Church always allows for sinners to confess and repent. It’s only the unrepentant who are excommunicated. If all Catholics were excommunicated when they sinned, there would be very few Catholics left.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:52 amMark: your comment in #21 appears to be an response to the *substance* of the claim that the BSA is (or should be) legally required to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
My comment in 18 was not intended to argue the question of whether the four dissenters in BSA v Dale were *right*. It was intended to argue against the implication that anyone who supports them are “very, very likely” to support the mindset that turns a blind eye to the abuse of children.
I’m happy to discuss the merits of BSA v Dale with you. But I am *unwilling* to do so until you address my primary argument. It’s an absurd allegation that anyone who supports the four dissenters in Dale is “very likely” to be the kind of person who would blindly support someone who is known to have turned a blind eye to the abuse of children.
Please either withdraw or substantiate the claim.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:53 amMark,
I think aphael’s point is that it doesn’t make sense to raise the Boy Scout topic here unless you believe the reason gays are banned from leadership roles is that they are more likely to be pedophiles like Sandusky.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:53 amMark and aphrael,
Where I’m at, the “scoutmasters” are women, whose own sons are in the troop. Human beings are adaptable. And there is no constitutional right to being a scoutmaster.
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:54 amJoe Paterno may have been powerful and influential, but that’s not a crime. And I get the general whiff of scandal surrounding the football program. What I haven’t seen is any hint Paterno knew of the specifics of Sandusky’s crimes.
Not, I must stress, I’m at all resistant to the possibility. It’s just that at the moment, from all I’ve seen, that’s all it is. A possibility.
It’s a very convenient possibility from the POV of the defendants who’d like to obscure their own guilt in the matter. And maybe Paterno did play a role in this that’s larger than what I’ve seen demonstrated so far.
In which case they ought to tear down his statue. But then I’m not big on putting up statues for football coaches in the first place. At least not until they’re safely dead and can no longer embarrass you.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:55 amDRJ, that too, although I’m trying to refrain from jumping to that conclusion. It’s possible – although very difficult – for me to read his comment without inferring that conclusion, so I’m trying very hard not to. 🙂
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:55 amFrom talking to some Penn State fans, they won’t change their mind about Paterno- they are blaming the media and NCAA.
And rightly so.
Matt B (f854d7) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:56 amI should let you speak for yourself, aphrael, but thanks for clarifying that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:57 amDRJ, in this case I very much appreciated you jumping in and speaking for me. 🙂
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:58 amAphrael–I know you are a thoughtful and reasonable guy. Have you considered that ( wrongly or not ) some parents may just not feel comfortable with a gay man scoutmastering their sons and may therefore prevent their child from participating in the wonderful scouting experience altogether? Is that fair to the kid? Should the “civil rights” of a gay scoutmaster over-ride the chance for a kid to be a scout? What if the nervous parent or a relative or friend was himself a victim of abuse–maybe he was a victimized alter boy. Are that father’s concerns all that unreasonable or discriminatory? Can you see how that might raise an issue for him with respect to his young son being mentored by a gay man who is in authority over the child?
There are many important battles to fight with respect to gay acceptance and equality. Frankly, though, I wonder if “gay scout leaders” are really the right hill for the cause to die on. I’m interested in your thoughts on this.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:00 amSorry if my last comment is too far off-topic. (i.e. about scouting rather than Penn State) I just thought I’d ask about it while Aphrael was around.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:03 amWe don’t need “what ifs”, elissa. It’s our kid, we want him or her in as normal a situation as possible. The burden is on “them”, the benefit of the doubt is our children.
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:08 amElissa, i’m happy to engage with you on the merits of BSA v Dale. 🙂
(a) yes, some parents may not feel comfortable with a gay scoutmaster. other parents may not. I think *over time* the balance of comfort on this issue will change, and my expectation is the current scout policy will be voluntarily abandoned within a generation.
(b) I can certainly understand how someone who was abused would be more concerned. I think there’s an irrational leap from “gay” to “abuser”, but I can forgive the victim of same-sex sexual abuse for making that kind of irrational leap.
(c) I completely agree that ‘gay scout leaders’ is a bad hill to stand and fight on. I’m *far more* concerned with ‘gay boy scouts’. Which is to say, at the end of the day, I don’t care so much about the BSA not allowing gay scout leaders, but it *infuriates* me that they don’t allow gay scouts.
(d) As a *legal* matter, the tension between state anti-discrimination laws and freedom of association rules is very, very difficult. The precedent from the Rotary club case left the BSA’s lawyer arguing, in Dale, that the BSA is exempt from the general non-discrimination statute *because it exists to promote a message* and because part of that message is *specifically* that there’s something wrong with being gay, so admitting gay people is inconsistent with that message and New Jersey couldn’t constitutionally force them to do it.
I have a problem with this on two levels. One, I don’t think that message is actually the BSA’s message; it’s *not* what my friends who are scouts learned from scouting. Two, if it *is* the message, then they’re arguing that there’s something wrong with me, so of course i’m irritated at them. 🙂
So … I can understand that some parents would not feel comfortable. But I think that *legally*, New Jersey’s general anti-discrimination law should have applied to the BSA, because the argument that it doesn’t depends on a misrepresentation of the BSA’s core message. And yet at the end of the day, I don’t care about *scout leaders*, i’m far more concerned with gay scouts.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:11 am____________________________________________
It’s an absurd allegation that anyone who supports the four dissenters in Dale is “very likely” to be the kind of person who would blindly support someone who is known to have turned a blind eye to the abuse of children
My point is that if people aren’t truly bothered by, or can easily rationalize away behavior in one instance, they’re very liable to do that in other circumstances. If all the crud and tarnish hanging over Jerry Sandusky and, in turn, the late Joe Paterno, don’t make people very, very queasy, than I can easily see such people doing sort of a casual shrug when it comes to the ramifications of forcing a change to the bylaws of the Boy Scouts. Moreover, that’s even more the case given all the years of news and publicity about acts of pedophilia occurring in the Catholic church.
unless you believe the reason gays are banned from leadership roles is that they are more likely to be pedophiles like Sandusky.
I’m also irritated that any organization, certainly a private one, should be forced to change its policies for the same reason I’d be irritated if such a group were no longer allowed to frown upon, as I mentioned before, multi-partner relationships. Even more so since, as I said before, monogamy in some ways is more alien to male sexuality in general as homosexuality is claimed to be intrinsic to certain males in particular.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:12 amelissa,
that goes back to DRJ’s articulation of aphrael’s point. For the father’s own encounter with abuse to be relevant to this particular discussion at all, there has to be an assumption that a gay scoutmaster is more likely to abuse a child than a straight one.
What it boils down to is, how is the sexual orientation of a man or woman relevant to his/her efficacy as a scoutmaster? I feel like it only becomes relevant if one makes wholesale assumptions (stated or unstated) about particular sexual orientations.
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:19 amwhoops. cross-posted with aphrael.
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:20 amThe reports I saw about Paterno’s direct involvement in the Sandusky affair was him passing what he was told along to the administration to handle and waiting for guidance from them on how to proceed. I blame him for what he didn’t do, he didn’t proactively confront Sandusky on the allegations, he didn’t proactively act to protect the program by insisting on stricter oversight of Sandusky’s programs and behavior, and he didn’t pressure the administration to expedite their sham investigation into Sandusky’s conduct, instead he apparently felt that such was not his job, his job was to win football games.
So yes, Paterno *failed* in his duty, I blame him for that fully. But right now he’s merely the conveniently dead scapegoat for all of the failures of a criminally negligent administration that was and continues to be rotten to the core. They don’t want truth in this ‘investigation’, they want fig leaves to hide behind so that they avoid the great perp walk.
I truly believe that there is a massive divide between sins of omission, which Paterno committed IMO, and sins of commission, which the administrators engaged in.
Sunhawk (a80c29) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:21 amunless you believe the reason gays are banned from leadership roles is that they are more likely to be pedophiles like Sandusky.
Yes, they are. Of boys, despite the lack of hair. Propinquity. Men do not shower with girls.
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:24 amI think aphael’s point is that it doesn’t make sense to raise the Boy Scout topic here unless you believe the reason gays are banned from leadership roles is that they are more likely to be pedophiles like Sandusky.
— Wait a moment . . . is it possible that a gay pedophile might be drawn to joining an organization where he would be in charge of young boys out in the middle of nowhere?
Say it taint so!!!
Icy (b03626) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:24 amThanks Aphrael–I think we are in agreement that whatever their sexual orientation (assuming they know it at that point) as many young boys as possible should have the scouting experience. By that I mean learning how to make a fire, emergency first aid tactics, tying knots, reading maps, and learning to bury their poop in the woods!
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:25 am________________________________________________
The Catholic Church always allows for sinners to confess and repent. It’s only the unrepentant who are excommunicated.
But the Catholic church is made up of humans, and humans are naturally very political and full of contradictions, or can easily choose to either observe or flout standards and strictures.
I have a hunch there has been plenty of “good ol’ boys club” favoritism in the way that acts of pedophilia have been handled by the Catholic hierarchy, far more than whether the stipulation of repentance has or hasn’t occurred.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:26 amLeviticus, I think that’s a fair point: I think there’s an underlying unstated assumption that gay people are more likely to be child abusers. Certainly my suspicion that that assumption is present underlies my emotional reaction to the topic.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:26 amWhat it boils down to is, how is the sexual orientation of a man or woman relevant to his/her efficacy as a scoutmaster?
Who cares? There is no right to be a scoutmaster. Do your thing away from our kids.
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:27 amIcy, *of course* it’s possible. But it’s also possible that they’re men who were scouts as kids, who came up through the organization, earned their eagle scout award, and want to give back to their community and help the next generation of kids learn the things they learned as scouts.
So my question is: on what basis do you conclude that the openly gay man who five years ago got his eagle scout award while not openly gay is “more likely” to be a pedoophile than the straight man who got his eagle scout award?
I don’t think you *can* substantiate that conclusion.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:30 amI think the BSA should be able to ban gays from leadership roles because it conflicts with their core values. I didn’t know they also ban gay scouts. I have to think about that. It makes sense but it bothers me.
I’m still not clear on how this relates to Paterno or Penn State. Does anyone believe this would have been different if it involved female victims instead of males, other than it would have been harder to hide?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:31 am_____________________________________________
how is the sexual orientation of a man or woman relevant to his/her efficacy as a scoutmaster?
I’m not being too glib when I say that since a high percentage of people in the GLBT camp are known to be of the left, certainly socially if not economically, then that also gives me pause. I’m not being sarcastic when I say that if surveys instead indicated that 80-plus percent of gays were truly moderate to conservative, I’d be less apprehensive about their level of common sense, respect for proper boundaries and reliability in general.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:35 amOh, I forgot to list the identifying of poison ivy one, too.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:39 amFirst, I suggest that discussion of boy scouts, etc. not be included here. This topic and boy scouts are each big enough for their own threads.
Second, no matter how guilty or innocent Paterno was, he cooperated with a grand jury investigation and was not charged with anything. For the period of time after his firing while he was still alive there was enough turmoil going on I bet he was told to keep his mouth shut by attorneys, his own, the school’s, the state’s and he probably complied- whether the counsel was being given for JoePa’s benefit or other people’s benefit who knows.
Elissa, I’m just going to remind us out loud that to base an opinion on one article is problematic, unless you have 100% confidence in the writer of the article, the editor of the article, and the publisher of the publication.
Fourth, I think the bulk of evidence over the years is that Paterno did stress well-rounded humanity and academics rather than just football. I think the groundswell of support by former players point this out. All American and All Pro defensive tackle Mike Reid credited Paterno with giving him the perspective to quit Pro-football while still in relative prime because he had let football become too important in his life.
Now, the cynical person could say that Paterno thought it was all BS and it was just his tactic for recruiting. Only one who reads minds and hearts knows for sure.
Last, since Paterno has been blamed for being the main culprit, perhaps in the mind of some even on the par of Sandusky, where was he the night the DA investigating Sandusky disappeared? I mean, did Joe Pa ever take a lie detector test to show he wasn’t involved? [Sarcasm!!]
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:42 am“Leviticus, I think that’s a fair point: I think there’s an underlying unstated assumption that gay people are more likely to be child abusers. Certainly my suspicion that that assumption is present underlies my emotional reaction to the topic.”
– aphrael
I tend to agree with you, although I think there are people who would support the right of the BSA to set their own scoutmaster qualifications without making that assumption.
“Who cares? There is no right to be a scoutmaster. Do your thing away from our kids.”
– nk
Hmm. Like there’s no right to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or any profession, except that there is a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of blah blah blah which is what we’re talking about to begin with.
I don’t think anyone is arguing for the right of gay men/women to “do their thing near your kids.” Just to teach them fire science, emergency first aid tactics, tying knots, reading maps, and learning to bury their poop in the woods, like elissa said. Sexual orientation doesn’t seem to have any relevance to any of those things.
“Is it possible that a gay pedophile might be drawn to joining an organization where he would be in charge of young boys out in the middle of nowhere? ”
– Icy
Is it possible that a straight pedophile might be similarly drawn? No one’s arguing against vetting. Just irrational, discriminatory vetting.
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:44 amWhy take a chance, even if you think it’s close to zero?
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:48 amaphrael, my point is NOT that gay men in general are more likely to be pedophiles; it IS that gay men that seek to be put in charge of young boys must be scrutinized to the Nth degree.
Icy (b03626) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:48 amRather see all queers figuratively butt-hurt than one child literally.
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:52 am… Irrational, discriminatory vetting, which places primary importance on irrelevant standards which can blind the vetting party to otherwise troublesome signs, and can therefore become self-defeating.
Jerry Sandusky seems overly fond of little kids? No worries – he’s straight! Got a wife and kids and everything.
(And no, Mark – this is not me saying that Sandusky was secretly gay and if only officials had realized it in time they could have prevented this. This is me saying that Sandusky actually was straight, and a pedophile. Placing undue emphasis on irrelevant risk indicators like gay/not gay could have blinded people to that.)
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:52 am“it IS that gay men that seek to be put in charge of young boys must be scrutinized to the Nth degree.”
– Icy
Let’s test that: do you believe that a gay man has as much right and deserves the same scrutiny as a straight man each hoping to be a counselor at a summer camp with children of both genders?
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:55 amMark my apologies for misunderstanding my comment. I agree that the catholic church should be condemned. I was only trying to compare and contrast the different circumstances.
Joe (a00dc1) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:57 amThe problem with impacting an institution is that you are impacting the individuals at the institution NOW, not the ones who were responsible. You do not impact star football players who can go play elsewhere, you impact people who run businesses in State College that thrive on the fans that come. You impact students when good faculty members decide to go elsewhere if they can get better pay and better facilities because of the overall financial health of the institution.
What you don’t impact with the given penalties is the share of TV revenue the NCAA and member schools get when Penn State football is televised nationally because people are interested in how the team/the players respond. I would be more impressed with the NCAA ruling if they declared they would put their share of Penn State related TV revenue with the 60 million they are telling Penn State to put up.
Sometimes an institution needs to be reprimanded, but at some point people need to take responsibility themselves. “I was in the German Army” was not allowed to be an excuse, neither should be “I was afraid of the football coach” (except for the missing DA, as said above-snark).
Are we going to continue the boy scouts, gay, etc. stuff here? I’d request (again) an additional thread for clarity and simplicity sake.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:58 amI will stop discussing the Boy Scout stuff here if we can get another thread for it. I can see MD’s point that there will be important Penn State points lost in the shuffle if the BSA issue becomes the primary topic.
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:01 am==I’m just going to remind us out loud that to base an opinion on one article is problematic, unless you have 100% confidence in the writer of the article, the editor of the article, and the publisher of the publication==
A fair reminder, MD in Philly. As I assume everyone here already knows, I have a very low level of trust in the news media in general and their editing/fact checking in particular. I do have a slightly higher level of confidence in Dean Vicky Triponey’s competence and ethics, though, based on her quoted statements in the piece I referenced above, and from statements about her elsewhere by other of her colleagues. If you had time to read the article was there something in particular that seemed “off” to you or did not ring true? It is hard for me not to view her as another victim of Happy Valley & Co as many sought to isolate and discredit her and ultimately to get rid of her for doing the job she signed on for.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:05 amThere are no important Penn State points.
Penn State and NCAA made tons of money from teenage athletes who would never make pro or get an education;
Paterno ran the program;
One of his coaches molested little boys for a long time;
Paterno and Penn State ignored it because they liked the big bucks;
NCAA did too;
NCAA and Penn State still want the big bucks.
The remaining conclusions are yours.
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:10 amMD,
By your reasoning, we shouldn’t have sanctioned Exxon for the Valdez oil spill because it would hurt innocent employees.
The real question is whether Penn State’s educational and philanthropic mission should insulate it from sanctions like this. I say it shouldn’t, but I can see that argument.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:10 am______________________________________________
you believe the reason gays are banned from leadership roles is that they are more likely to be pedophiles like Sandusky.
There appears to be a greater — not absolute, but greater — propensity to pedophilia if a person is (1) male, and (2) homosexual or certainly bisexual.
I’ve come across some studies that attempt to counteract the following information, and I gave them serious consideration. But I suspect they’re analogous to the politicization of, for example, crime statistics. Or politicization to the point where the media, among others, would have one believe that a greater proportion of crime does not involve certain racial/ethnic groups.
After all, we do live in the age of no less than Nidal Hasan and the Fort Hood massacres.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:16 amInstitutions cannot be punished.
What is the statute of limitations for child molestation in Pennsylania and does it toll with concealmen t?
nk (875f57) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:17 amThanks, Leviticus for the thoughtfulness.
No elissa, I didn’t read the article and I have no specific reason for doubting the author. I do have personal experience, though, that even a trustworthy and “friendly” writer can put out something quite slanted once the editor has a chance to get to it, that’s why I said one needs to be confident on all steps of the process before taking one report as truth. You may be completely right and Paterno was more of a jerk than I have ever imagined. Of course, I would need to read the article to see if the difficulty with the “football culture” was really Paterno-authored or surrounded Paterno while made by all those who benefited from his success.
Without going into details, I know of an ex-military person of more than one star who found life in the military a piece of cake compared to life in the higher ranks of the administration of an elite university, nothing to do with football. No further comment to protect the innocent and to avoid personal legal fees.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:17 amSo read the damm article MD! 🙂 Wassamatter? Think you can’t handle the truth?
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:24 amHere is a link to the CNN report on Triponey that I think elissa is talking about.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:27 am___________________________________________
This is me saying that Sandusky actually was straight,
Leviticus, one reason I’ve become even more cynical about the “gay rights” movement and the activism of “GLBT” is because of a growing awareness of how much free will and free choice appears to involve male sexuality. I used to think that only males who were extremely predisposed to same-sex activity (ie, totally physiologically, much less emotionally, incapable of initiating relationships with women) would ever become involved with another male. But then the amount of bisexuality out there, even among self-described gays, started to change my assumptions.
The phrase “closeted gay” has often been applied to presumably heterosexual males who are sexually involved with other guys. But I now realize that the phrase “closeted straight” may be no less accurate to describe self-described gays similar to the following:
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:29 amBy your reasoning, we shouldn’t have sanctioned Exxon for the Valdez oil spill because it would hurt innocent employees.
Comment by DRJ — 7/23/2012 @ 10:10 am
If the sanctioning of Exxon provided no benefit for those damaged and resulted in undue hardship to innocent workers and stockholders than I would question it. I forget the details, was Exxon responsible just because it was their ship, or were there operational problems which Exxon allowed to exist that lead to the wreck? [If the problem was that all of Exxon policies were OK and the crew of the ship had clean backgrounds and the problem was one crew-member who chose that night to use illegal drugs the first time, should Exxon be responsible?]
My main point is that of Sunhawk, it’s awfully convenient to put the blame on someone who not only is dead, but was instructed not to say anything about what he knew prior to his death first because of grand jury investigations and then due to pending legal issues of his employer. I look forward to someone taking apart the Freeh report, the Paterno family investigation, or the grand just inquiry into the role Paterno had in the disappearance of the GA (last point sarcasm, again). I need to get back to work soon.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:30 amAs a proud PSU Track and Field Alumni I must note the new Administration happens to be doing the right things. They won’t contend any of the sanctions and are busy making things as right as they can. I met the new football coach and he seems to be of fine upbringing to take PSU football forward. He talked of his severely handicapped son and his willingness to undergo the ordeal of sanctions. This guy gets it.
dfbaskwill (ca54bb) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:30 amI think many of you will focus on those who will still defend the indefensible, but be aware of the 100 of thousands of us that will respond way beyond the bounds of normal to make things as right as they can be. No other group of alums anywhere will be able to do what the PSU Family can do. Our Track alumni group is more than willing to take up the “success with honor” mantle. Just because some could not live up to the standard doesn’t mean that the standard isn’t important. PSU haters, keep your mind open just a smidgen, and you may be pleasantly surprised.
I also think Patterico is right that these sanctions will do more to hurt Paterno’s legacy than the scandal itself. Big-time college football coaches and programs can withstand anything but losing.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:30 amComment by elissa — 7/23/2012 @ 10:24 am
I am going to take the rebuke with good intent. If I read the article and wanted to make it my base of belief, I would need to cross-check it myself, which I don’t have time to do. That said, maybe I’ll look at it during my dinner break, got to get back to work.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:33 amdfbaskill,
Penn State has always reminded me of Texas A&M, where honor is an important and core value. You can sometimes drift off-course but you can never go wrong with that standard.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:36 amBig-time college football coaches and programs can withstand anything but losing.
Comment by DRJ — 7/23/2012 @ 10:30 am
But Penn State didn’t lose, DRJ, they had their wins taken away.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:38 amI don’t know how Paterno will be looked at over the years or what will be the determining factor. We might not have even learned the biggest issue yet. In the meantime, I do think it is good to remember that some have been criminally charged in covering up things at Penn State, and Paterno was not one of them, that’s all.
Let’s test that: do you believe that a gay man has as much right and deserves the same scrutiny as a straight man each hoping to be a counselor at a summer camp with children of both genders?
Comment by Leviticus — 7/23/2012 @ 9:55 am
— Me confused. You want to “test that” by moving the goal posts?
[“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman]
Icy (b03626) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:47 amDRJ
Thanks for being one of the few who won’t just jump into the mob with pitchforks. My track coach (38 years at PSU) had a difficult time with the admin. (Spanier) and athletic dept.(Curley) and was the worlds worst JoePa skeptic there was. But there wasn’t anyone more important in my molding as a human being, short of my parents, than him. In all phases of my life, I have never found any group more worthy of “success with honor” than the members of my team. Someday soon there will be a book. And they won’t make a statue of him. He wouldn’t allow it, and besides he’s harder than bronze anyway.
dfbaskwill (ca54bb) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:47 amI know I’m late to the game. But I’ve noticed the LGBT community has a term for adult men who molest boys.
Straight.
I find that odd, because as a straight man I find myself attracted to women who are at least physically mature.
Admittedly, not all the women who’ve attracted my gaze have been of legal age. Every once in a while you come across a teenager who looks like she stepped out of a Hooter’s calendar. As a friend of mine who did embassy duty in Copenhagen once reminisced, “nothing looks better on a nude beach than a naked 16 year old Danish girl.”
But then he added, “but who wants to put up with the b***s***.”
No truer words.
The thing is, I’ve never felt impelled to run out and start a society dedicated to the admiration of nude under-aged Scandinavian chicks. But someone started NAMBLA.
Starting that outfit, joining it, becoming president of it, whatever, won’t get you kicked out of the gay pride parade.
Yet every time one plus one equals two, I’m informed the perp is straight.
How does that work?
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:49 amMD,
I agree Penn State will recover but Paterno’s legacy won’t. There’s a wedge between them now.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:49 amWhich may be the saddest part for JoPa because he loved the school. It might have been better for everyone if he hadn’t.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:52 amSteve57, I’m a gay man. I’ve only ever been attracted to men who are at least physically mature. I’m also in a long-term stable monogamous relationship.
And yet, were I to want to be a boy scout troop leader, I couldn’t be, and at least part of that is because people would argue that i’m too high a risk, that I might abuse the kids placed in my charge, based on no evidence whatsoever other than the fact that i’m attracted to other men and am willing to admit it in public.
I’ve never started a society dedicated to the admiration of nude under-aged boys. I have no interest in such a society, and would never join it; such a society is inherently harmful.
And yet it’s regularly thrown in my face as something that’s my problem, whose existence is something that justifies treating me differently than the straight men I spent last night drinking with.
I find this puzzling and irrational.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:58 am> Which may be the saddest part for JoPa because he loved the school.
When I used the word tragedy above, I meant it in its lit-crit sense: “a drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.”
The thing that makes tragedies *interesting* as dramas and interesting as real-world events is that they expose human flaws and weaknesses. I’ve been harshly critical of Joe Paterno here and elsewhere, but honesty compels me to note that I suspect that I, and everyone else, have some similarly tragic flaw hidden within us that, in the right circumstances, would be just as badly exposed.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:01 amnk #25,
I’m obviously a slow thinker but it just occurred to me that maybe you only have women scoutmasters because it’s too risky for men (especially single men) to volunteer in today’s world.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:01 amDRJ at 81, this is *explicitly* why my uncle, a 60something divorced conservative father of two oil man in Texas, stopped serving as a scoutmaster.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:03 amWhere did I say Penn State will recover? I think there will be differing factions for a long time. Those committed to a faction will fight for their own faction. Those who don’t want to deal with it and are good enough to go elsewhere will.
I’m not saying anywhere that individuals or departments, etc. not be held accountable, but there are ways to “move forward” at a pace that allows differing factions to make a degree of peace with each other, and ways that seem premature to some and in the cause supposedly of “getting a new start” seem to actually just be sweeping things under the rug. If Penn State University through and through was corrupted with football glory, all thousands and thousands of administration members, faculty members, and staff, why does anyone think a change of a few people at top will do anything? If you think the place was thoroughly corrupted, close the doors. If you don’t think the entire place was corrupted, then why not allow time for things to play out? Why does the NCAA pres by himself have to declare sanctions, why do a few people get to say tear down the Paterno statue over a weekend. Maybe there should have been a public event in mourning, let those who remember the good he did have some place to grieve, rather than hear others say, “Yeah, got the hypocrites statue down!” With a medical analogy, close a wound too soon and you get an abscess, a ball of pus that will grow and burst.
I did read the article mentioned by elissa and linked by DRJ. While a lot sounds credible, it is still one person’s view. I will say her opinion is made more credible in my eyes by “giving credit where credit is due” by her saying that Paterno was a man of principle but went off course. I do need to get to other things.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:13 am_______________________________________________
I find this puzzling and irrational.
Any more puzzling or irrational than a certain symbol of homosexuality and certainly “GLBT” activism in today’s era, referring to the typical “Gay Pride” parade held in various cities throughout America? Events that can be overly bawdy, overly sexualized, far too blue, and that play up the worst stereotypes that outsiders may have of the gay community.
I won’t even mention what has been observed occurring at certain street fairs in San Francisco.
If gays are baffled why things associated with them make outsiders cringe or suspicious, then don’t point the finger of blame at mean ol’ rightwingers. Just look in the mirror.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:14 am> If gays are baffled why things associated with them make outsiders cringe or suspicious, then don’t point the finger of blame at mean ol’ rightwingers. Just look in the mirror.
I’m baffled by this comment in response to a comment by me. Are you adressing *my personal* bafflement by telling *me* to look in the mirror, or are you talking about the bafflement of an abstract strawman “gay” and telling him to look in a mirror while responding to something I said?
IMO both are inappropriate.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:18 am______________________________________________
Are you adressing *my personal* bafflement by telling *me* to look in the mirror
Yes, by realizing the way that your political sentiments cause you to make a million excuses for the behavior of the gay community in general, or to rationalize away all the truly negative idiosyncrasies associated with it.
For instance, are you bothered more by the Boy Scouts having bylaws that pertain to homosexuality, or are you bothered more by “Gay Pride” events and parades, in which boundaries of what’s proper or not seem to be overly permissive? Or are they both equally bad in your mind?
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:26 amI’m far more offended by the BSA prohibition on gay scouts than I am by gay pride events and parades.
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:31 am==But Penn State didn’t lose, DRJ, they had their wins taken away==
It may sound to you like “piling on”. But, how many of Paterno’s historic wins were because certain players were on the field that winning day who, due to known serious “infractions”, should have been disciplined, suspended, kicked off the team, or even in jail–and might have been had they belonged to the opposing school’s team or coached by the opposing coach instead? How many infractions were never reported or verified because JoePa taught his players not to “rat”? How many on and off-campus police knew not to upset JoePa?
Wins are better deserved when there is a level playing Field, no?
I think the Penn State football culture that is being talked about contributed to the cover-up of Sandusky’s crimes but was much, much broader than Sandusky. The NCAA sanctions and penalties are meant to address systemic problems way beyond Sandusky and perhaps to scare/influence other school’s athletic programs as well.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:33 amMD,
I have to go work, too, but I hope we can revisit this at a later time. Basically, I think the time for Penn State to move forward “at a pace that allows differing factions to make a degree of peace with each other” was there for at least 10 years. However, once the Sandusky criminal case began, Penn State lost the chance to handle this on its timetable and in a method of its choosing.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:41 amTo me it is very much like my earlier Exxon analogy. Exxon had years to deal with its maritime standards, whether they were suspect or very good. But once the oil spill happened, the timeframe and solutions changed.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:44 am_______________________________________________
I’m far more offended by the BSA prohibition on gay scouts than I am by gay pride events and parades.
aphrael, at least you’re being candid and honest. At the same time, your perceptions of the two matters is why I’d have a bit less confidence in someone like you (who’s not just gay but also of the left) and the way you’d deal with an explicitly, proudly gay person who — in Liberal World — the Boy Scouts would be legally required to both accept and allow as the head of a troop of boys. And the potential problems that might ensue. IOW, if the Catholic Church can’t get a handle on the particular problem they’ve been notorious for, I don’t know why the Boy Scouts of America in the altered reality of Liberal World would do any better.
BTW, the person who sued the BSA for discrimination, and whose case was heard by the Supreme Court, was an activist for gay rights. He wasn’t no shy, retiring, wilting wallflower, forced out into the open by mean ol’ anti-homosexuals.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:46 amI agree. And I’m not casting any aspersions your way.
It just seems to me that the subject is kind of sort of related; people are worried more about dirty laundry getting aired in public than protecting kids. That was the only vein I was interested in discussing this subject.
If Joe Paterno is at fault for protecting Sandusky out of concern for the football program’s reputation, it strikes me that the gay community isn’t forceful enough in denouncing NAMBLA.
I mentioned on another thread that his whole Penn state discussion gives me a nauseous feeling. Whenever we rush to the barn to shut the doors a month or two after the horse got out I always get the same feeling.
I think as a society we ought to be more focused on protecting kids in the here and now than pointing the finger of blame at the dead and gone. As far as I’m concerned, an organization like NAMBLA has no place in polite society. I don’t care if that society is straight or gay. Perhaps it’s an unfair association. But I submit life isn’t fair. The Catholic Church probably doesn’t deserve the reputation a small number of child-molesting priests have given it.
It’s just that when institutionally it appears that such behaviors are tolerated, the association will be made.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:47 amWilliam A. Levinson critiques the Freeh report.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:55 amYes, see respondeat superior.
This does not apply to Paterno, except with respect to the conduct of his subordinate Mike McQueary. Even then, there are degrees of culpability. A superior, while being culpable for the acts of subordinates, are not necessarily culpable to the same degree.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:58 amWhich may be the saddest part for JoPa because he loved the school.
Unfortunately, his love for the school superseded his care and concern for young children…which then makes me question whether or not it was “love” in the first place.
Loyalty to an institution can be mistaken for love. And loyalty to that same institution and the resulting benefits of it (position, power, success) can become even more important than the institution itself. It instead becomes simply a means to an end.
I don’t think there should be any illusions left.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:59 amWhat proof existed that such a thing happened.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:00 pmWhat should he have done?
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:01 pmWhy are records from 1998-2001 being altered? There was no evidence of a cover up happening before the shower incident alleged by Mike McQueary.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:02 pmOf the persons involved, the only one over whom Paterno was a leader was Mike McQueary.
the university’s top leader was Graham Spanier.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:04 pmMichael Ejercito #96,
This CNN report raises questions about whether or not Paterno helped decide whether to report the Sandusky allegations to authorities.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:10 pm@ Michael Ejercito,
What should he have done?
Michael,
I would like to think that if I had the knowledge that Paterno had, I would be nothing less than compelled to make so much noise about it – relentlessly so – that it would be impossible for the school to ignore, rationalize, turn a blind eye, and/or do business as usual.
I might notify a newspaper to investigate, maybe even contact the parent of the child involved. But I think what would have been most effective as well as difficult to brush away, would have been to us his place of stature, power, and influence at the university as well as with the public, to insist on further actions be taken.
I would like to think that all of us here would never have to question what the best thing to do would be because all of us here would always have the obvious victim’s best interest at heart – not the football team, a colleague, an institution – nothing would come before that.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:14 pmelissa, I don’t want to argue that anything Penn State did was OK because “everybody else did it”, but if you want to argue that Penn State won games because they had players on the field that shouldn’t have been there, but other schools had no such players, I think you are wrong.
http://ideas.time.com/2011/12/07/paternos-revenge-penn-state-football-is-no-1-in-academic-bowl/
Penn State graduates 80% of it’s football players in 6 years or less. I don’t know how many in addition get a job in pro football without their degree. So much for “using” all of their student athletes and using “undesirables” on the field.
While aphrael and I have some fundamental unresolvable differences of opinion, I very much agree with him that Paterno’s story is that of a tragedy in the classic sense. Not the story of a life long hypocrite and evil villain, but a man with a fundamental solid core and principles that was not up to a new task later in life. Even Triponey said so.
One could look at him as football above all else coach who got in the way of discipline for the sake of winning, but I think you could also picture him as the grandfather who wanted the best for a grandson and tended to be on the soft side. Even in one example Triponey gave her complaint was that Mrs. Paterno was the person tutoring a student when she came to her to interfere/plead the student’s case.
Penn State has the choice of when and how to do things like take down Paterno’s statue, and in a country where we believe in due process the president of an organization, in this case the NCAA, acted as a potentate with his own reputation in mind. He gets to look like he’s cracking down on Penn State and maintaining the TV income from them at the same time. That’s hypocrisy.
In the case of a tragedy, I believe there is usually a lesson to be learned, not by vilifying the fallen hero nor by ignoring his faults and pretending all is good. I think what is happening is getting in the way of such understanding and forcing people into one of the two camps. In one way both sides are making the same mistake of avoiding the reality of the situation. Some want to say, “It was Joe Pa, Sandusky, Curly, and another fellow or two, get rid of them and everything is fine”. (No, we will not think about the clash between the good Joe Pa did and how things ended up). Others want to say, “Wait a minute, after decades of good that Joe Pa did, you’re going to pin a scandal on a dead man that can’t even defend himself!? (No, we can’t come to grip with the reality that after all the good he did, Joe Pa really did facilitate something terrible).
Until convinced otherwise, I still think nearly everyone involved is making decisions to save their own tail in the short run- just like they accuse Jo Pa of doing.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:15 pmTo put it more simply, it should have been a no-brainer.
What does it say about the character of those in the CNN link that they would even consider a “downside” in such a situation – and that that possible downside was a greater influence to their decisions than the victimization of children?
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:16 pmThe story is pretty vague in details. John Zeigler points this out.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:17 pm> While aphrael and I have some fundamental unresolvable differences of opinion, I very much agree with him that Paterno’s story is that of a tragedy in the classic sense
MD, one of the best things about the conversations here is that it’s possible for us to have some fundamental unresolvable differences of opinion, and yet still talk to each other and find areas where we agree, and come away from the exchange not hating one another. That’s a rare quality on the internet.
Kudos to patterico for cultivating that kind of environment!
aphrael (a2f252) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:19 pmMaking such noise could have resulted in a slander suit against the school- and you.
Remember Duke University.
There are downsides. See the Kern County child sex abuse cases. See Gerald Amirault. See Grant Snowden.
It is not enough to do the right thing, but to do the right thing the right way. Duke University, Timothy Cole, and the other examples I gave demonstrate what happens when the “right” thing is done the wrong way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-robins/penn-state-another-side_b_1102031.html
http://www.timesleader.com/opinion/commentary/Penn_State_Board_of_Trustees_flunked_stewardship_test_COMMENTARY_William_A__Levinson_11-25-2011.html
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:25 pmWhy are records from 1998-2001 being altered? There was no evidence of a cover up happening before the shower incident alleged by Mike McQueary.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 7/23/2012 @ 12:02 pm
It was in 1998 that a claim was brought against Sandusky for molesting a child. The DA (later to disappear without a trace in ~2004) did not bring the case to trial. It was after this that Sandusky “retired”, perhaps with pressure from others. As I asked before, I assume that once charges were not filed by the DA, any public condemnation of Sandusky by Penn State or Paterno might have put that at risk for defamation. I don’t know, I’m just asking.
I would like to think that if I had the knowledge that Paterno had, I would be nothing less than compelled to make so much noise about it – relentlessly so – that it would be impossible for the school to ignore, rationalize, turn a blind eye, and/or do business as usual.
Comment by Dana — 7/23/2012 @ 12:14 pm
I think we should be quick to hold a person accountable for what they have the responsibility to do (my goodness, the world would be a better place if that happened more often), but a little slower in what we demand of someone in going beyond their responsibility.
Would you have Paterno go to the family and talk them into pressing criminal charges? Would you have him go to the AG of the state when no one wants to press charges? I don’t know the details, I don’t know what he could have/should have done instead. Other than his statement that “He should have done more” his legal counsel and death has prevented more from being said.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:27 pmWilliam A. Levinson explains how the Board of Trustees screwed up. Note this is the same Levinson who posted on Usenet, IsraPundit, and American Thinker, and who is the webmaster of Stentorian.Com and Omdurman.Org
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:28 pmComment by aphrael — 7/23/2012 @ 12:19 pm
Thank you for concurring. Yes, kudos to Patterico, but it is also our own choices, as there are others known to pop in here who are a bit less civil.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:31 pmDRJ, yes it’s a very self-serving line being advanced by the living at the expense of a dead guy. But again, what exactly is it that Paterno is supposed to have known, and when? And what was he supposed to do?
Especially given the fact that:
…the principals involved in coming up with this story admit they had trouble talking about it.
The only thing everyone involved can agree on is that they kept Paterno in the dark:
The janitors wouldn’t mention it. McQueary shut up about if for years. Curley couldn’t talk about it. Freeh’s own report says Paterno didn’t want Sandusky or his organization on the campus at all.
I’d love to join in and trash Joe Paterno’s memory. If there were any evidence. Which may strike you as odd, given how quick I was to blame Sandusky’s wife.
Which has more to do with the nature of the relationships than anything else. I just have an easier time believing that a guy who shared a facility with a former fellow employee would have been easier to keep secrets from than the woman Sandusky has been married to and living with for decades.
Even then, I wouldn’t vote to convict unless I was supplied with evidence. Which I don’t see in the case of Paterno. I see headlines assigning him blame. But scratch the surface, and there’s nothing there.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:38 pmOnew curious thing: they are treating things as if the first time things went wrong was in 1998.
The Freeh Report was a whitewash.
Freeh didn’t ask enough questions of enough people.
Paterno almost certainly knew about Jerry Sandusky in the 1960s.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:38 pmA fine isa good idea. Maybe the sanctions should mostly be limited to the fine since the coverup may have amde a profit for the university. And firing people, but they are already fired.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:39 pmWhat reason do you have to say that, Sammy?
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:44 pmMark,
At the risk of putting words in aphrael’s mouth – an acceptable risk, this time only, because he’s too polite to say what I think needs to be said, and can fairly be said after years of interaction on this blog – you have a binary worldview, and it makes you an ignorant man. You have said some jaw-droppingly backwards things in this thread, and that aphrael hasn’t absolutely shredded them (and you) in front of everybody is evidence of good manners and (I suspect) a good deal of anger which he feels might overwhelm respectful discourse.
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:46 pmFreeh’s own report says Paterno didn’t want Sandusky or his organization on the campus at all.
Comment by Steve57 — 7/23/2012 @ 12:38 pm
I haven’t gone to the effort of reading the Freeh report, but interesting (and not surprising, in one way*). Especially interesting for those who think that Joe Pa could state his wish and all would fall into line for him.
Interesting that the Freeh report (assuming you are correct Steve, and I have no reason to doubt your claim if you are certain) states that Paterno wanted Sandusky and his group off of campus, yet Joe Pa still gets the blame.
*Kind of like David Kay saying to the Senate that Saddam was more dangerous than we thought, but what we heard was “no wmd’s”.
Actually Sammy, I think Joe Pa’s father knew about it long before Joe Pa and Sandusky were even born- in fact, I’m sure of it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:48 pm“As a friend of mine who did embassy duty in Copenhagen once reminisced, “nothing looks better on a nude beach than a naked 16 year old Danish girl.”
But then he added, “but who wants to put up with the b***s***.”
No truer words.”
– Steve57
“I’ve only ever been attracted to men who are at least physically mature. I’m also in a long-term stable monogamous relationship…
I’ve never started a society dedicated to the admiration of nude under-aged boys. I have no interest in such a society, and would never join it; such a society is inherently harmful.”
– aphrael
One of these men cannot serve as a scoutmaster. Guess which one?
You know what you call a naked 16 year old Danish girl? A child.
This is a disturbing f*cking thread.
Apologies to MD for momentarily reneging, but aphrael is putting up with some serious bullsh*t here…
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:50 pmComment by Leviticus — 7/23/2012 @ 12:46 pm
I disagree with a number of things that have been said and left unsaid, but it is difficult to address some things in a manner that is helpful. Do you really need to call someone an ignorant man because you disagree?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 12:55 pmSF: Paterno almost certainly knew about Jerry Sandusky in the 1960s.
Comment by Steve57 — 7/23/2012 @ 12:44 pm
What reason do you have to say that, Sammy?
As far as I know, none of the victims was a football player, or even a student at Penn State University, or even related to a student at Penn State University, yet Sandusky was around there all the time.
Now maybe there’s an age difference. And a 17-year old was too old for him. But Sandusky could have found a family member of a student.
And:
1) Why would he feel so safe at Penn State University?
2) How did he get away with it all these years? I mean before 1998?
3) How did Paterno and others know more or less what to do when they got complaints?
Joe Paterno protected his players, but only his players, from a lot of bad things.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:00 pmJoe paterno wasn’t ineterested in reforming college football, just in making sure were all right at Penn State – that his players really learned things etc. he called thjis the “grand experiment”
He probably had the same attitude toward pedophilia.
Just not my people.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:05 pm== if you want to argue that Penn State won games because they had players on the field that shouldn’t have been there, but other schools had no such players, I think you are wrong==
No. I don’t want to argue that. And definitely not with you, my friend. You’ve added a goal post change in your comment above which surprises me, tho. There seemed to be some question earlier in the thread why the “win” records of Penn State were even being changed as part of the NCAA penalty. Also Michael Ejercito asked what Penn State’s win record had to do with Sandusky’s pedophilia. I’m just saying that in conjunction with the investigation there were suggestions that troubled players in Happy Valley were sometimes given excessively generous extra special treatment by police and the school which allowed them to play. Again, I think it is mostly a piece part of the broader attention-getting penalty for what the NCAA sees as a very serious systemic problem with a culture at that school which went on for years.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:06 pmPaterno wanted Second Mile off campus due to general liability concerns. It is unclear if Paterno believed the 1998 accusations against Sandusky, as liability concerns would exist regardless of whether Sandusky was actually guilty of the 1998 allegations.
For me, that was true twenty years ago.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:06 pmComment by Steve57 — 7/23/2012 @ 12:38 pm
a former fellow employee would have been easier to keep secrets from than the woman Sandusky has been married to and living with for decades.
Who says he did? (kept secrets from her)
They didn’t have any natural children.
There’s an accusatuion that Sandusky’s wife ignored some screaming, or something.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:18 pm“Do you really need to call someone an ignorant man because you disagree?”
– MD in Philly
My comment to Mark was based on years of interaction with him at this site, and years of observing his interactions with others. It wasn’t off the cuff, and it wasn’t rooted in malice. I often apologize for the things I’ve said in anger; I chose my words carefully here. I don’t feel that any apology is warranted, unless it’s from Mark to aphrael.
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:19 pm10.
Maybe thse articles:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/us/triponey-paterno-penn-state/index.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/163319246.html?cmpid=15585797
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:20 pmThanks for using the links in your post, Sammy.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:26 pmRand Simberg compared the coverup investigation of Penn State to Penn State’s “investigation” of Michael Mann (co author of the famed “Hockey Stick” climate change proxy paper). Hilariously, Mann has threatened to sue like the idiot he is.
SPQR (17feec) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:28 pmFurthermore, if Paterno had chosen such a course of action, it would have spoiled any future investigation, possibly making it nigh impossible to obtain any convictions against Sandusky.
I can not credit criticisms of Paterno’s inaction if those doing the criticizing opine that he should have taken actions that would amount to interference with a criminal investigation.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:30 pmComment by elissa — 7/23/2012 @ 1:26 pm
Thanks for using the links in your post, Sammy.
You only asked for links, and I didn’t even take the time to understand them.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:45 pmIt’s probably signifucan that Joe Paterno turned down all offers for other jobs.
From the articles:
Apparently, Joe Paterno wanted only limited discipline (and lots of efforts were made to get “independent” people not to do too much to football players) and he especially did not like, or objected to, deferred expulsion, which let someone continue to take classes, but not take part in any extracurricular activities. There were attempts to stretch what that meant.
In April 2007 about two dozen football players forced their way in to an off campus party. Siz were charged crimninally, and two convicted but nobody ever missed a game.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/23/2012 @ 1:53 pmBTW, the age of consent in Denmark is 15 according to Wikipedia. I was shocked to learn it is only 13 in Spain. Crikey!
Gazzer (f51db3) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:03 pmI think we should be quick to hold a person accountable for what they have the responsibility to do (my goodness, the world would be a better place if that happened more often), but a little slower in what we demand of someone in going beyond their responsibility.
Would you have Paterno go to the family and talk them into pressing criminal charges? Would you have him go to the AG of the state when no one wants to press charges? I don’t know the details, I don’t know what he could have/should have done instead. Other than his statement that “He should have done more” his legal counsel and death has prevented more from being said.
I am suggesting that given Paterno’s scope of influence and power on the university and within the community – both locally and nationally – he very possibly could have leveraged in some way that wide-reaching respect and admiration for him in order to protect children.
How could he have done that? I don’t think it would have been difficult for someone of Paterno’s stature to make contact with any influential sports writer with a solid rep for integrity, his local elected official, someone in the D.A./A.G.’s office, etc. His immense prominence in the university system and nationally would have opened doors.
Unless he had explored fully every possibility, I don’t know how he slept at night. This is not trashing him (as suggested by another commenter), it is simply attempting to seriously consider what more could he have done and what moral obligation was there to do more than what was done.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:09 pmSpare me the faux outrage, Leviticus. Of course she’s a child. That was the point of the tale, in case you missed it (which you did). That’s exactly what the Chief was saying.
It’s a fact of life that appearances can be deceiving. Especially in a situation where nobody is running around with IDs, or anything else.
Bringing 16 y.o. girls to nude beaches wasn’t my bright idea, by the way. I wasn’t even there. It wasn’t even the chief’s idea.
But while I can understand being momentarily deceived by the appearance of physical maturity, I can’t understand the attraction to immaturity. I can so little understand the attraction I can’t even imagine it even if the girl looks like a model for Victoria’s Secret. It has nothing to do with the legalities. I have no idea whether a 16 year old girl is considered a child in Denmark. I also don’t care. 16 is 16, I don’t care where you are in the world. I don’t think it’s particularly monstrous of me to admit that if she looks 30 I might appreciate her appearance. If I learn she’s 16 and not 30, it ends there. Because she is after all a child who just happens to look like a woman.
So it’s beyond me how someone can actually be attracted to children who are physically as well as emotionally and intellectually immature. It’s even more bizarre to me that people who are attracted to children will actually start and join an organization that brags about that fact to the world.
And then I completely fail to comprehend how others can tolerate their presence.
So where’s the outrage, Leviticus? You are in a tizzy over the fact that I admit I can be fooled into looking at a girl who appears older than she actually is. Yet Kevin Jennings, Obama’s former safe schools czar and author of Queering Elementary Education and former executive director of the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, can give a speech in public discussing how he advised a 15 year old to use condoms when trolling for anonymous gay sex in restrooms.
How does Kevin Jennings not get denounced? But I do? The guy condones pedophilia in public. He certainly made no bones about how he’s perfectly willing to tolerate it personally, instead of reporting it. His organization puts out reading lists that discuss in explicit detail sexual encounters by school children with each other as well as with much older men.
Yet he remains an influential person in the gay rights community? And in the educational establishment? How does this work?
Maybe if this kind of crap was thoroughly denounced by the gay community instead of tolerated then people wouldn’t unfairly link homosexuality with pedophilia.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:13 pmSammy, how about reading the articles yourself first to assure yourself that they are worth while and will add new information to the ongoing discussion on the thread. If you think they do that, then go ahead and write just a sentence or two (as a teaser/header) to accompany the link and to say what you found interesting, or to hit on a point, or to ask a question. That is, basically combine exactly what you did on your 124 and 129 posts into one short post. That length was great and I thought the links were good, too.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:15 pmSammy– now I will quit telling you what to do. 🙂 I really do mean to be helpful, not critical, and I hope you take my well intentioned comments in that way.
elissa (1e20c3) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:23 pmWe are doing a lot of speculating, and I don’t like speculation to be the final word of judgement on a man. Some think that Joe Pa had enough influence at Penn State to get anything he wanted, and that was insinuated by what was reported as the general finding of Freeh’s report. Yet, Michael and Steve cite Freeh’s report that Paterno did want Sandusky’s group off of campus, to no avail. I think it was probably Paterno’s character to ask for things, not demand, unless it was from those under him. I imagine he got what he wanted like grandpa does, usually grant it, but if you really don’t want to, let him go complain in his rocker.
You’ve added a goal post change in your comment above which surprises me, tho. There seemed to be some question earlier in the thread why the “win” records of Penn State were even being changed as part of the NCAA penalty– Elissa
In the typical investigation about such allegations, there is a procedure the NCAA goes through to investigate them. That was not done with this NCAA ruling. This “NCAA” ruling is the decision of one person without any NCAA investigation per their standard. I didn’t mean to “move the goalposts”, but you suggested there was a reason for the ruling to be made at Penn State that had to do with their having an advantage over other schools. I don’t think that is true, and it appears the only rationale is to punish Penn State/Paterno back to the first indication that there was a problem with Sandusky. As I said before, the DA did not prosecute, he “went” into retirement after that. Did Penn State have the ability to do more without legal jeopardy is a question. Certainly the things cited in the one article did not happen until after 2000.
The statement that I heard was “Joe Pa did nothing”. He forced Sandusky into retirement (perhaps), wanted him and his group off campus, reported what McQueary told him to the proper authorities, as afar as I understand. That may have been inadequate, but it is not “nothing”
In case you missed it, Penn State football had a better performance academically last year than any other school in the top 25 at the end of the season, including Stanford, and graduates 80% of their players within 6 years. Those facts are not consistent with a school that would make it a practice to coddle players who are bad apples.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:34 pmWe are doing a lot of speculating, and I don’t like speculation to be the final word of judgement on a man.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I think we are all aware that this is speculation and will just that because of Paterno’s passing. There will always remain unanswered questions. As I stated above, my interest is whether or not Paterno exhausted any and all possibilities. If not, how did he sleep at night? If he did indeed exhaust every possibility, how did he sleep at night knowing it was to no avail?
I don’t think those are unreasonable speculations and/or questions. This is one of the ugliest situations involving children over an extended period of time. That we should sit passively and not examine it is, to me, a far worse possibility.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:42 pmLeviticus-
I was not calling for an apology, I wasn’t sure what I was doing.
Here is what I will say about that. Some people think that homosexual desire and activity is no different than heterosexual, they are equivalent, one is no more “natural” than the other. There are other people who do not agree with that. For a number of reasons they believe that there is a fundamental difference and that they are not “equivalent”. This group may not be in favor of any ill will or treatment to those who are homosexual, yet they do not think both are “essentially the same”. Even forgetting the pedophilia issue, the question is does a parent wish their child to be taught by example or lecture a different understanding of sexuality than they do in the home, and under what kind of conditions.
In my mind the two views above are incompatible with each other, and the only question is how the two groups can best make accommodation for each other in our pluralistic society. But, for some that question isn’t even a question because they think the other view is illegitimate. So, you have the dilemma of who claims the right to say the other side is wrong in a pluralistic (and “tolerant” society).
From that basic disagreement opinions on the BSA and SS marriage and such things will necessarily be in conflict and always will be. The issue, as above, will be how to negotiate resolutions to the conflicts as possible.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:51 pmIf it’s true that Paterno advised the school administration to get Sandusky and his organization off the campus, and they ignored that advice, then I’m curious how influential Paterno really was.
It certainly appears to be true; that’s one of the few things I’ve read about this that is actually attributed to Paterno. Instead of merely alleged about him.
It certainly serves a lot of people’s interests to point the finger at Paterno now. Apparently everyone from the janitorial staff to the University president knew about Sandusky.
But so far no one has established that Paterno knew anything besides what McQueary told him. That he saw Sandusky doing something “of a sexual nature” with a child. And that McQueary was upset.
Paterno reported the incident. And he testified about it to a grand jury.
It seems to me that no one gave Paterno many details to work with. And there was certainly no crime in progress when Paterno found out what few details he did know.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 2:53 pmThat we should sit passively and not examine it is, to me, a far worse possibility.
Comment by Dana — 7/23/2012 @ 2:42 pm
I’m not suggesting being passive. I’m a doctor. Doctors learn about things that have happened to people that they don’t tell other people. People are responsible for their own actions, but typically people caught in drug addiction, prostitution, and other out-of-control life patterns often had “help” getting there. Fortunately/unfortunately, it was never given to me to stride into the world and bring vengeance to where it was due.
As I said before, rushing things makes it too easy to write off Joe Pa as an evil monster or react to defend him. I just don’t want people using a dead man to cover their own butts.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 3:00 pmMD,
“Vengeance”? I don’t think anyone is talking about that. I certainly am not. I think you’re misconstruing my discussion and/or jumping the gun. One need not be a doctor to understand that something very, very horrible occurred and a good number of people knew and yet, it continued on for a very long period of time. To examine who had the ability to do more, whether individually or collectively with others who knew, can be instructive as well as helping us to understand what might possibly have happened behind the scenes that makes the lack of pro-activity understandable.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 3:06 pmIt would be instructive. I don’t believe things are likely to become instructive any time soon, though. Not while there are still people facing the music. And trying to dodge lawsuits.
Everyone except Paterno. Who’s got his hands full being dead.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 3:19 pmWhat we’re having here is a failure to communicate.
I wasn’t suggesting you were talking about vengeance, I was trying to express that I had no interest in being passive. It’s just that I think a clear understanding and ownership of the problem is not served by quick actions that may be motivated more by the desire to “look good” and CYA. I don’t think the Penn State admin took Paterno’s statue down for any reason other than doing it before the NCAA ruling to try to get a more lenient action. And I don’t think the NCAA has a responsibility to deal with criminal activity and civil liability. The NCAA president should have no authority to authorize sanctions on their own for anything.
All of that is my primary opinion, whether Joe Pa ends up being a willing enabler who peddled kiddy porn and made the DA disappear personally with his own two hands, or did far more than we know to stop Sandusky and has been made the scapegoat.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 3:28 pmAre there people who think Penn State should not get punished by the NCAA for this?
MayBee (fb7121) — 7/23/2012 @ 3:34 pmSteve57,
I understand that appearances can be deceiving. If that was your friend’s point, “Nothing looks better on a nude beach than a 16 year old Danish girl, [but it’s] Not worth the bullshit” was an exceedingly poor way to convey it.
Anyway, one of us missed the point of your friend’s story. If it was me, I’m sorry. If it was you, then it kinda undermines your comment.
MD in Philly,
I understand. Your point is well taken; if that had been Mark’s point, I wouldn’t have said what I did. But Mark is A) unapologetically equating homosexuality with pedophilia, B) stating that aphrael’s sexual and political orientation makes him an irrational apologist for the gay community, C) stating by proxy that aphrael’s sexual and political orientation makes him an apologist for pedophilia, and D) saying that the gay community can only blame itself for the discrimination that gay men and women face. Those are all remarkably ignorant statements.
I still have two apologies to make:
The first is to aphrael. I should not have put words into his mouth, even with a disclaimer attached to them and even intending that they stand in his defense. I didn’t think that through; if I had, I wouldn’t have done it. I’m sorry.
The second is to you. I told you I would drop this issue on this thread. You thanked me for an understanding which I have not actually demonstrated. So I’m sorry for that, too.
This comment from aphrael is what set me off:
“Were I to want to be a boy scout troop leader, I couldn’t be, and at least part of that is because people would argue that i’m too high a risk, that I might abuse the kids placed in my charge, based on no evidence whatsoever other than the fact that i’m attracted to other men and am willing to admit it in public.”
That is a f*cking brutal indictment. That crushes me… the fact that a man as kind, competent, level-headed, and honorable as aphrael can’t be a role model to children in this country simply because he’s gay. Or, more fundamentally, that that a man like aphrael might be viewed as a potential pedophile simply because he’s gay.
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/23/2012 @ 4:12 pmIn general principle, yes, Maybee. In one way I think NCAA involvement trivializes and distracts. The NCAA has rules about recruiting, about scholarships, etc. This is criminal activity. This is major civil liability. Let the criminal charges and liability go forth. If the NCAA wants to add an investigation according to their usual procedures, fine. I have rules in my home, if a child breaks the rules, it’s up to me to enforce them. If my child breaks the law the child gets arrested and goes to jail. When the child gets home from jail I don’t think I’m going to add two weeks of being grounded. There is a stepping up of seriousness. University associations do not prosecute major crimes and conspiracy, especially not before the criminal justice system.
For the NCAA to get involved makes this sound like a football problem. It’s not a football problem, it’s a criminal problem. If there was a Nobel Prize winning scientist (who brought in millions of dollars in research grants and institutional fame) who serially abused those under him at the threat of ruining their careers, would other universities sanction the physics dept or whatever it was? No, the law would prosecute those involved for their roles, the university would be liable for civil damages, and the university and department involved would suffer the shame and any associated repercussions. You would not punish other students in the department, other students in the school, business in town, etc., at least whatever punishment would not be dictated by somewhere far away, it would be the natural consequences of loss of research funding because the funded researcher is gone.
I think making this a football problem and getting the NCAA involved makes it too easy for the Board of Trustees and others to get off the hook. Unfortunately it has been made convenient for them by Joe Pa’s death. If they want to take down Paterno’s statue, let them give back some of the many millions of dollars Paterno gave the school. If the NCAA wants to give penalties, let them donate revenue from Penn State being on TV. If they (Penn State and the NCAA, respectively) want to dissociate themselves from Paterno and Penn State, then do it all the way, not in a way where they get to keep the benefits. In fact, maybe the NCAA should see how much revenue they got from Penn State games since 1998 and add that to the $60 million they want Penn State to pay for some abuse awareness program or whatever.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 4:26 pmUntil someone can clearly document that Paterno actively covered for Sandusky, I think many are blaming Paterno for not doing what they didn’t do themselves. The janitors couldn’t call the police themselves instead of going to school officials?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 4:44 pmMayBee, I don’t have any strong opinion one way or the other about what the NCAA should or shouldn’t do.
I don’t put any stock into that arse-covering report Louis Freeh cooked up.
Personally I hope the victims are able to get justice. That they see it done in criminal and civil courts. And that a proper investigation gets done. Not one commissioned by Penn State.
I think the inquisition being conducted in the press is pretty disgusting. Not nearly as disgusting as Sandusky’s crimes; I certainly don’t want anyone to think I’ve implied that. I just don’t see any evidence that what’s being alleged about Paterno so far amounts to anything more than a smear campaign.
I strongly suspect that there’s a lot more wrong at Penn State than just the football program. I’d like to see if that suspicion can be supported with facts. Just like I suspect that Sandusky’s wife may not have been as innocent as she’s routinely presumed to be. Of course, that would have to be established in a court of law. Not in a peeing contest in the press.
Penn State’s football program getting it’s wrist slapped by the NCAA? Not even on my radar screen. Like Freeh’s report, I see that largely as an irrelevancy. I’m sure it’s a huge deal to a lot of people. But at least some of those people who feel that way are responsible for the dysfunction at Penn State.
I believe on that point, the evidence is in. Just the finger pointing demonstrates that. I’m at a loss to understand how a football coach can have the power to prevent a University from investigating or reporting a pedophile. Just the fact they’d raise that as some sort of a public defense or excuse strikes me as profoundly weird.
I do have to wryly note that for some revered, influential football icon in football-mad Penn State, the university had no trouble dropping Paterno like a hot rock just the second he became a liability. They couldn’t be bothered to fire him to his face. I don’t know; how the school treated him doesn’t seem to square with the the administration officials’ defense that Paterno was this powerful puppet-master.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 4:53 pmThere is enough guilt to go around – from janitors up the line.
According to the report, the janitor’s coworker later told the Special Investigative Counsel chaired by Freeh that reporting the rape “would have been like going against the president of the United States in my eyes.”
“I know Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone,” the coworker told investigators.
So like everyone else at Penn State who was aware of Sandusky’s alleged abuse of young boys, the janitor remained silent. That’s how much power Paterno wielded after coaching more than five decades at the school. And that’s how important preserving his legacy was to the school’s administrators, who were apparently above him only in title.
“Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State,” Freeh said, during a news conference Thursday in Philadelphia. “The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.”
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 4:58 pmSo Paterno is supposed to somehow be responsible for those janitors not reporting those crimes to the police, even though he was never made aware of those accusations?
And in doing so, become a loose cannon that could jeopardize any chance of a fair trial for Jerry Sandusky.
In Kern County, California, someone named Ed Jagels did just what you suggest Joe Paterno should have done. We all know the result.
We know about Duke University, Timothy Cole, Gerald Amirault, and Grant Snowden.
This is why your criticisms of Paterno can not be credited.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:13 pmThank you, Michael Ejercito. I will gladly bow out now.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:21 pmEasy for Freeh to say.
He also could have said, “What? Are you men or mice? If you called the police they would not do their job but call Paterno instead and get you fired?”
It’s too easy to say anything that makes yourself look good (or at least not as bad) when the only one that could contradict you is dead. At the worst, why did Joe Pa not say anything? Because he was afraid he would lose his job? Why did the janitors not say anything? Because they were afraid they would lose their job. I think Steve makes some interesting points above. No, it’s too easy to say Paterno was God and it was all his fault, especially with him dead.
It just occurred to me. Who was Freeh FBI director under? The actual President of the United States who was inappropriate with his staff. Ironic.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:31 pmOther than in Freeh’s report, is there any evidence Paterno had all this power, Dana? When this thing publicly blew up, no one treated Paterno like he had any power at all.
These university officials were sure quick to fire him. And publicly trash him. It certainly appears from their emails they were more concerned about sweeping this Sandusky thing under the rug out of their own self-interest and what they saw as the schools image. Not out of any fear/respect/concern for Paterno. And I subsequently saw no sign of any fear/respect/concern for Paterno.
Paterno apparently wanted Sandusky gone. But they ignored him as they were worried about possible legal blowback due to Sandusky’s “emeritus” status. I see more indications that they were concerned about possible liability than any reaction from Paterno, who it seems would have welcomed the opportunity to get rid of Sandusky.
So far, I just know the janitors didn’t tell Paterno. McQueary didn’t tell Paterno until it was too late to stop Sandusky. Curley, the Athletic Director, says in his own email that supposedly implicates Paterno that he was unwilling to broach the subject of Sandusky with anyone except Sandusky.
Yeah, if I failed to report a child rape and like bad karma should it came back to bite me, I might try to blame “the culture” and the dead icon, too. That’s just the sort of thing I would do, if I were so spineless as these people have proven to be.
I just don’t credit their stories. Not without supporting evidence. We already know they are so messed up they’re more concerned with their public image than with the health and safety of children. How much faith should we put in the stories they told Freeh?
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:34 pmWhile Curley understandably did not tell Freeh anything, being under a criminal indictment and all, Mike McQueary offered to speak to investigators, but was never interviewed .
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:42 pmMD #115,
The Freeh report said Paterno wanted Sandusky’s group, the Second Mile, off-campus but not Sandusky. According to the Report (at page 51, footnote m), Paterno’s response to the memo letting Sandusky keep his access to the athletic facilities was:
In fact, Sandusky still had his key to the Lasch Building and keys to other Penn State facilities when he was arrested in November 2011. (Report at p. 103)
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:42 pm“I just don’t credit their stories. Not without supporting evidence. We already know they are so messed up they’re more concerned with their public image than with the health and safety of children. How much faith should we put in the stories they told Freeh?”
– Steve57
While my own position is closer to Dana’s, I can understand this position. A situation like this is ripe for acts of flagrant ass-covering distortion, and Paterno’s the only one who hasn’t had his opportunity (and won’t).
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:43 pmThis is why your criticisms of Paterno can not be credited.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 7/23/2012 @ 5:13 pm
Thank you, Michael Ejercito. I will gladly bow out now.
Comment by Dana — 7/23/2012 @ 5:21 pm
Well, I think that was a little harsh and there’s no need to bow out.
There is a difference of opinion between those who think Paterno had the influence to do whatever he wanted and he contributed to the cover-up a great deal. Lots of people from the janitors to previous FBI director Freeh say so.
Others of us are not so sure that Paterno walked on water at Penn State and think it’s too convenient for everyone to blame a dead man.
And there is still a missing DA who had investigated Sandusky.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:46 pmMD,
I think it best for everyone to be reminded that we are all speculating what if’s… No one knows for sure what may have happened if any of the main players had pursued this further and/or known what was said privately (not on the record) and/or whether or not there was more that could have been done. It is all speculation. What you may consider a little harsh may very well be my response to what I consider rudeness.
With that, IMO there are more unanswered questions than answered and that makes everything that follows…speculation. It’s hard to make judgements of correct/incorrect and right/wrong when dealing with incomplete information.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 5:55 pmComment by DRJ — 7/23/2012 @ 5:42 pm
And Second Mile was still there despite Paterno saying no, with his supposed omnipotence on campus.
Has their ever been a suggestion that Sandusky was inappropriate with a Penn State student? Maybe Paterno knew rumors about Sandusky, didn’t know what was true, and wanted to just avoid the mess. Maybe aliens or a student from Hogwart’s zapped Paterno to make him forget, I don’t know.
All I know is whether it be a Duke Lacrosse case or a report from the Iraq study group or a mock hanging in Jena, it’s too easy for everybody to jump to conclusions and make a narrative that is then hard to shake, no matter what the evidence. It’s too d*** easy for everybody to point fingers at a dead coach and say “move along”, is all I’m saying, and if Penn State and the NCAA want to punish Paterno and Penn State, then stand up and take their own hits for being complicit as well.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 7/23/2012 @ 5:42 pm
McCreary, whose testimony was central to the whole thing breaking out in the open, was not interviewed by Freeh? Why the heck was that, did he read the grand jury testimony and take it at face value or something?
As said above, there is plenty of blame to go around, so everybody should claim their share instead of saying “Paterno made me do it”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:00 pmDana, I believe MD was saying that Mr. Ejercito’s remark was the harsh one and that he hoped you wouldn’t bow out.
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:08 pmHe offered to speak with investigators.
Especially those janitors who did in fact cover up Sandusky’s crimes.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:09 pmWhat you may consider a little harsh may very well be my response to what I consider rudeness.
The more I write the more I miscommunicate. I thought it would have been clear that I thought Michael’s comment was a little harsh and there was no need for you to bow out…
It was a mess, it is a mess. The NCAA making a ruling is not furthering any investigation, it is closing the book and saying, “We’ve seen enough, blame the dead guy, move on”. Penn State being quick to let the focus be on the school distancing itself from “The Paterno Legacy” is also self-serving. I’m just saying, “Hold on a minute here, not so fast.” It’s too convenient and too easy to say, “Sandusky was the criminal and is now in jail, Paterno was the god we all feared and didn’t dare cross and now he is dead. When’s the first football game?”
And if the NCAA and Penn State do want to distance themselves, let them show their seriousness by giving back the spoils.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:09 pmComment by Leviticus — 7/23/2012 @ 6:08 pm
Thanks for getting there before me, I type slow (or is it I think slow and type slower…)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:11 pmUgh. Sorry, MD, I misunderstood your comment. I’m bowing out now to go to dinner and enjoy a margarita. It can be a bit of work for me to discuss this subject in a non-emotional and rational manner as the awfulness of the crime is right there, coupled with the fact that a number of adults remained well aware of it for years while more children suffered. Anywho, sorry for the misread.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:18 pmDana, I think I’ve demonstrated I have no problem with speculation.
It’s just that the press is reporting as if it’s an established fact that Paterno wielded a great deal of power and somehow protected or covered for Sandusky.
I just don’t believe it’s been established at all.
This will remain the case for quite some while. It’s in the interest of certain people to selectively leak information. I think it’s relevant to consider that Curley and Schultz have been charged with perjury for lying to the Grand Jury about the Sandusky case.
I note they have not been convicted of perjury. I do believe, given the nature of the charge, that we may want to be cautious about simply taking their word, or the word of anyone who admits now they didn’t even report the rapes, about why they didn’t report the rapes.
I somehow think if they had some smoking gun of an email from Joe Paterno that shows he was well aware of Sandusky’s proclivities and could care less we’d know that by now. I can’t say that with certainty. But then it’s still far from certain that Paterno functioned as the godfather of Happy Valley running a pedophile protection racket.
I’ve seen that alleged. But the evidence for that I’ve seen bandied about in the press falls far short of establishing that as a fact. The people making these allegations may never be convicted of perjury. But they’ve hardly established a track record as bold truth tellers.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:18 pmRemoving Paterno’s and PSU’s wins makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does punishing the football program going forward. They’re acting like the football team benefited from what Sandusky did.
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:30 pmDana- I hope you enjoy/enjoyed the margarita.
Yes, it is terrible, which is why I think things like the NCAA penalties and statue take-down are more distractions than meaningful actions. I’m not claiming to know Paterno really was all good, I’m just saying my skepticism says it’s too easy to make a dead person take the blame.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:31 pmHere’s the thing that convinced me that Joe Paterno turned a blind eye to Sandusky’s crimes:
When McQueary went to Paterno in 2001 with the story of witnessing Sandusky raping a child in the Penn State locker room shower (a story that was corroborated by Paterno’s own grand jury testimony), what did Joe do? He waited a couple of days to notify Curley and Spanier (I think?) of the allegations. Then, after much discussion and soul searching, they decided to ask Sandusky to stop bringing boys onto campus. That’s it, just “take it off-campus”.
And what happened to McQueary after making this accusation that Paterno and the Penn State administration apparently felt was unfounded? Was he asked to find a new job with another program? No, he was not. He was promoted and eventually ended up as a high-ranking assistant to Paterno.
THIS is a logical paradox to me. Did Paterno support Sandusky’s presumed innocence? Then why keep someone in a position of trust that you feel is telling false stories about a former associate? Did Paterno believe McQueary’s story? Then why the hell didn’t he insist on going to the police? Sandusky quietly faded away with no action taken towards him, while McQueary rose within the PSU football program and apparently suffered no consequences for “telling tall tales” on Sandusky. That just makes no sense.
“Occam’s Razor” would suggest that Joe Paterno didn’t give a damn, and wanted this story to disappear ASAP. Revealing Sandusky as a pedophile to the public would damage his program (ironically, it would have done a hell of a lot less damage than their cover-up managed to do), so he simply acted to make sure that Jerry Sandusky would not be caught molesting kids on campus by another coach again. Not that he couldn’t molest any more kids. That’s not exactly the action of a great leader of men, IMHO.
Russ from Winterset (6354df) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:33 pmLeviticus, I’m not going to be the one to say Dana is wrong. She may well be right. I’m just not prepared to conclude that based upon what I’ve seen so far.
Nobody’s going to burst any of my bubbles if they have evidence Paterno was more aware of Sandusky and his hobbies, and more involved in the cover-up, then it appears to me so far.
That would be impossible. I never had any illusions about Joe Paterno in the first place, so they can’t be shattered in the second place.
It’s just going to take more than the words of people I know were aware of Sandusky’s crimes and did nothing about them. As they themselves admit.
What I’ve seen in the reporting so far doesn’t live up to the sensational headlines.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:36 pmMichael,
The Freeh Report provides (at pp 51-52):
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:38 pmRuss, I thought Paterno went to the higher ups later that afternoon, could be wrong.
“Going to the police” I have read multiple things about this and still find conflicting reports. It is my understanding that the Campus police are “the police”. It is not like there is campus security that then calls in the city police or county sheriff when a crime has been convicted. It is my understanding that Paterno and McQueary did tell the “top cop” in the jurisdiction about the incident, and if Paterno was to do more, which perhaps he should have, it would have been to leap over “the police” that had been told and go to county or state officials. I could be wrong, but the source for that (don’t remember) seemed to know what they were saying, but I’m open to correction or clarification.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:42 pmI think there is a reason the NCAA punished Paterno’s legacy by removing his wins. Unlike Paterno, coaches don’t stay with one program as they used to, and some of the coaches who have presided over problems left before sanctions were imposed and arguably escaped responsibility. (Hi, Pete Carroll!)
Thus, it’s not enough to punish the school. The NCAA also had to punish the coach (even posthumously) to send the message to current coaches that their actions will follow them to the next school, if only through their win-loss record.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:45 pmThe problem, of course, is that they also punished the PLAYERS that worked their butts off to get those wins — players that are (as far as we know) completely innocent when it comes to being complicit in any cover-up.
Icy (1d4891) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:51 pmDRJ, thank you for your diligent documentation, but I’m not going to treat the Freeh report as fact. I’m going to treat it as a report from a potentially biased source. Were his interviews under oath? Cross-checked with Grand Jury investigation?
It seems to me that if Paterno knew and enabled Sandusky’s behavior to the degree some claim, criminal charges should have been appropriate as an accomplice/conspiracy or some such, would they not?
The Freeh report might have been commissioned by people wanting to know the truth, or by people who wanted to do damage control. At the moment I do not know which, but I think the odds are 40:60
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:52 pmMD,
Read aloud by a representative for the Attorney General’s office, Joe Paterno’s Grand Jury testimony lasted 6 minutes in court.Here is what he said:
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:53 pmMD,
According to the Freeh Report (at page 68), Paterno testified before the Grand Jury that he:
Paterno called AD Tim Curley on Sunday and asked him and VP Gary Schultz to meet him that afternoon.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:54 pmCross-posted with Dana.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:55 pmMD,
It’s good to be skeptical but I think you are going to be disappointed in the long run.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:56 pmComment by DRJ — 7/23/2012 @ 6:45 pm
Punish, shmunish, I say take responsibility and if the NCAA benefited from Paterno (in TV royalties for all of those wins) then they should return what it for the abuse awareness fund. As I said before, I think they are trying to bury the problem and put it in the past more than anything else. “The school” doesn’t get punished, students, athletes, community businesses get punished.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:57 pmSMU got the death penalty for a lot less. Happy Valley should just thank their lobbyists and STFU.
No one is thrilled with the NCAA, even employees.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/23/2012 @ 6:58 pmDana, DRJ, do you know for sure if Curly was the person Paterno should have gone to, and that was the equivalent of “going to the police”?
Maybe I will be disappointed, DRJ. I would bet you a steak in St. Louis (~midway?) on it but I can’t promise to either pay up or be there to collect!
I think that while Paterno was very influential, he probably was getting a bit feeble like grandpa and didn’t have the lion’s roar that many think he has.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:03 pmI don’t see where Paterno notified campus police or city police, but instead notified Tim Curley, Athletic Director, which apparently satisfied Pennsylvania’s mandated reporter laws.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:04 pmAccording to the reporting, when McQueary told him that he had seen something Paterno reported it to Curley at his earliest opportunity. He didn’t wait. At least, he didn’t delay any longer than he had to until the start of the work week.
As far as exactly what McQueary told him he saw, he apparently never said anything about rape. If you go back and check, Paterno never said McQueary reported witnessing Sandusky raping a child. The day after the incident, McQueary reported to Paterno that he witnessed Sandusky acting inappropriately with a child, and this inappropriate conduct was sexual in nature. That’s what Paterno told the grand jury.
Former Penn State coach Joe Paterno’s full grand jury testimony on Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse case read into the record at hearing
No one charged Paterno with perjury. They charged Curley and Schultz with perjury when they claimed they weren’t aware of the allegations against Sandusky. But not Paterno.
It strikes me that Paterno thought McQueary did the right thing by telling him about “it.” But that Paterno wasn’t all that clear on what “it” was he was being told.
I don’t see the conflict, if that’s the case. He could promote McQueary if he believed the grad assistant demonstrated some integrity. At the same time he could have been unsure about what McQueary saw that was so upsetting. And thus also not taken any stronger action as a result of this uncertainty.
I think if he had been more certain of what McQueary had seen, he’d have interrupted Curley’s weekend. It strikes me as odd that an 84 year old man would want to be remembered for his testimony to the grand jury that he doesn’t think child rape is worth bothering someone at home over on a weekend. That child rape can wait until Monday.
I don’t believe McQueary impressed upon Paterno that what he saw was in fact rape. The grand jury testimony doesn’t support that conclusion in any case.
What it does do is cast doubt on the stories of these janitors who claimed they didn’t report what they saw out of fear of the unchallengeable wrath of Paterno. What wrath? What retaliation?
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:04 pmSI considered the legal ramifications of Paterno notifying Curley rather than the police department.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:08 pmCurley did tell Schultz, who was in charge of the campus police in his role as university v.p.
Getting the word to Schultz was telling the police.
And I’m still not clear exactly what McQueary reported seeing. I’m under the impression that McQueary testified to the grand jury he saw Sandusky fondling a boy in the shower. But everyone around him seems to have only the vaguest idea what it was he said he saw. I’m under the impression that what he told the grand jury was a lot more specific and compelling than what he told people at the time.
If Paterno thought he just saw Sandusky engaged in inappropriate “horsing around,” and that’s what he turned around and told Curley, that would explain why Paterno lacked any sense of urgency to get the information out.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:19 pmDana, have that margarita yet?
Sorry to be such a something. I don’t care what SI speculates about the law. If Paterno broke the law, why wasn’t he indicted?
I’m heeding the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Affect as described by Michael Crichton. People have debated over Paterno since the mid 80’s that he was too old to coach, too old fashioned, was he really a good coach of student athletes, etc., etc.,
It’s getting late and my computer is acting funny (probably automatically updating something and stealing my RAM). Have a good night all.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:25 pmAs I read page 68 of the Freeh Report (which quoted from Paterno’s Grand Jury testimony), McQueary reported the shower incident to Paterno on Saturday morning and Paterno notified AD Curley and VP Schultz in person in a meeting he called later the following day, Sunday.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:32 pmG’night, MD.
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:47 pmAccording to these papers, the state alleges that evidence only recently discovered demonstrates the extent of Schultz’s perjury during his grand jury testimony.
Emails and other documents show that Schultz was aware of allegations against Sandusky, a fact he denied when he testified. The court documents state that these emails were between Schultz, Curley, and others.
Whether “others” includes Joe Paterno or not isn’t mentioned. Whether these emails and documents impeach Paterno’s testimony or just Curley’s and Schultz’s isn’t clear. Whether these documents even support the charges against Schultz and Curley remains to be seen, let alone speculation about Paterno’s role in all this.
It’s a pretty harsh document the state has filed with the court, though. Apparently Penn State failed to comply with the grand jury’s subpoena and provide these documents quite a while ago. Not good.
This is a damning indictment, but it’s not a conviction. If there’s a possibility the state can make this case, though, I think it’s prudent to take what these people are saying with a grain of salt.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:55 pmSo one defense of Paterno’s inaction is that he wasn’t told the precise nature of “actions of a sexual nature” (Paterno’s own words in the GJ testimony, correct?) occuring between a grown man and a little boy in the Penn State locker room? Actions that were apparently disturbing enough to cause distress to Mike McQueary while he was retelling the story?
So because Joe Paterno might not have been told all the precise details of an encounter “of a sexual nature” between a grown man and a little boy occuring in HIS locker room, that’s a reasonable explantion for why he never attempted to find out exactly what happened? Jesus Christ, Joe Paterno controlled everything down to the logos on the jerseys. Why didn’t he ask “Mike, exactly what sort of sexual activity did you see?” Perhaps he thought that the “actions of a sexual nature” were pure and natural “actions of a sexual nature” that happen between little boys and old men every day in our world.
Of course, you’ll have to define those perfectly innocent “actions of a sexual nature” to me, because I can’t seem to think of a single one right now.
I have never believed that Joe Paterno was part of an active cover-up of pedophilia. My position is that Joe Paterno didn’t give a damn. This may or may not have exposed him to legal liability, but that’s not my point. My point is that Joe Paterno’s entire life was based on getting people to take responsibility, yet when he could have taken responsiblity for acting to stop molestation from happening, it appears that he was more interested in trying to gameplan upcoming games against Wisconsin or Northwestern.
That might not make him a criminal, but it does give Penn State all the excuse they needed to tear down his statue and proceed to dismantle his legacy. And personally? For me? All the attempts to make Joe into just another victim of this story make me want to puke. And as for all the “innocent victims” at Penn State? I’m sorry, but tough shit. There’s no constitutional right to root for a successful football program that I know of, unless it’s in one of those “penumbras” that the Supremes keep finding. Unless all these “innocent victims” were also raped by Jerry Sandusky, they don’t deserve to be considered as victims in a case where little boys were subject to horrific crimes.
College football is a game. Just a goddamn game. Joe Paterno and his three fellow administrators forgot that.
Russ from Winterset (6354df) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:58 pmSee #126. Penn State made a lot of money via Mr Mann so they whitewashed, as they did with the football coach.
To me part of the vitriol is due to PennState hierarchy having a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude about their football (and sports) program. Coach Paterno himself did not quite have that attitude, but the higher ups sure did. Especially the one who got canned last fall.
I’m not sure what legal action Coach Paterno is expected to have taken. However, he should have put up an iron wall between the football program and his former assistant.
seaPea (b9cc8e) — 7/23/2012 @ 7:58 pmJoe Paterno washed his hands of the molestation charges 10 years before they became public knowledge. So, now that THAT is established, let’s install his recently removed statue in an appropriate location.
Does anyone know of an organization that maintains a reverent statue of Pontius Pilate? Maybe they’ve got a spot right next to it for Paterno’s statue.
Russ from Winterset (6354df) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:15 pmseaPea, I’m not sure how much of a free hand the University allowed Paterno when dealing with Sandusky.
The emails I’ve seen between Curley and Schultz express a great deal of concern for what they may be held liable for.
It seems to me that if they were concerned about opening themselves to a lawsuit from Sandusky, they might not have let Paterno restrict Sandusky’s access to the facility or to set up that iron wall. The two administrators express a great deal of concern for safety. Not for the kids, though, but for themselves. If the University couldn’t revoke or eliminate Sandusky’s access without provoking a lawsuit, they may have told Paterno not to restrict his access in any way. Just to be “safe.”
I don’t know if that’s the sort of fact that will come out during their perjury trials. I hope so.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:34 pmWhere have you seen that confirmed, Russ?
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/23/2012 @ 8:35 pmoh please, Sandusky had his keys to the locker room taken and was officially told by Spanier that Sandusky was not to bring children to the PennState campus in 2002
seaPea (b9cc8e) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:18 pm@ MD,
I don’t blame you questioning SI, and I should have been more specific – the article I linked to is by no slouch, but by Michael McCann, Director of the Sports Law Institute and Professor of Law.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:21 pmIn addition, Professor McCann is an established expert in media and broadcasting law, antitrust law, contract law, criminal law, law and psychology, food and drug law, and law and analytics. Along with Jon Hanson, the Alfred Smart Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Professor McCann is co-founder of The Project on Law and Mind Sciences at Harvard Law School. Professor McCann has also taught a sports law and analytics reading group at Yale Law School – the first such course to be offered at any law school – and sports law and administrative law courses at Boston College Law School. He was Chair of the Association of American Law School’s Section on Law and Sports in 2008.
____________________________________________
You have said some jaw-droppingly backwards things in this thread, and that aphrael hasn’t absolutely shredded them (and you) in front of everybody is evidence of good manners and (I suspect) a good deal of anger which he feels might overwhelm respectful discourse. Comment by Leviticus — 7/23/2012 @ 12:46 pm
And those backwards things are what?
If anything, when aphrael said he was more bothered by the Boy Scouts being legally allowed to have bylaws that disallow homosexuals from being Troop masters than over bawdy, off-color, if not lewd, displays at typical Gay Pride parades, he merely confirmed my assumptions about people who are not just gay but also very liberal.
However, I do have one regret about this thread. It’s that the design of Patterico’s forum is such, that after opening up this webpage several hours later and having to wade through dozens of postings, I feel like I’m reading a document done by the type of person who doesn’t like using paragraph breaks. The web designer of Patterico.com deserves to have his (or her) eyes poked out.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:28 pmRegarding Paterno and whether or not he broke the law,
There was, at one time, the potential for Paterno to face both perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:33 pmWait.
Mark, at 86:
> are you bothered more by the Boy Scouts having bylaws that pertain to homosexuality
Me, at 87:
> I’m far more offended by the BSA prohibition on gay scouts than I am by gay pride events and parades.
Mark, at 194:
> aphrael said he was more bothered by the Boy Scouts being legally allowed to have bylaws that disallow homosexuals from being Troop masters than over bawdy, off-color, if not lewd, displays at typical Gay Pride parades,
You just put words in my mouth. You did not ask me about the BSA “being legally allowed” do do something. I made no claim about how I felt about the BSA being “legally allowed” to do something. And yet here you are saying I did.
Please retract this claim. It misrepresents the choice you asked me to make and it misrepresents what I said.
—-
I’m *particularly* angry about this because I have gone out of my way to avoid misrepresenting the claims you have made or inferring from them more than is explicitly there. See my remark to DRJ at #27.
Please provide me the same courtesy.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:35 pm@ Steve57,
That would make sense. However, Paterno’s GJ testimony stated that McQueary told him Sandusky was engaged in “doing something of a sexual nature” to a boy”. Nothing specific, true, but still mentioned a “sexual nature”.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:44 pm______________________________________________
Until someone can clearly document that Paterno actively covered for Sandusky, I think many are blaming Paterno for not doing what they didn’t do themselves
From a purely social standpoint, I wonder what the interaction was like between Paterno and Sandusky, and between Sandusky and other people in the know, after they all had heard about Sandusky being a possible pedophile or creep or weirdo. Was their demeanor towards him even a bit cooler, hesitant, sullen, standoffish?
After rumors started flying, if Paterno, etc, instead continued to backslap and high five Sandusky in a manner that I imagine was the case before all of them were privy to growing allegations, that would be very telling, very damning. IOW, I think any normal, decent person, upon learning of Sandusky’s behavior, from that moment onward would have been creeped out by the coach and acted towards him (at least unconsciously) accordingly.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:45 pm_________________________________________
You did not ask me about the BSA “being legally allowed” do do something
aphrael, that’s a technicality, even more so since I was trying to determine the gut reactions you have to (if only or merely) the symbolism of the BSA enacting rules that ban homosexuals from being troop leaders compared with your gut reaction to the symbolism of over-sexualized, off-color Gay Pride parades. Whether one or the other involves or doesn’t involve the court system or law enforcement is of secondary importance to me. Again, I was trying to gauge your ideological emotions about one compared with the other.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:53 pmAphrael has been more patient with Mark than is deserved.
JD (b22d65) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:55 pm==“I was in a little bit of a dilemma … because Sandusky didn’t work for me anymore,” it continues. (Paterno grand jury testimony 2011 referencing 2002 McCreery convo)==
A kind of key point that didn’t get mentioned on here much today is Sandusky’s abrupt “retirement” in 1999. He was 55 years old and was considered to be a brilliant strategist and Paterno’s heir apparent.
*May, 1998: Jerry Sandusky is investigated by campus police for showering with a young boy in Penn State facilities. No charges are filed and the case is closed by Gary Schultz.
Sept-Dec, 1998: Jerry Sandusky coordinates the defense of a Penn State team that goes 9-3 and allows opposing teams to score an average of 15.25 points per game.
January, 1999: Sandusky expresses strong interest in developing a football program at Penn State Altoona, where they did not have a football team. Sandusky was still a Penn State coach at this time. Altoona is 40 miles from State College.
May, 1999: Jerry Sandusky is informed by Joe Paterno that he will not be the head coach at Penn State.
July, 1999: Jerry Sandusky announces that the upcoming season will be his last and that he is retiring.
Dec, 1999: Jerry Sandusky, already investigated for sexual assault, takes young boy who is not his son to the Alamo Bowl and allegedly assaults him while on the trip.
Dec, 1999: Penn State finishes the season 10-3 and shuts out Texas A&M in Sandusky’s final game.
Dec, 1999: Sandusky receives professor emeritus standing at Penn State including an office on campus. He receives access to all rec facilities, a parking pass, an internet account, faculty discounts at the book store, and educational privileges. He had full access to football facilities as well.
*Timeline above excerpted from larrybrownsports.com
Wouldn’t a normal coach who was highly regarded look to go to another school or be heavily recruited by another college rather than “retire” at 55 if he was told he would not get his dream job at Penn State? Or perhaps did the iffy behavior by Sandusky make him unemployable at Penn State or anywhere?
People gossip. Joe, Penn State admin, and probably (on the sly) a lot of other schools knew full well that Sandusky had a problem as far back as 1999 even if they were not completely aware of the full extent. Jerry retired. Important people around Penn State and the close knit collegiate football family knew why Jerry retired even as the reason was officially kept quiet. And that, folks, is why he never coached anywhere professionally again. And probably is also a big reason NCAA took such a strong stand today. Important people at Penn State knew for over 10 years that young boys were in peril around Sandusky and did nothing. Oh yeah. They knew.
elissa (099ee4) — 7/23/2012 @ 9:56 pm______________________________________________
Aphrael has been more patient with Mark than is deserved.
And, JD, you’re indignant about or resentful of my comments because of what or why? I need specifics, not retorts about who should or shouldn’t be patient.
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:17 pm> that’s a technicality,
no, it isn’t. The difference between being bothered by someone doing something and being bothered by someone being legally allowed to do something is *enormous*. I think all of us understand this concept: it’s legal for people to do things which we don’t like, it’s even legal for people to do things which we consider immoral. And in a free society, it’s a *good thing* that it’s legal for people to do things which we dislike or think are immoral.
Saying that I’m bothered by someone doing something is simply *not* the same thing as saying that i’m bothered by someone being legally allowed to do something.
> Whether one or the other involves or doesn’t involve the court system or law enforcement is of secondary importance to me.
That does not justify the imprecision with which you characterized my answer to your question.
> the symbolism of the BSA enacting rules that ban homosexuals from being troop leaders
Please note that I have indicated, to elissa, that I’m more concerned with the ban on *gay scouts* than *gay scoutmasters*, and that in my remark to you in #87 I specifically referred to “the BSA prohibition on gay scouts.”
I’m being fairly precise with what I say in this thread. I usually try to be precise in online conversations, and I’m being more so in this one because it would be *very easy* to respond emotionally to things which I’ve inferred about what people have said rather than the actual words they’ve typed, and because such a response would make conversation impossible.
It’s fairly clear to me that you’re not being similarly precise. But that makes it *extremely* difficult to converse with you. And it’s making it difficult to want to continue the conversation, because I don’t believe that you’ll react to what I *say*; my experience with you so far in this thread has been that you will misinterpret me. As you did in #194 and as you somewhat did again in #200.
—————–
> I was trying to gauge your ideological emotions about one compared with the other.
My ideological reaction is this: people choosing to discriminate against other people for reasons that are not relevant generally bothers me. It bugs me when employers discriminate on the basis of religion, their employees’ political affiliation, or how their employees spend their free time; i’m displeased in favor of the decision by some employers to require their employees to stop smoking or lose weight.
I’m even *more* displeased when that discrimination is based on a characteristic which I share.
I’m *particularly* displeased with the BSA’s discrimination on this issue because the BSA’s argument for why they should be exempt from New Jersey’s general law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was that “homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean.”” (See the majority opinion in BSA v Dale, where the Supreme Court decided the issue *entirely* based on this representation by the BSA). That is to say: it is the *official position* of the BSA that I am not clean, and am not moral, because I have sex with other men.
It is simply NOT the case that their justification for not allowing gay scout masters is that they’re afraid gay scout masters might rape the scouts in their care. They may very well believe that, but it’s not the rationale they offered when asked to demonstrate why they should be exempt from a general purpose law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The argument they offered was that they are an organization which engages in expressive activity, that part of what they are trying to express is that homosexual conduct is immoral and unclean, and that forcing them to allow gay scoutmasters would violate their first amendment rights by significantly affecting their ability to advocate the viewpoint that homosexual conduct is immoral or unclean.
So, yeah, this bothers me.
I think it would bother *any* gay person who knew the details of their legal argument, to be honest.
(The majority opinion in BSA v Dale is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html. And I’ll note again that I’m *not* complaining about the legal principle underlying the decision – that an organization must be able to exclude people if including them would significantly affect the organization’s ability to advocate a viewpoint. I’m complaining about the fact that the application of this legal principle to the BSA depended on the BSA’s self-reported viewpoint that all gay people who are not celibate are per se unclean and immoral.)
——
On the other hand, you ask me about gay pride parades. Now, i’m not the best person to talk about gay pride parades, as i’ve only gone to one in my life. But, really, honestly, gay pride events don’t bother me. It’s still pretty common for people to have to struggle to come out. I talk to people regularly who come out and lose their friends and family. I talk to people even more regularly who are afraid to come out because that might happen. if coming out is a struggle, if you pay a price for it, even if only people you love had to struggle and pay a price, then pride is a powerful tool. it’s a tool of defiance, an in-your-face reaction of resistance to the forces which kept you in the closet or which made you pay a price for coming out. it’s an entirely natural reaction to want that, and it can serve as a powerful catharsis.
Furthermore … my experience at gay pride, and that of many of the people i’ve spoken to who really enjoy it is, that the kind of thing you’re talking about, while it happens, is only part of what goes on. It *is* the part which gets the most media attention. But that’s the fault of the media who would rather focus on shock value than on understanding. this is a major problem with media across the board, right? shock value sells papers, actually trying to understand the people you’re reporting on doesn’t.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:24 pm> i’m displeased in favor of the decision by some employers to require their employees to stop smoking or lose weight.
was a stupid thing to say.
i originally wrote “i’m not in favor of the decision”, tried to change it to “i’m displeased by the decision”, and made a muddle of it.
please read this sentence as:
“i’m displeased by the decision by some employers to require their employees to stop smoking or lose weight.”
aphrael (24797a) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:25 pmI think Mark is referring to this type of behavior which is condoned, seemingly. I will not provide a link but Google “zombie folsom street”.
Gazzer (f51db3) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:33 pmDo NOT do this from work…
______________________________________________
Please note that I have indicated, to elissa, that I’m more concerned with the ban on *gay scouts* than *gay scoutmasters*
Since I originated my comments about the Supreme Court’s ruling several years ago on a case involving the BSA, which pertained to a lawsuit against it by a Troop leader who was homosexual, I automatically placed my comments (and, in turn, your comments) in the context of that.
More precisely, I’m not aware of any case of the BSA singling out a youngster in the Scouts who was judged to be gay and then banning him. Generally, the sexuality of younger people (certainly those who are around the ages of 10 to 13, or younger) still is being formed, or yet to be obvious one way or the other, and is treated by most mature adults accordingly.
gay pride events don’t bother me.
Yet you still may wonder why outsiders have a less-than-positive impression of gays? At the very least, if you are nonetheless turned off by the over-sexualized aspects of such events, I’d think you’d be less indignant about the media highlighting that than the fact that such weirdly bawdy aspects of “gay pride” events exist in the first place. Otherwise, there’s too much of a “shoot the messenger” response underlying your POV.
You also are resentful that the BSA says that homosexual activity is unclean and immoral. But, again, when apparently much of the modern gay community not only doesn’t cringe at stereotypically over-sexualized Gay Pride parades, but even embraces them, and is often in the news for suffering from a disproportionately high rate of STDs, how else do you think the BSA or the public in general is going to respond to that or should act towards that basic slice of reality?
Mark (a346be) — 7/23/2012 @ 10:59 pmMark, certainly this is more of an issue for older scouts than it is for younger scouts. But there are 16- and 17- year old scouts who know they are gay, and who would face explusion under the bylaws if they publically admitted to it.
> I’d think you’d be less indignant about the media highlighting that than the fact that such weirdly bawdy aspects of “gay pride” events exist in the first place
I’m not particularly indignant about the media on this issue. The media does what the media does: look for the most sensationalist thing it can find and use that as the hook for their coverage. This is true categorically, particularly for television media. They’re not singling gay peple out.
I do find it odd that similar excesses at Mardi Gras get less coverage, but I’m not entirely sure that isn’t selection bias on my part (eg, i’m more likely to notice news reports about gay pride, so it’s hard for me to judge the quantity of that coverage vs. the quantity of other coverage).
> You also are resentful that the BSA says that homosexual activity is unclean and immoral. But, again, when apparently much of the modern gay community not only doesn’t cringe at stereotypically over-sexualized Gay Pride parades ..
I’d like to note that while the stereotypically oversexualized stuff you’re referring to isn’t to my *taste*, I don’t think it’s per se unclean or immoral. And I think it’s overall a good thing for the world when consenting adults have the freedom to engage in the kind of sexplay which they enjoy, even if – and maybe particularly if – it isn’t something *I* would enjoy.
> how else do you think the BSA or the public in general is going to respond to that or should act towards that basic slice of reality?
by judging me as an individual based on my behavior rather than judging me by stereotype based on the behavior of members of a very large group that i’m a member of.
Now, I admit that’s hard to do if you don’t know me and all you know about me is my group membership. But an organization which announces in court that it takes the official position that i’m unclean and immoral based simply on the fact that I have a husband *isn’t even trying*.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/23/2012 @ 11:21 pmSandusky retired from Penn State in 1999. This fact seems to be lost in most of the news stories.
Most, but not all, the molestations occured off campus, and involved children in his private charity.
so why are they punishing the students and the football players?
Another factoid to put into perspective: abuse of children is alas common, especially in minority boys. Until this abuse comes to light, the public will keep finding scapegoats instead of confronting the problems
LINK ONE
and the percentage is higher in boys who say they are gay
tioedong (7cefbb) — 7/24/2012 @ 1:23 amLINK TWO:
I don’t even understand how I finished up here, but I thought this submit used to be great. I do not recognise who you’re but definitely you’re going to a well-known blogger if you aren’t already. Cheers!
zdjęciana facebook (a8097b) — 7/24/2012 @ 1:51 amAnd, JD, you’re indignant about or resentful of my comments because of what or why?
How about treating people as individuals, as opposed to how you can pigeon-hole them with your notions of how certain groups act.
JD (b22d65) — 7/24/2012 @ 4:51 amSteve57@comment#192:
Where have I seen that confirmed? Joe Paterno’s own grand jury testimony. He acknowledged that McQueary told him about “actions of a sexual nature” occuring between Jerry Sandusky and a little boy in the locker room on campus. He then stated that once he had the initial meetings with his counterparts in the administration, he did nothing. He did not bring this to the attention of law enforcement, he did not ask any follow up questions about the status of the situation, and he never mentioned ANY conversations he had with Jerry Sandusky about this issue.
It’s not like Joe Paterno was shy about confronting people he thought were breaking the law in OTHER situations. Remember this?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3058734
Why did Joe Paterno consider reckless driving to be worthy of action, but “actions of a sexual nature” between a grown man & a little boy were not?
Russ from Winterset (6354df) — 7/24/2012 @ 5:26 amThat sure was an apples the elephants comparison.
JD (b22d65) — 7/24/2012 @ 5:33 amG’mornin’ all, it’s a new day-
I did mention a few times that Sandusky was no longer employed by Penn State after 98 or 99 or so, but then I mentioned a whole lot of things.
One discreet point: as Steve and others mention, Sandusky had access to certain things because of his emeritus status, whether Paterno liked it or not, whether Louis Freeh and the janitors think that Paterno ruled the world or not.
Could Paterno have done more (whatever it was he did?) apparently so, as he said so himself. But, it was not a situation where Paterno dictated everything that happened, it was a situation where Paterno said one thing to the univ. president, and the univ president said, “My lawyers say not to”. Paterno even in 98 is a 70ish yo football coach. He probably has never had to personally lawyer up to take on his boss before and finds it easier to “give them a piece of his mind” like he would to a ref at a football game, then stomp off grumbling back to his office, while the school admin figure “grandpa Joe” is mad but is not going to challenge them. Now, that may still have clearly been a fault and mistake and worthy of a statue being taken down, but it fits with the notion of a tragedy, a great man who had done great things was not up for perhaps his greatest challenge, not the all-powerful master of Central PA that could get whatever he wanted so he must have been at fault.
Important people at Penn State knew for over 10 years that young boys were in peril around Sandusky and did nothing. Oh yeah. They knew.
Comment by elissa — 7/23/2012 @ 9:56 pm
So did the DA, who disappeared around 2004 or so. Which is why I’ve said from the beginning, short of going to the state AG directly what was Paterno to do? Perhaps he should have gone to the state AG directly, but I think in general once a private citizen knows an investigation is in the hands of the DA they figure their role is done.
My main point is that it is too easy to say this is a Paterno and Penn State football problem, and why actions by the NCAA and about Paterno’s statue are more of a distraction and a premature attempt at “getting on with it”.
I think all I have to say on this has already been said (at least once, sorry) and I need to get stuff done today.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 5:45 amAs to the discussion regarding the Boy Scouts and all, FWIW for those looking at recent posts only I commented at #137 (Comment by MD in Philly — 7/23/2012 @ 2:51 pm)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 5:50 amThere is a fundamental basic disagreement which must logically lead to conflict on issues of the Boy Scouts and such. If one thinks the basic disagreement is illegitimate because the other side is just plain wrong (whichever side that may be), then there is little chance of even coming to a mutually acceptable public compromise, and you hit the dilemma of what to do in a tolerant society with two mutually exclusive views. That is on the “big picture” level. As far as the “individual” level, I personally am not sure how well that can be discussed on a forum like this.
Obviously that time has passed with Paterno. But it remains to be seen if these recently uncovered documents and emails implicate Paterno in the perjury and obstruction Curley and Schultz engaged in (although Curley and Schultz are still only charged with perjury as far as I’m aware, the fact they kept these documents from the Grand Jury in defiance of the subpoena I suspect may lead to other charges).
The state alleges and believes it can prove that Curley and Schultz lied to the Grand Jury about how much they knew about allegations against Sandusky. Schultz was keeping a file documenting these allegations, and discussed them in emails with Curley and others.
Paterno also said he wasn’t aware of any additional allegations other than the one McQueary informed him of. So far from all I’ve seen Paterno testified truthfully and didn’t participate in the cover up. But to reiterate, that could change with additional evidence. He could be one of the others discussing Sandusky in email. This is certainly possible.
Of course, it’s equally possible that the University administration kept Paterno in the dark as much as possible. They definitely were concerned about their liability when dealing with Sandusky. And Curley does say in one of the released emails that he was uncomfortable discussing the subject of Sandusky with anyone other than Sandusky.
That doesn’t lead me to believe Curley and Schultz kept Paterno in the loop at all. And let’s face it; the whole purpose of sweeping something under the rug is to prevent as many people as possible from knowing about it. It’s entirely possible, even likely given the administrations paranoia about Sandusky suing them, that they led Paterno to believe there was an ongoing investigation but they couldn’t discuss it with him. And that he couldn’t discuss the allegations either.
I’m not trying to be obtuse. I’m sure many find it damning that McQueary, though vague in his description of what he saw, said it was of a “sexual nature.” But based upon the description, Paterno could have thought McQueary misinterpreted what he saw since Paterno apparently reported “horseplay” to Curley.
My experience isn’t the be all and end all on these matters, but I’ve been involved in sexual harassment investigations where just such misinterpretations occurred. One young lady was very upset when she reported overhearing a “sexually explicit” conversation between two married individuals at work, but married to other people and not to each other. What she didn’t know was that they were brother and sister, and the conversation she overheard discussing what a great time they had the night before referred to a family get-together.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:41 amThinking about my last comment let me make an additional point.
Of course, even if one thinks there is a fundamental difference in homosexual inclination and behavior and heterosexual inclination and behavior, one could also believe that all individuals are pretty well “messed up” rather than “OK”, and that the differences in sexuality are just one aspect of many that we individually are “messed up in” to some degree.
Nobody likes to be told, “I’m ‘OK’, you’re not”. Some people don’t like to be told “You’re not ‘OK'”, no matter what follows. Some can accept, “You’re not ‘OK’, neither am I, it’s just that our being ‘not ok’ takes various forms.” Then there was the book I’m OK, You’re OK. The problem with that is even if we think “I’m OK”, we look around and see folk that we just can’t say “You’re OK” to.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:48 amWhat she didn’t know was that they were brother and sister, and the conversation she overheard discussing what a great time they had the night before referred to a family get-together.
Comment by Steve57 — 7/24/2012 @ 6:41 a
I think the current phrase is “Awkward”…
BTW, in all of the hubbub, I’ve never read or heard anything about how a grand jury probe was started at all. Did complaints come up about Sandusky from victims and their families to incidents not on the Penn State campus?
Of course, it’s equally possible that the University administration kept Paterno in the dark as much as possible. …
That doesn’t lead me to believe Curley and Schultz kept Paterno in the loop at all. And let’s face it; the whole purpose of sweeping something under the rug is to prevent as many people as possible from knowing about it. It’s entirely possible, even likely given the administrations paranoia about Sandusky suing them, that they led Paterno to believe there was an ongoing investigation but they couldn’t discuss it with him. And that he couldn’t discuss the allegations either.
Comment by Steve57 — 7/24/2012 @ 6:41 am
Keep someone in the dark and make them the fall guy, especially once dead. Maybe that’s only in books and not real life, but sure would be convenient.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:55 am_____________________________________________
How about treating people as individuals, as opposed to how you can pigeon-hole them with your notions of how certain groups act.
If anything, aphrael ended up expressing sentiments that pretty much (and regrettably) fit my assumptions about a person who’s both gay and of the left. I actually originally thought he’d say something about finding the excessively permissive, anything-goes behavior on display at typical Gay Pride parades/events as no less objectionable than the Boy Scouts upholding bylaws that discourage and disallow homosexuality.
I will not provide a link but Google “zombie folsom street”.
And that type of behavior isn’t exactly rare or unusual among an overly large percentage of the gay community. Or it certainly isn’t noticeably condemned or even somewhat publicly discouraged. As such, that type of response (or lack of such) is somewhat analogous to how far too much of the Islamic world is surprisingly quiet or far too nonchalant about Islamofascism.
The essence of chutzpah is when quite a few people in such communities have the nerve to blame others for their poor reputation, to scapegoat individuals outside their enclave (eg, Reagan even today still is criticized by certain gays/leftists for being supposedly heartless about AIDS) or societies (imperialist Americans! Jews/Christians! the decadent West!) for their lot in life.
Mark (af4d53) — 7/24/2012 @ 7:09 amIf the emails and other documents implicate Paterno, that’s one thing. But if this evidence illustrates that Curley was really reticent to talk to Paterno about Sandusky then I don’t see how much blame attaches to Paterno.
I find it odd that Paterno wouldn’t have asked about the investigation into the incident that McQueary reported. Curley notes in emails with Schultz that Paterno was “anxious to know where it stands” when he became aware of the 1998 investigation. The investigation which resulted in the DA and University police declining to file any charges as they determined “there was no criminal behavior established.”
I’d be surprised if they gave Paterno much in the way of detail. The emails show they were stonewalling the trustees, keeping them in the dark as much as possible, too.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 7:30 am_______________________________________________
Could Paterno have done more (whatever it was he did?) apparently so, as he said so himself.
I don’t know enough about what went on behind closed doors to have much confidence in how he should be perceived or dealt with. However, I do know that modern society is currently so distorted and twisted by political correctness run amok — combined with an increasing dumbing down of moral outrage — that far too many of us are getting trapped in sort of a quagmire.
I often mention Nidal Hasan, the US military (no less) and the Fort Hood massacre as the epitome of that. IOW, if military enlistees were actually first-hand witnesses to another member of their group hollering blatantly anti-American, pro-Islamic-extremist sentiments and didn’t (or couldn’t) do anything about them, then would someone like Joe Paterno in a far less open-and-shut situation be any more capable of handling the situation with Sandusky correctly?
Our culture is very politically-socially ass-backwards right now, with the following news story merely another glimpse into just how messed up it really is. The media, in particular (and the left in general), plays games due to their topsy-turvy biases, happily announcing a crime victim’s sexuality and the phrase “hate crime” on one hand, and on the other hand purposefully avoiding mentioning the background of the assailants. And yet we wonder why we live in an Alice-through-the-looking-glass period of time?:
Mark (af4d53) — 7/24/2012 @ 8:01 amThe NCAA continues it’s great tradition of searching for the guilty and punishing the innocent. Money is fungible. A $60 Million fine and the rest will cost innocent people their jobs. Nice going NCAA. Helping Obama with his economic plans.
quasimodo (47ad5b) — 7/24/2012 @ 8:40 amSteve57-
Why do YOU think Sandusky abruptly retired from Penn State in 1999 at the top of his game and at the relatively young age of 55– and never coached anywhere again? I posted some thoughts about that and a timeline late last night.
I guess for some people the “he no longer worked for Penn State” gave them the ability to wash their hands and lessened their responsibility for what occurred to boys over 10 years. I see it slightly differently. I think the fact that he suddenly was allowed to/forced to retire after “situations” involving young boys makes them more culpable. What McCreery told them about what he saw in the locker room several years later was not shocking new news about Sandusky’s proclivities. No. It should have been recognized as reinforcement of old news. At the very least at that time his privileges to use the locker room and other sports facilities at Penn State should have been immediately if quietly withdrawn. What would Sandusky have done about that? Sue them?
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:01 amelissa, according to all available information he retired because he wasn’t going to be head football coach and he didn’t like the alternatives Penn State offered him.
Such as assistant athletic director or to stay on as defensive coordinator.
He was definitely not forced out. Since he wanted the head coach position, and he wasn’t going to get it, he instead chose to work for his foundation.
And according to Penn State’s outside counsel, if they withdrew Sandusky’s privileges he could have sued. He hadn’t been convicted of anything. Even with this conviction, he’s not going to lose his pension. The crimes he committed are included among the crimes that would result in him losing his pension.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:26 am=He was definitely not forced out. Since he wanted the head coach position, and he wasn’t going to get it, he instead chose to work for his foundation==
Definitely was not forced out. OK Steve57. You go with that. Apparently you’ve never heard of a “cover story” to ease a ticklish transition. If it makes sense to you and others that he willingly chose working at his “foundation” over staying at Penn State or going someplace else to be a collegiate head coach I will not try to dissuade you.
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:37 am> The media, in particular (and the left in general), plays games due to their topsy-turvy biases, happily announcing a crime victim’s sexuality and the phrase “hate crime” on one hand, and on the other hand purposefully avoiding mentioning the background of the assailants.
And yet on the other hand, the media has been *extremely* circumspect about mentioning that the late Sally Ride was bisexual and spent the last 27 years of her life in a relationship with a woman.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:38 amI’m not a fan of Louis Freeh, and I don’t put much faith in his conclusions. But until it’s proved otherwise I’ll give this report the benefit of the doubt that at least they didn’t screw up the timeline.
Sandusky retired because it was entirely his choice. The university was in no hurry to wash their hands of him. Indeed, they offered him alternatives to retirement but Sandusky chose not to accept those alternative positions. As far as I know, his choice may have been heavily influenced by financial concerns. Often times the retirement package along with the opportunity to keep working in another capacity is attractive (even if you haven’t been accused of wrongdoing.) They did give him an “unusual” $168k lump sum payment and rehire him for another season.
I see no evidence that they were trying to force him out, and certainly no evidence they were trying to get rid of him because they were onto him. Paterno told Sandusky he wouldn’t be head coach before the first on-campus allegation was made against him, according to the timeline.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:42 amelissa, he did stay on at Penn State. They gave him emeritus status. He had an office, faculty privileges, and use of the facilities.
And given what we know now of his attraction to young boys and the network he had established centered on Penn State, it makes sense that he wouldn’t want to pick up and leave it in a twisted sort of way.
He had been with the same coaching staff at the same school for 30 years when he retired. That’s not the mark of a man who’s putting career advancement first. What makes you think he wasn’t offered other jobs at other schools, and turned them down, if he was so highly regarded as a defensive coordinator?
It certainly appears to me he had other priorities. Now we know what they were.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:49 amelissa- I think the fact that sandusky retired/was retired in ’99 may well have been in part because of the 1998 incident. I don’t think the question is simply does it make “Penn State” more or less culpable, but exactly who more or less culpable of what. There has been discussion of topics related to the questions you ask, I don’t know if you saw them or not.
I raised this before with little specific response, but with some commentary By Michael E. and Steve provided. There was an incident in 98, I guess off campus that it appears (?, I think?) that Paterno did not hear about(?). There was a criminal investigation and the DA declined to press charges. Apparently we are not aware of any civil proceedings (but who knows??)
One question is yes, is Sandusky going to sue them? A criminal investigation was raised, no charges filed, and now you are going to publicly assert he was guilty of a crime he wasn’t even charged for? I don’t know how that works.
The other issue, which I haven’t seen commented on here, is blackmail. Was there any way in which Curly and /or others had been involved in any way with some of Sandusky’s activities.
This is the problem about talking about “Penn State”. Crime was committed by individuals. There may have been a “culture of corruption”, but how far did that extend? Did anyone on the Board of Trustees know? What would make a Trustee wonder about what he was not being told? Maybe there was a small number involved and covering for each other and keeping others, who were not suspicious or inquisitive, in the dark.
Here you go for speculation. I just decided not to do this “out loud”, though I have before, but a bit guarded and vague. You have an organization that deals with “disadvantaged” kids, I assume that often means kids not in an intact and functional 2 parent family. Kids who are socially isolated are targets not just for abuse but for “recruitment” for very unpleasant things. People who recruit kids for such things are not nice people and may be involved in all kinds of things, including the kind of things that make DA’s disappear. This is why I say worrying about NCAA sanctions and statues is a big distraction, and why some people could potentially love the blame being dumped on a now dead “omniscient and omnipotent” Paterno, who in reality just took Curly and other at face value when they said, “The investigation continues, people have their eye on it”.
Maybe I’ve watched too many Monk episodes. I’m not still trying to find a way to exonerate Paterno, whatever he was guilty of let it be known, but it is, once again, to easy to blame stuff on a dead man.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:51 ambut it is, once again, to easy to blame stuff on a dead man.
Something the FAA learned a long time ago.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:12 amSteve57,
Why was Sandusky formally told in 1998 he wasn’t going to be offered the head coach position at Penn State whenever Paterno retired–when Paterno had not shown any intention to retire? Just a nice courtesy call about something that might not have happened for 10-12 years down the road? There did not seem to be any dispute that Sandusky was an exceptionally good coach with a winning record. What possible reason might they have had as early as 1998 to be so sure they were never going to promote him and to pointedly announce it to him right then?
Heh. Do you also believe all those earnest print stories about how a failing CEO or an under cloud of scandal politician decides to “retire” to “spend more time with his family”?
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:14 amMD, I don’t believe the 1998 incident had anything to do with his retirement. Paterno told Sandusky that he wouldn’t be head coach of Penn State in February. That’s also the month Curley offered Sandusky the position of assistant athletic director, which Sandusky turned down.
The shower incident took place and was reported in May. To the DA as well as campus police, and child welfare, by the way. Everybody declined to charge Sandusky by June, since they determined there was no evidence of a crime.
Sandusky didn’t finalize his retirement decision until January of 1999. He and the school didn’t come to an agreement until June of 1999, a year after the investigation was completed with no charges. Given the amount of time and the terms of the package they gave Sandusky, the University was certainly in no hurry to wash their hands of him:
I see no evidence he was forced out. He was offered other jobs at the university besides head coach, which Sandusky chose to turn down. He asked for and was granted a long term, collaborative relationship with Penn State. And the University administration went to bat for him to get him unusually generous terms.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:15 am_____________________________________________
Sandusky retired because it was entirely his choice. The university was in no hurry to wash their hands of him.
That timeline does not reflect very well upon both Paterno and those around him. It certainly doesn’t indicate that even though they were aware of Sandusky’s behavior, that they were as outraged (or even bothered) about it as they should have been.
There have been stories through the years of certain judges — perhaps only in the past, either here in the US or in banana-republic type countries in South America — quipping about why a female rape victim “didn’t just lie back and enjoy it.” Male sexuality can easily be very unhinged and absurdly self-indulgent, and the guys who are too blase about that facet of behavior are more likely to (at least in the back of their mind) rationalize away acts of child molestation — particularly if it involves kids who are well into their teenage years — and rape.
Mark (af4d53) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:19 amPossibly because Sandusky raised the issue. Paterno may not have been thinking of retiring, but Sandusky might have been thinking of moving on to a second career as a pedophile if he weren’t going to become head coach.
If you have any evidence that he was under a cloud of suspicion when Paterno gave him the bad news, I’d like to see it. It’s not in Freeh’s timeline, though.
I’m not saying these things because the make perfect sense to me, elissa, I’m saying them because that’s what the paper trail supports.
Where do you see any sign that Penn State was trying to wash their hands of Sandusky?
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:21 amMark, I think that it reflects badly on the University that they offered Sandusky unusually generous retirement terms, agreed to maintain a collaborative relationship with his kids’ sports charity, and offered him emeritus status.
I’d like to see whose bright idea that was, and why.
On the other hand, given that the shower incident had been reported to the police, the DA, and child welfare and they all agreed there was no evidence of a crime, I don’t see what the administration could have done further to pursue that. But maintaining the relationship after he retired was just suicidally stupid, if as Curley and Schultz’s emails indicate they were hypersensitive about liability issues. Freeh reports that Paterno advised them that his charity had no place on campus, and brought up the liability issue. It seems they ignored his advice, and then locked the school into agreements that they couldn’t break unless Sandusky got convicted of a crime first, lest they be sued.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:31 amThis brings up a question posed by a management guru in the past (Drucker, Peter, ???) on how long people should hold office at-the-top.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:34 amWhomever it was that I’m thinking about said that those in charge should be changed after 5-10 years regardless of their record – implying (if not actually stating) that after 10-years the institution became about them and not what its mission was, and the institution became the worse for it.
I think his views have proven to be accurate.
______________________________________________
I don’t see what the administration could have done further to pursue that.
But if there were hidden cameras that caught Paterno and his immediate circle of associates, including college administrators, with Sandusky at a gathering held AFTER all the allegations started to filter out about him, and they still were backslapping and smiling to one another, that would be very telling. It would be even more revealing if the behavior of those around Sandusky at some other soiree would have been more subdued — or subdued or standoffish, period — if he he were seen as the reason that, for example, Penn State hadn’t won a big bowl game.
Mark (af4d53) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:43 am==elissa- I think the fact that Sandusky retired/was retired in ’99 may well have been in part because of the 1998 incident.==
Thanks for clarifying that, MDinPhilly. Now to carry it just one tiny step further, do you think that, as head of the legendary football program, JoePa was not aware of the reasons for, and not intimately involved in both the internal discussions and the final decision in a Sandusky “retirement” project?
MD, as always, you’ve commented on this topic in good faith as I also tried to do. I’d like to reiterate that my intent in trying to understand what really happened here is not to crucify Joe Paterno or to paint him as a monster or make him a scapegoat for others’ crimes. He did a lot of good and inspired many young athletes and other coaches. The life and economy of State College Pa. owes much to Paterno’s fall weekend successes. But neither apparently was he the perfectly ethical angel and near perfect man his (perhaps somewhat managed) reputation suggested, and we all wanted to believe. I’d like his legacy to be an honest one–not manipulated in either direction. At this point that’s probably too much to hope for.
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 10:53 amWhy is it not in good faith to point out that there’s no reason to speculate on this point? Sandusky’s retirement was handled as a personnel matter and there’s a paper trail. Freeh used that paper trail to construct his timeline, and the documents that made up the paper trail are now in the hands of the prosecutors.
It either will support the contention that Paterno was intimately involved, or it won’t.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 11:00 amI agree. The summary of the Freeh report doesn’t exactly mess in a lot of places with what is actually in the report. Also, if Paterno did play a part in the cover up, why vacate wins all the way back to 1998? Sandusky was investigated in 1998 and the DA declined to press charges. The next incident that the school knew about was 2001.
Paterno is the one person who cannot defend himself now and the fact that they would punish him with this speedy lack of due process doesn’t look good.
Alia (b7c4cb) — 7/24/2012 @ 12:48 pm==If you have any evidence that he was under a cloud of suspicion when Paterno gave him the bad news, I’d like to see it. It’s not in Freeh’s timeline, though== (Steve57 today)
==I just don’t credit their stories. Not without supporting evidence. We already know they are so messed up they’re more concerned with their public image than with the health and safety of children. How much faith should we put in the stories they told Freeh.== (Steve57 yesterday)
==I don’t put any stock into that arse-covering report Louis Freeh cooked up== (Steve 57 yesterday.)
Steve, frankly, it’s starting to look like you rely on the Freeh report when you wish to use it to support an argument you’re making–but mistrust it and impugn the motives of both the investigation and the principals who were interviewed, when it doesn’t support your views.
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 1:25 pmI think it is possible that the only thing Paterno knew was that McQuery saw something and that Curly and others were supposedly dealing with it appropriately, while he stayed focused coaching football. I actually think that is more likely then him being actively involved in an ongoing cover up.
It is also possible that Paterno was covering up for an international pedophilia/sex trafficking ring.
My bet is closer to the former than the latter, but there is potentially a heck of a lot more at stake than stupid football scholarships, bowl games, and statues.
On the basis that people think Joe Paterno was god and ruled Penn State they speculate that he knew about “everything”. It is just as possible Paterno was an old man that could be manipulated by those he trusted because he didn’t know better while he was worrying about his football team.
Apparently most of the charges from the grand jury happened off campus, correct? You’ve got 45 counts or so he was found guilty on, over a decade of behavior, a missing DA, and people want to fuss over what Joe Paterno knew when the only known incident he knew about was the one he was questioned on. How many assistant coaches are at Penn State? How many trainers? How many equipment managers? It is made to sound like Sandusky ran a pedophile brothel in the football locker room for over a decade and the only incident with witnesses is one?
Blame Paterno, slap NCAA sanctions, take down the statue, and let the kiddy porn and child prostitution ring go “unmolested”, and everybody is happy in Happy Valley. (The previous hyperbole and extreme conjecture to make a point, not a declaration of presumed fact).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 1:57 pmA near trivial issue in my mind compared to what else is involved, back about Tripony (sp?)
Did she voice her concerns to the NCAA? That is the kind of thing the NCAA should have looked into, that is the avenue for redress of problems that can’t be corrected from within a university and it’s sports program.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 2:02 pmI don’t believe the reports conclusions. I do believe they have documentation to support the timeline. Because the prosecution in the Schultz and Curley perjury cases cite that documentation in court documents. The prosecutors say those documents have been turned over to them.
In other words, independent verification. It’s been corroborated. Which I believe is what I said all along that I’d need to see in order to give credibility to anything in Freeh’s report, or to the stories being spun by the living who may face charges (including I suspect additional obstruction of justice charges against Curley and Schultz for failing to comply with the subpoena) or who are trying to protect the institution from additional sanctions.
I believe the University may still face fines, loss of federal funding, and certainly lawsuits due to the abuse. It would be very convenient for them to shift the blame to Paterno.
As to who knew what, and who played what role, I’ll put more faith in the facts coming out during the trials than I will in the Freeh report or the statements of University officials or witnesses who were interviewed for the report.
I believe I’ve been consistent on this.
Steve57 (5dee94) — 7/24/2012 @ 2:09 pmDoc, it is so typical of the NCAA to jump down the throat of someone who “brings disrepute” upon college athletics, while all the while the NCAA is acting like a tyrannical thug in most things it touches.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/24/2012 @ 2:11 pmThey have become all the bad things that got the AAU laughed out of major amateur sports – and they’re not looking too good here either, what with their emphasis now on “youth sports”.
“…and they’re not looking…”, meaning the AAU.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/24/2012 @ 2:12 pm.
a) He’ll still get it, but with an “asterisk”, like Maris’ former home run record.
b) Damn. That means Bowden gets it after all. :-S
c) That’s gonna tick off a lot of FSU fans, since his rivalry with Bowden was part of the reason they had to put up with Bowden’s less than stellar last decade. Bowden might have quit sooner if Paterno and he hadn’t been neck-and-neck.
.
Smock Puppet, Like... Duh? (8e2a3d) — 7/24/2012 @ 2:30 pmI don’t presume Paterno knew much of anything, other than the initial reports. The damning is mostly aimed at Penn State.
Paterno gets and deserves what blowback he’s getting because he failed to follow up with due diligence a serious accusation from what seems to me to be a credible source. Handing it off to the authorities is not enough if you hear nothing further on the subject from any other venue.If they’d done something visible then leaving it in their hands is adequate. That there is/was every sign of a cover-up makes it clear that, at the least, Paterno needed to put a bug in some hungry reporter’s ear, if he didn’t want to dig into it himself.
Letting the authorities know about a serious wrongdoing is insufficient, if you don’t see anything come of that revelation. Even more so if you are someone in a position of serious power, as JoePa was. He could have forced the issue to be dealt with, and instead left it to others to sweep under the rug with even more serious long-term consequences.
That’s not enough.
It’s kind of like Rathergate. It shames and tarnishes what was formerly considered a long and illustrious career (regardless of your opinion of Rather, he certainly was believed to be a good reporter by most, independent of the reality).
Smock Puppet, Like... Duh? (8e2a3d) — 7/24/2012 @ 3:03 pmMD,
Rather than paint Paterno has a feeble, old man, I prefer to think of him as a concerned coach and friend who just couldn’t believe the stories he heard about his long-time associate and friend, Sandusky. IMO that fits better with the profile of Paterno as a very strong man who is very loyal to things he cares about.
In addition, while we may never know the truth, we do know that Joe Paterno did some good and generous things.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/24/2012 @ 3:38 pmNo one has commented on my wild speculation at 229. I don’t know if that is because people think it is just too crazy or that they don’t want to touch it at all.
As many have said and we all acknowledge, most of what we are doing is speculation from a little bit of information of varying reliability. My extremes in possible roles for Joe Pa in the whole mess reflect my level of certainty- relatively none.
My main point is that there has been a rush to judgement by the Penn State Board of Trustees, the NCAA, and the media (no surprise there). On one hand it is made to sound that the Penn State locker room was a Roman Bathhouse with young boys in abundance under the watchful and all knowing eye of Joe Paterno, when in actuality (as far as I know) the only criminal complaint directly related to Penn State is the obstruction of justice charges. As referenced by someone above, in all of the stories in the media it would have been hard to dig out the simple fact that Sandusky had not worked for Paterno for over 10 years.
The whole NCAA part is apples to oranges to me. Yes, on one hand what was involved with Sandusky was far worse than what other schools had been sanctioned for by the NCAA, but guess what, Sandusky and others will go to jail, something the NCAA cannot do, and Penn State may be liable for many many millions of dollars in damages.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 4:38 pmI agree there has been a rush to judgment but Penn State facilitated it because the current new leaders want these old stories to go away and this is the first step. Perhaps they even want it to go away at Paterno’s expense. They may be making a mistake or they may be doing the smart thing. Time, and the evidence presented in the criminal trials, will tell.
I don’t know who the bad guys or good guys are here, but I have a hard time seeing Tim Curley as more powerful than Joe Paterno since on two occasions, Curley tried and failed to get Paterno to retire:
As the link states, Curley grew up across the street from Penn State’s stadium, walked on to play for Paterno, and worked his entire career for Penn State. I suspect he knew better than anyone that Paterno held the power at Penn State.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/24/2012 @ 5:05 pmWell, our speculating can keep going on for a long time. Curley “lacking the political capital” can mean that if push came to shove the Penn State alumni would not back Joe Pa being forced out. On the other hand, the PSU alumni were never going to hear about squabbles between Curley and Paterno over Sabdusky’s access to the facilities.
Some may think this is the first step, but as Michael E. posted above, a whole lot of Penn state alumni including notables such as Franco Harris want the entire current Board of Trustees gone and are going to fight for it. So much for “putting things behind”.
Again, when we talk of “Penn State” this and “Penn State” that, in reality we are talking about the decisions of a few people in the midst of any specific issue, people who may be gone next week.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 5:28 pmMD, I am currently re-reading your wild speculation at 229, and need to think about it. I wasn’t avoiding or ignoring it, but just hadn’t seen it yet.
With that, did you see my comment at 194 which hopefully removes some of your doubt re SI speculation, and instead provides credible analysis?
Dana (292dcf) — 7/24/2012 @ 5:30 pmDana, I did see your comment at #194 and it certainly gives the SI some credibility, however, the greatest power an editor has is what to leave out.
Two examples (If interested).
Peter Duesberg is a Professor of Molecular Biology at Berkeley, a school of great reputation in that field. Since about 1987 he has been about trying to tell people that the HIV virus has nothing to do with the development of AIDS. I heard him speak in person sometime 87-89 or so. Without going into detail, he said things that sounded pretty good if one had up to about a sophomore year in college education, but to someone with anything more than that he was doing a scientific equivalent of a “bait and switch” sales job with half-truths. It made me mad, especially as there were people in the audience who said they were going to stop listening to their own doctors because of what he said.
Junior year in college I’m in the dorm, a friend comes back from class and says, “The TA in my philosophy class gave us this great paper that proves God doesn’t exist using the ‘Problem of Evil’!!”
Hmmm, I thinks to myself. “Is that the paper from ‘John Doe’?”
“Yeah”, he says, “You know about it?”
“Did your TA give you the rebuttal by ‘Bob Smith’, or Doe’s response to Smith?”…
Sophomore, no matter how brilliant, had been led astray by selective editing in reading materials in his Philos 181 class. I had taken a 500 level course in Philosophy of Religion and was not so impressed.
That long answer means that I see the SI article is written by a very credible person who knows much more than me and may very well be correct. But I also know he could well be wrong and that if I had access to the opinion of other experts I might find that out. Since I have no idea of the level of intellectual honesty of the SI writers and editors, I don’t know anything for sure except it is a worthy opinion, and before I could dismiss it I would have to have a good reason from other comparable sources.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:03 pmIt’s also possible that he didn’t have the authority to force Paterno out. Sandusky had been tenured since 1980. How long do you imagine Paterno had been in a tenured position. The Board of Trustees could force Paterno out, and did. But I doubt the AD or even a senior v.p. like Schultz could have done so on their own authority. They could ask him nicely to retire, but without a mandatory retirement age (and clearly there wasn’t) they couldn’t remove him unless they could show cause.
The Freeh report is available here if you’re interested.
Apparently the 1998 incident had nothing to do with Sandusky’s retirement. Nor was he a suspected pedophile when Paterno told him he wasn’t going to ever be head coach of the Penn State football program. The report includes a note from Paterno pertaining to a conversation he had or planned to have with Sandusky, undated and provided by his attorney, that gives Paterno’s rationale for denying Sandusky the position (page 57). Basically Paterno decided that Sandusky couldn’t divide his time between the Penn State football program and his 2nd Mile charity. That had Sandusky wanted to be head coach he would have had to give up his association with 2nd Mile six or seven years earlier and concentrated only on the one.
The emails that apparently support the timeline (and are now with the prosecutors) indicate that Sandusky began discussing his retirement options with Curley shortly after this conversation with Paterno in February. Months before the 1998 incident in the shower. Sandusky’s timing was driven by the requirements of the retirement system; he had joined Penn State in 1969 and needed 30 years to retire early with his benefits.
It’s an interesting report. But while Freeh points the finger of blame at Paterno as one of the principals in this cover up, the only evidence he ever mentions concerns documents and emails with Curley’s, Schultz’s, and Spanier’s names on them. Although Paterno is mentioned in some of these emails from the others, I’ve found no case of Freeh citing emails to or from Paterno. When Freeh is discussing the cover-up in general, it’s the four horsemen counting Paterno. When he’s discussing the emails and other documents that support the allegation there was a cover-up, it’s just the three stooges.
I have a difficult time putting much stock into the report (and I don’t think that conflicts at all with noting that the investigation uncovered and provided documents to the prosecutors that apparently support some of what is said in the report). It strikes me that it was written to protect the University and to whatever degree possible the football program. At the expense of Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. None of whom are with the school anymore.
If the documents provided to the prosecutors say what the report says they do, it looks like Curley and Schultz aren’t going to walk away from this unscathed. But Spanier’s retired, and it seems to me from reading it and the documentary evidence that is supposed to exist that a stronger case of perjury or obstruction could be made against him than Paterno. The case against Paterno is very thin when you get past the allegations and try to read the report to see what evidence Freeh cites to back them up. And Spanier is at least available for questioning and possible prosecution.
Steve57 (386607) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:11 pmI give, MD. The Freeh Report is not to be trusted. A very credible person examines in detail some of our Paterno questions in SI and it’s not to be trusted either…
We should always be be shrewd and discerning with what we read and question, question, question, no doubt. A healthy dose of skepticism makes a smart reader. But it would seem that too much can render every source doubtful and suspect, and thus not to be trusted. Good luck with this. 🙂
Dana (292dcf) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:15 pmI’ll just say that the information regarding Sandusky’s retirement is certainly reasonable and consistent as having nothing to do with his alleged (at that time) conduct. That said, as with everything else, to some degree I suspend final judgement.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:18 pmMD,
IMO it’s too early to make a decision about fault and I agree that our opinions are based on speculation. But I’m curious. Can you envision any circumstantial evidence that would cause you to change your mind about Paterno?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:27 pmThat’s right, Dana, and I’m being an annoying pest. All I can go by is what I understand. The SI article is beyond me. Even if it is 100% correct, it doesn’t change my basic thinking that most of what we are doing is speculation dependent on assumptions.
The Freeh report is a little different. I note what Steve has pointed out, that the details in the Freeh report don’t give much (if anything) to implicate Paterno, but the conclusion he ends up with includes Paterno at the same level as others. That doesn’t make sense.
(Diarrhea of the fingers, I need to stop).
Case in point with Global Warming. I am no expert in any field related to climate, etc. But I do know that the data prior to the mid 70’s was interpreted as we were headed for another ice age of some unknown severity and duration, and with another 15 years of data supposedly we were into Global Warming and disaster. As I said, I’m no expert in anything related to this, but it seems to me that 15 years of data against the background of the earth’s history cannot possible be of any specificity to “prove” anything.
Besides, we all know Barack Obama was born in New Zealand.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:28 pmComment by DRJ — 7/24/2012 @ 6:27 pm
Oh sure. Like Steve has said, incriminating emails, some one coming out and saying that Paterno specifically told them to forget about something, notes from a meeting where somebody said something negative about Sandusky and Paterno defended him, etc., etc. I just don’t find self-serving statements from people saying “everyone knows…” to be very authoritative. Such as, “Everyone knows that I’m not a lawyer, and Patterico could chop me up and humiliate me on this blog whenever he wanted to, that’s why I never disagree with him.”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:35 pmDana, it’s not very well sourced. At least not pertaining to Paterno. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were up to their elbows in this, but Paterno is barely mentioned.
As in “talk with JVP and meet with Sandusky on Friday.”
It’s interesting; AD Curley was apprehensive about confronting Sandusky (pp73). He wanted to know how to handle things if he told Sandusky he couldn’t bring kids into the facilities anymore, and Sandusky told him no! This after the second incident.
No wonder he only meekly asked Paterno to retire and didn’t push the matter; how much longer must it have taken to build up the courage to do that, if he couldn’t even confront a former assistant coach about possibly molesting kids in the shower?
Spanier also told the people putting the Freeh report together that Curley discussed the situation in “code” because the Athletic Department was notorious for leaks. They all admitted either directly to the investigators in Spanier’s case or in their correspondence and notes in Curley’s and Schultz’s that they were concerned with the school’s image and how things looked, not with criminality.
So apparently these guys were playing things close to the vest and limiting the amount of information anyone else had access to.
But don’t take my word for any of this; that’s why I linked to the report so you can see for yourself. But I don’t see anything to support the idea that Paterno was kept in the loop on this let alone played a role in the cover-up.
Another interesting factoid; while people such as those janitors were afraid to report what they saw Sandusky doing because they unwilling to take on the football program, the Freeh report never cites an example of Paterno flexing his muscles to intervene in any disciplinary action against his players. The University President Spanier, yes, he intervened and reduced sanctions against players so they could practice but not Paterno.
Also, keep in mind Dana that Penn State is the same outfit that “investigated” Michael Mann and absolved him of wrongdoing for his faked climate research. They sort of have a track record of getting what they want to hear out of these reports.
But you should read it anyway.
Steve57 (386607) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:44 pmNot in any major way; certainly in no identifiable way. It’s obvious they talked to Paterno occasionally but exactly what they talked about is unclear. It never seems like Paterno is giving marching orders or that they even hit Paterno up for advice about how to proceed.
When Curley wants advice on how to deal with Sandusky, he doesn’t ask Paterno. He brought it up with Spanier.
Steve57 (386607) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:48 pmthe Freeh report never cites an example of Paterno flexing his muscles to intervene in any disciplinary action against his players. The University President Spanier, yes, he intervened and reduced sanctions against players so they could practice but not Paterno.
Much earlier in the thread there was discussion of Joe and Mrs. Paterno getting involved/interfering with discipline of players, But I note here you specify the Freeh report.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:50 pmJust to butt in, that’s why I’m reading the Freeh report. To see if there’s anything in it that would change my mind. But it’s as short on details and corroborating evidence as the reporting so far. Long on accusations, though.
Steve57 (386607) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:52 pmI think that’s an important detail. The janitors would have been even more justified fearing for their jobs if the pressure to protect the football program is coming from the University president as opposed to the head coach. Even at Penn State.
Those are the only incidents cited in the report.
Steve57 (386607) — 7/24/2012 @ 6:55 pmOK, Now I’m starting to get amused. Proof! We want proof! Emails!! Videos!! Photos! Lie detector tests!
How about just some common sense instead. How about applying some basic human psychology to this story.
Have none of you skeptical people ever talked face to face with another human being during the midst of a business or personal crisis?
Whispered softly in a public setting so you would not be overheard?
Received a hand written note which you later destroyed?
Used an attorney to negotiate or frame something and communicated under attorney-client privilege?
Signed an agreement which was put under seal?
Used facial expressions to subtly make a point during a meeting?
Used the telephone to discuss an issue without recording the conversation? Maybe a conference call even?
The world is full of possibilities on how this all went down over more than ten years at Penn State. Not everything has a paper trail. Defenders and detractors alike–why is is so hard to accept that we will never know the full story?
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 7:06 pmelissa, I know it’s crazy. But yeah, I want more than just the word of people who have every interest in casting blame at Paterno. Both to protect themselves personally, and to try to mitigate damage to Penn State.
Why are you so eager to accept the uncorroborated stories of people who have all sorts of self-serving reasons to play down their roles in this and play up Paterno’s?
Steve57 (386607) — 7/24/2012 @ 7:22 pm==Why are you so eager to accept the uncorroborated stories of people who have all sorts of self-serving reasons to play down their roles in this and play up Paterno’s==
I think that is an insulting, patently false and unfair characterization of my positions, contributions and statements on this thread.
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 7:30 pmI apologize elissa. I certainly didn’t mean to insult you or unfairly characterize your position.
But to be fair, I’ve been saying throughout that I do want to see evidence if I’m going to give this report, the administration and trustees, and people like those janitors who saw Sandusky in the shower performing a sex act on a boy and confess to keeping it to themselves much credence.
It isn’t a sudden change in what I’ve been saying.
Steve57 (386607) — 7/24/2012 @ 7:37 pmI think it’s important to point out, elissa, that this has been something like my position throughout this thread.
We certainly don’t know the full story now. We know a selectively leaked, self-serving partial story.
Whether we ever know the full story or not, what I object to is talking about Joe Paterno’s role in a cover-up as if that’s an established fact. It hasn’t been remotely established. The Freeh report certainly didn’t do it. Micheal E. Quotes a response from Levinson detailing some of its shortcomings. Others I noted in my reading is that Freeh attributes a great deal to Paterno while the evidence he cites in his report demonstrates something different.
He says the student disciplinary board “perceived” pressure from the Athletic Department if football players committed some sort of misconduct. He cites two incidents in which the the University president Spanier reduced punishments meted out to football players. That’s not the Athletic Department. Moreover, the person interviewed says those were the only two incidents he recalled in which the disciplinary board’s punishments were reduced. So what Athletic Department pressure was demonstrated?
Former players made statements to the effect that Paterno knew everything that happened in his facilities. Janitors say that “everyone knew” Paterno had “all the power,” and they’d all be fired if they reported Sandusky. Yet McQueary reported Sandusky and wasn’t fired; he actually got a paying job with the football program.
Yet based on nothing more than innuendo, Freeh mentions in his finding that Paterno used his power to cover for Sandusky. He never supports his conclusions, and there’s a great deal in his own report that contradicts his own conclusions.
So if we may never have the whole story, and we certainly don’t have it now, why should we discuss Paterno’s role in this as if that’s the one certain thing proven so far?
Steve57 (386607) — 7/24/2012 @ 8:13 pmwhy is is so hard to accept that we will never know the full story?
Comment by elissa — 7/24/2012 @ 7:06 pm
I’m happy to accept that we’ll never know the full story. I’m not happy in letting the issue be Paterno and Penn state football if in fact that is a side story compared to other things, like evidence it was other people covering for Sandusky and whether the ultimate issue is simply Sandusky’s own behavior or more than that.
elissa, I’m not amused. DRJ asked what would change my mind. Evidence, not speculation and conjecture, because all we have done has been to trade speculation with only personal biases to give credence to one speculative story over another.
There is one narrative based on a presumption of the amount of power Paterno had at Penn State and how he wielded it on a daily basis. Other than that presumption, nobody has nothing on Paterno. Paterno should be a side issue until other things are clear.
I’ve been applying common sense and basic psychology. Does it make sense to you that Paterno put up a veneer of decency over 60 years, donating millions back to the school, having higher graduating rates and academic achievement than comparative schools, no “play and tell” books by former players or coaches wanting to make money talking trash, and then was an active participant in covering up child sexual abuse by someone who wasn’t even a Penn State coach anymore? By the time the incident that McQueary witnessed occurred Sandusky had not worked under Paterno for several years. Sandusky wasn’t a Penn State football coach as far as Paterno was concerned, why would getting rid of him been a bad thing in Paterno’s perspective?
It makes more sense to me that he was plenty occupied with what he wanted to be doing rather than telling his superiors what to do with an ex-coach who ran a program with no official connection to the school. Some say he had control over who had access to the facilities, actually he didn’t, Sandusky, who wasn’t his employee, had the right by virtue of being emeritus which could have been taken away only by higher ups who wouldn’t do it.
Paterno had power over some things, mainly his being the football coach and whatever he wanted to do with his football team. In other things it may have even looked like he had power, but as you say, subtle looks among others may have said “don’t argue with him, we’ll do it our way anyway, he won’t know” just as well as “He’s Joe Paterno, you can’t say that!” He sure had no power compared to the trustees, unless the fact they were afraid to tell him to his face counts as “having power”. If Curley or others wanted to do something about Sandusky their fear of Paterno would have kept them from telling the Trutees? Really? God may be a Penn State fan as evidenced by the sky being white and blue, but God was not the football coach.
I’ve said before, for all I know Paterno ran an international ring that turned young boys into prostitutes and sold them into slavery around the world and had a DA killed who refused to be paid off. I highly doubt it though. And I think so much focus on Paterno, NCAA sanctions and the like are trivializing this. This is not a football issue to be handled like recruiting violations.
Hopefully my last unrequested foray into extended explanations. As most of my points that I think are worthwhile, I tell them over (not that many to choose from). The Brothers Karamozov is built around the death/murder(?) of old man Karamozov and who murdered him (was he murdered?), including a trial. In one chapter, in the version I read titled “The Sword that Cuts Both Ways”, both the prosecutor and defense attorneys take the same basic facts and draw completely different conclusions, apparently equally valid. Until we have something more solid than the janitors saying they were too scared to do anything I’m suspending final judgement. That is, of course, unless Patterico comments that Paterno is guilty, because as I said up in #260, everyone knows that I am no lawyer and Patterico is an assistant DA, and I’m afraid he will publicly humiliate me if I disagree with him. Even the janitors know that. 😉
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 8:15 pmI am not amused by the tragedy of the abused boys or by the NCAA sanctions against Penn State. I am not amused by the hits to the pride of generations of innocent Penn State alums or by the near term economic losses to the city of State College PA when the huge fall crowds, and concession and memorabilia sales are gone.
I am amused by the ever lengthening posts, the continual talking past each other by multiple commenters, and the obvious futility of continuing discussion on this thread.
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 8:42 pmMD–I don’t believe I ever have said that Paterno was consciously and maliciously “covering up” sexual abuse. I don’t think he thought that way. I do not think he was that kind of guy. I think he believed he was protecting his beloved program, and Penn State, and performing a greater good by essentially ignoring it. I do think he was that kind of guy. Unfortunately for everybody, and especially the boys, those weren’t two different things. They were two sides of the same coin.
elissa (036455) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:08 pmelissa, you are welcome to your speculation.
I do not know what Paterno knew, did, or thought. I also do not know who may have been more responsible in covering for Sandusky, and why, and I do not know the extent of what Sandusky did, only what he has been tried for to date.
I do know that it is easy for anyone involved to blame someone who is dead.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/24/2012 @ 9:25 pmMy brother recommended I might like this web site. He was entirely right. This post truly made my day. You cann’t imagine simply how a lot time I had spent for this info! Thank you!
nokia 1202 (69b7a0) — 7/25/2012 @ 4:19 ambeautiful blog with nice informational content. this is a really interesting and informative post. good job! keep it up, hope to read your other updates. thanks for this nice sharing.http://www.kitsucesso.com
Darcy (2e7a6d) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:00 amMD,
Paul Mirengoff weighs in for Paterno.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 3:04 pmMy email response to Bill McGurn’s column in the WSJ on this matter, and the seeming lack of proper action by administrators who appear to have known of the situation:
How much better would the institution work if all of the department heads had been NCO’s in the Marine Corps!
His response:
That’s the best take on the whole thing I’ve heard!
Leadership, real leadership that Academe seems to be sorely lacking, would never have allowed this mess to develop.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:26 pmstupid chinese spammers
SPQR (6c3cf5) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:45 pmComment by DRJ — 7/26/2012 @ 3:04pm
Thanks for the post, especially as it seems counter to the opinions of many.
Mirengoff had another post a few days earlier with much less to it, but it did have this link to a blog you lawyers may know, who basically said the NCAA should stick with what it has jurisdiction over, not penalizing a school because of criminal conduct of an ex-coach.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2012/07/penn-state-and-the-diffusion-o.html
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:53 pmComment by SPQR — 7/26/2012 @ 4:45 pm
What is the purpose of this, anyway? Is it some kind of data gathering on how to crash the internet??
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:56 pmI told all of you that Lenovo computers being built in China was going to lead to the Chinese taking over the world, but did anybody listen??? But Nooooo…
Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve keep in mind your stuff prior to and you are simply extremely magnificent. I really like what you’ve obtained right here, certainly like what you are stating and the way in which you say it. You are making it enjoyable and you still care for to stay it smart. I can’t wait to learn far more from you. This is actually a tremendous web site.
công ty thiết kế nội thất (0fcbe0) — 7/27/2012 @ 2:28 amyou are simply extremely magnificent.
thank you.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/27/2012 @ 5:10 amWow, superb blog format! How lengthy have you ever been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The entire glance of your site is great, as neatly as the content!
entertainment (94f378) — 7/27/2012 @ 6:59 amI told all of you that Lenovo computers being built in China was going to lead to the Chinese taking over the world, but did anybody listen??? But Nooooo…
— I no listen to you ’cause only the lacquered jungle kitty make sense!
Icy (5ef891) — 7/27/2012 @ 7:11 amPainted Jaguar:
[Editor’s note, PJ is speechless with a very flummoxed look on its visage, even for a cat.]
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 7/27/2012 @ 7:15 amDead thread, but still,
Dana (292dcf) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:02 pmHeya i’m for the first time here. I found this board and I to find It truly useful & it helped me out a lot. I am hoping to provide one thing again and aid others like you aided me.
this (c673d2) — 8/6/2012 @ 9:32 pm