2001 Penn State emails....more trouble

[Blakeon18]

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/more_penn_state_emails_surface.html

 

[JS]

This supports the gut feeling one (at least this one) had from the beginning that Joe Paterno was likely an active and influential player in the decision to keep McQueary's report close to the university administration's vest and not go to the outside authorities.

"Humane" for Sandusky; avoids bad PR for the university and its football program; not so good for the kids over the next string of years.

As Spanier put it, the risk for US is if he doesn't stop. Then WE could be vulnerable.

I think his focus was on the wrong risks and vulnerabilities.

 

[Icebear]

These e-mails were uncovered last month before the Sandusky trial. I made reference to them in an earlier thread. They are incredibly damning of the administration and go to show direct violation of the PA mandated reporter statute.

 

[justML]

These men chose the reputation of a coach and university over the welfare of children.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Vowelguy]

These e-mails were uncovered last month before the Sandusky trial.

Since the title of the article is "MORE emails surface," it seems like this is NEW news.

 

[Wbbfan1]

While I didn't want to see Joe Pa die, its probably going to save his legacy at Penn State. Don't think the media will go after him, even though it appears he was complicit in the coverup. I'm wondering if PSU large endowment fund will be available to be used to pay off all the Civil Suit losses that PSU is likely to have.

 

[msf22b]

I agree with the sentiments above but hindsight is 20-20 and today with society having been through the Catholic Church mess and various horror stories including a recent one of a prominent New York City conductor with whom I collaborated 30 or more years ago, as reported a week or two ago in the New York Times... there is a great deal more sensitivity and awareness of how problems such as these have to be decisively dealt with than there was even a decade ago.

These gentlemen in leadership made repeated and grevous errors of judgement yet my "hunch" is that they just couldn't quite bring themselves to believe they were dealing with a monster rather than the good-natured, caring, trusted and succesful employee in their headlights. My impression is that that was a common failing in many aspects of society during that period. Surely doesn't get them off the hook today.

Another "hunch": Sandusky's surprisingly early retirement was the result of yet another, unreported, incident and continued damage control from the top. Those E-mails, if my theory is correct have yet to surface. If true, we'll hear about them soon enough.

These were imperfect leaders who made imperfect decisions, not much different from various Arch-Bishops and Cardinals and various headmasters of the Horace Mann School.

Should we not be expecting the first of several pleas?

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

The "different times" story is, sadly, true, but as you say, not an excuse.

I remember overhearing an elderly (80-ish, he worked till he was 85) senior executive with my company telling one of his peers that you have to give your secretary a pat on the butt once in a while, as they "like it" and "expect it". I couldn't believe someone actually believed that - and he was a lawyer, to boot.

Subsequently, I was talking to a female co-worker that was friendly with his secretary and I admit I asked. Was told that the "pats" did happen and were the only thing objectionable, he was otherwise "a sweet old man". But one can see where another person might have been otherwise, or a different secretary could have judged him differently. But my point is, a generation that simply didn't "get" sexual harassment - never mind child molesters.

 

[Icebear]

It should be noted that it is unlikely that JoePA will have exchanged any emails. He is reported to have neither had a computer in his office nor at home. As KnightB expresses he was from another generation. It was one of the complaints about him. He was simply technologically out of touch with how things could be done today. You'll note that Curley says he went and talked to JoePA. It is not clear what was or was not said in that conversation. It is likely the conversation that JoePA referred to in his grand jury testimony as taking place after the initial contact. I am still waiting for the shoe to drop on Gov. Corbett. Possibly in one of these emails.

 

[cardfan]

The "different times" story is, sadly, true, but as you say, not an excuse.

I remember overhearing an elderly (80-ish, he worked till he was 85) senior executive with my company telling one of his peers that you have to give your secretary a pat on the butt once in a while, as they "like it" and "expect it". I couldn't believe someone actually believed that - and he was a lawyer, to boot.

Subsequently, I was talking to a female co-worker that was friendly with his secretary and I admit I asked. Was told that the "pats" did happen and were the only thing objectionable, he was otherwise "a sweet old man". But one can see where another person might have been otherwise, or a different secretary could have judged him differently. But my point is, a generation that simply didn't "get" sexual harassment - never mind child molesters.

I think they knew Sandusky did it, but didnt want believe it. I bet they probably heard rumors of other instances, which is why he retired early, too much of a coinidence. Imho, they decided to give him a break because what he gave PSU ftball. And sadly, victims are silent or not believed when they do come forward.

 

[Kibitzer]

Increasingly, it appears that Joe Paterno not only knew what Sandusky was doing but that he was complicit in the cover-up.

The way things are supposed to work (NCAA rules and long-standing tradition) is that somebody (e.g., Chancellor, President) runs the school. The athletic director is a subordinate who reports to the person at the top. Then coaches and others in the AD work for and report to him.

It is increasingly clear that Paterno's influence, prestige and stature within the PSU community blurred the above chain-of-command, to the eternal tarnishment of the PSU image.

Now the argument focuses on what the NCAA should do to PSU football. One side is that to punish the current PSU coach or players is unfair to them. The other is that "something" must be done.

I suggest two things: First, hit PSU with the "death penalty"; second, allow all players currently on football scholarship (or who have signed an LOI) to transfer without penalty of sitting for a year.

Q for Ice Bear: I know that the "Paterno Library" is on the campus. Is there any truth to something I heard about a "Joe Paterno Child Development Center" being in existence there?

 

[Icebear]

Kib,
Yes, there is a Joe Paterno Child Development Center sponsored by Nike in Beaverton, OR. Nike has stated they have no intention of changing the name.

Talking with those in State College. There is still great skepticism that Joe in anyway brought any influence to bear in the situation other than a possible, "Just make sure you get it right." There is no means for Joe to defend himself as to what he did or did not say. There is no evidence to date in any e-mail as to what Joe said or did not say from him. The report of Curley that he spoke with Joe is not inconsistent with Joe's testimony that he had followed up with an inquiry to Curley as to what was happening. I contrast to Curley and Schultz no part of their testimony has been shown to be decpetive.

The only the email communications are between AD Curley and Pres. Spanier and Administrator Schultz. I know a number of people who do not trust Curley's version of anything in contrast to both McQueary and Joe whose testimony helped to move this whole thing forward within the Grand Jury. Some feel that the AD may have used "supposed comments" from Joe to leverage the other two administrators in order to control and protect "his" department.

It is easy to jump to conclusion as to what did or did not happen depending on our feelings about the situation. It says a great deal about where we are at the moment that all of the media outlets, CNN, Fox, NYT, etc. have painted the email situation regarding JoePA with the damning "May have" with no clear evidence that he did or did not. You and I may have gone to the Mediterranean coast last year, too, but probably not. Given my passport is not up to date it is not likely that I did, I don't know about you.

I am very glad that William Freeh is still working this very hard and towards an August report. When he finishes I hope we will have a much better idea about who knew what and what happened. There will be plenty of time then for any penalties and I hope they will be significant.

People need to remember that Sandusky was convicted in Centre County by a jury including 9 people with varying ties to PSU including some close ones. They did their job with the evidence presented and rendered strong and consistent verdicts even while rejecting three and the local judge setting aside three. Some felt the venue had to be moved because everyone here is under the spell of PSU. Well, being a fan does not equate to ignoring the facts. They did what they were asked to do and to all indications did it with integrity.

 

[JS]

Kib,
Talking with those in State College. There is still great skepticism that Joe in anyway brought any influence to bear in the situation other than a possible, "Just make sure you get it right."

We needn't jump to conclusions (sounds reckless, eh?) one way or the other. Nor, in seeking the truth, should we circle the wagons around the sainted memory of Joe Paterno.

I was a big fan of the man throughout his long career, and a big fan of the PSU football program, second only to my family-based allegiance to Ohio State. I still think highly of him.

But it's fair to draw inferences from the Curley email. He and Schultz had just agreed on Schultz's three part plan, the third part of which was to go to the outside authorities.

Curley, after thinking about it and talking to Joe, said that on second thought, he wasn't comfortable with the three-part plan and suggested a two part plan, leaving out the third step of going to the authorities.

Spanier then said he was supportive of the two-part plan while acknowledging a risk to the participants in this decision (I nearly think of them as conspirators) if a good-talking-to and a promise to get counseling didn't stop Sandusky. I interpret this as awareness of a legal risk.

With due respect to the fallacy of quid hoc ergo propter hoc, I think Curley's statement that he changed his mind after talking with Joe creates a logical inference that JoePa didn't like the third step. It would be entirely consistent with his professional lifetime of devotion to the reputation of his program, and perhaps with compassion due to his longstanding close association with Sandusky.

Seems to me the counter-speculation of JoePa defenders that Curley was basically inventing JoePa's support for his own wish to ditch the third step (which he'd previously agreed to) is the stretch. Fact is, Curley did an about-face and chose to mention that his change of attitude came after (a) further thinking, and (b) talking with Joe.

People around State College with whom you talk, Ice, have spent a long time admiring Joe Paterno. Of course they would be skeptical about anything that runs counter to their long-held opinions of the man.

But I agree with Kib on this point. We're here in part to speculate based on the information we're given. The interpretation that JoePa played an influential (and I don't rule out decisive) role in eliminating the third step flows rather naturally from the email evidence, from our knowledge of his stature in the PSU hierarchy, and from his longstanding devotion to promoting and preserving the reputation and image of his program.

What I don't follow is Kib's suggestion that NCAA action is appropriate. Seems to me this is a criminal matter all the way, with important legal implications to the reporting statutes and the internal procedures of institutions that need to protect the kids that are under their care or come on their premises or into contact with their employees. I don't see how it's a failing in relation to NCAA rules, but I haven't tried to make the case one way or another by looking at the more generally expressed rules about running things in an up-and-up way.

 

[Icebear]

People around State College with whom you talk, Ice, have spent a long time admiring Joe Paterno. Of course they would be skeptical about anything that runs counter to their long-held opinions of the man.

Project whatever one wants into the conversation between Curley and Joe the fact is no one knows what was said from the simplest and most innocent "Just make sure you get it right," which might have led Curley to question whether they had the facts "right" to the most complex and calculating of possibilities that used his conversation with Joe to leverage a direction he really didn't like but had previously conceded to change to the dynamics. At the moment the report of the emails doesn't include a specific quote or position from Joe. It is all guesses and suppositions. Yes, Curley reports he has changed his mind after talking to Joe but we have no clue why. I agree there is no need to circle the wagons but it is usually best to avoid ringing bells that cannot be unrung.

People around State College, generally, much more realistic about JoePA than most folks outside the area, both before and after the outbreak of the scandal. They experienced him as more fully human. They went to church with him, played ball with his kids, and even served on committees with him in the broader community. They sat next to him in the campus theaters and auditoriums for programs. They interacted with him as he walked to work each day. They know he had good days and bad days. They knew he rolled up his cuffs one leg at a time. They, also, knew about the tensions in the AD and the University among those who wanted Joe gone for more than a decade. Most of us here laugh when we hear descriptions of Happy Valley from outside because Joe was beloved but he, also, had his flaws, most often just not the ones others project on to him.

 

[Kibitzer]

We all seem to be going back to Senator Howard Baker's (Watergate era) question: "What did he know and when did he know it?" Baker was referring to President Nixon. Here, it seems applicable to Joe Paterno.

The answer to that may eventually seep out so I will ignore it and instead respectfully disagree with JS about whether or how the NCAA should punish PSU Football.

I am an adherent of the possibly old-fashioned belief that not only should punishment fit the crime, but that punishment should be a deterrent to those who might be tempted to commit a similar act.

As I opined, the traditional (and, I believe, legal) stratification of authority (i.e., "chain-of-command") at a university like PSU goes from the top (e.g., president), downward to athletic director, then to coaches, and so on.

I believe that Coach Paterno's immense stature at PSU disrupted this arrangement and that figured mightily into any consideration by nominally higher-ranking officials to consider any action that would discredit the sacred PSU football program. After all, these fellows felt beholden to that cash cow that had so incredibly enhanced PSU's image that they seem to have worn blinders and ear plugs while keeping a perpetually elevated rug handy (the easier to sweep distasteful things under).

There is enormous potential for bad things to happen if/when any coach (Knight at Indiana, "K" at Duke, Saban at Alabama, Geno at UConn) ascends to the level of omnipotence that Paterno enjoyed at PSU. (Come to think of it, Wooden hit that level at UCLA and so everyone looked the other way while Sam Gilbert helped the Wizard win all those championships as recruiting rules were flagrantly trashed.)

Thus, I believe the NCAA should come down hard on PSU Football (something like five years of no bowls), but cut current or incoming players some slack (free transfer). I like to think that this will encourage people in charge to make sure that they damn well stay in charge.

A little unhappiness in Happy Valley could go a long way toward keeping sports programs in proper proportion.

I rest my case.

 

[HuskyNan]

There is enormous potential for bad things to happen if/when any coach (Knight at Indiana, "K" at Duke, Saban at Alabama, Geno at UConn) ascends to the level of omnipotence that Paterno enjoyed at PSU.

Ah, no. JC has far more juice than Geno. Geno is on a par with the highly successful and widely admired Ray Reid.

 

[JS]

I rest my case.

Please don't rest your case until you tell the court exactly what NCAA crime Penn State is supposed to have committed in this matter.

Remember, for starters, that the NCAA rules pertain to the conduct of intercollegiate athletics, not to what one of your coaches does on his own time or how your university administrators react to what he does.

Here's your homework. As I said, one might make a case based on general principles, but I don't see it without undertaking to write an argumentative brief.

 

[doggydaddy]

We need to stop all of this speculation, especially about the dead. I'll be waiting for this thread to be locked.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

On the question of how to punish PSU, I have to line up with
JS. I don't see how you can just punish the football team when
there haven't been any NCAA violations (that I'm aware of).

It seems to me that the way to punish Penn State is
through civil litigation. There's never a shortage of lawyers
looking for a big payday.

 

[Icebear]

Please don't rest your case until you tell the court exactly what NCAA crime Penn State is supposed to have committed in this matter.

Remember, for starters, that the NCAA rules pertain to the conduct of intercollegiate athletics, not to what one of your coaches does on his own time or how your university administrators react to what he does.

Here's your homework. As I said, one might make a case based on general principles, but I don't see it without undertaking to write an argumentative brief.

I think that is a huge question, JS. Amazing as it may be I do not know of any NCAA rules that have been violated because they are almost all directed at competitive control not moral behavior.

 

[Icebear]

On the question of how to punish PSU, I have to line up with
JS. I don't see how you can just punish the football team when
there haven't been any NCAA violations (that I'm aware of).

It seems to me that the way to punish Penn State is
through civil litigation. There's never a shortage of lawyers
looking for a big payday.

And that will most certainly and is happening and is absolutely appropriate.

 

[Kibitzer]

I am compelled to respond to the challenge by JS to make my case, and reinforcing comments by IceBear. Both are friends and both smarter than I am. And I am not a lawyer, my comment about resting my case, made in an earlier post, should be understood that it was made somehat mischievously in the context of a Boneyard discussion, not as a legal declaration.

Having said that, permit a preliminary response (which means I get more rest, even after "resting").

Most of you will be surprised to learn (as I was) that the NCAA may legally punish member institutions without regard to due process. The State of Nevada was first to challenge this in court, they lost and the Supreme Court let it stand by not granting cert to hear the case.

So if the NCAA drops the hammer, it is done. Civil litigation is a crap shoot.

Another point (just for JS) is an NCAA precedent for punitive action. Morehouse University soccer was punished and the judgment against the school/soccer program cited "lack of institutional control."

Once you digest any significance of that, here's a few more dots to connect.

Kenny Jackson was a PSU All-American wide receiver. He played in the NFL. He coached wide receivers for years, including Pittsburgh Steelers and (amazing!) PSU!

When PSU needed a wide receivers coach, who did they hire? Mike McQuery, a former quarterback with scant coaching experience but with known knowledge of an incident involving Mike Sandusky four years earlier. Tell me how his resume was stronger than Kenny Jackson's. Inquiring minds want to know. (So does the NY Times.)

I now seek a continuance.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I'm with the majority (here). Let the NCAA investigate, grumble, and do very little. I am quite sure Penn State will suffer for years, civil lawsuits are certainly a commin'. Given the assorted sordidness of some aspects of college sports (which I by no things think "define" college sports, but are still part of the over all picture) I simply don't want the NCAA legislating morality outside of their existing mandate. Only the Lord knows what they would come up with.

Separately, regarding Icebear's comments about Joe in and around State College - a very valid point, which should be remembered "in general". For example, believe it or not, even Rutgers fans who are very supportive of CVS are NOT as oblivious to her faults as non-fans (at RU or elsewhere) would think.

Icebear probably has professional experience of the syndrome. Many church goers (in many denominations) are prepared to accept "Herr Pastor" with an unrealistic "holier than us" "connection to the above" viewpoint - UNLESS the pastor lets his parishoners see him as human - by "living his life among them", if you would. The folks in the Penn State community had the opportunity to see Joe in this way.

 

[JS]

So if the NCAA drops the hammer, it is done. Civil litigation is a crap shoot. * * *

You seem to be arguing that the NCAA can impose whatever sanctions it wants regardless of whether its rules have been violated. I don't believe that to be so.

The University of Nevada case decided that the NCAA was not part of the state government and so couldn't be required to give due process in the sense that a state is constitutionally bound to give it. That doesn't mean the NCAA could not be sued on contractual grounds if it acted irrationally in punishing a school for something that has nothing to do with its rules. NCAA was in fact acting against UNLV because of the recruiting and other violations of its rules committed by Jerry Tarkanian.

Morehouse State was punished for violating NCAA player eligibility rules by using former pro players on its soccer team and continuing to do so even after being challenged over it. The "lack of institutional control" finding was because the responsible parties at Morehouse didn't even know they had a soccer team, much less that it was fielding ineligible players and committing other violations. That finding doesn't mean the NCAA could impose the "death penalty" on a program for failure to exercise institutional control over its coaches' private lives in ways unrelated to rules violations.

And yes, NCAA can be successfully sued if it comes down arbitrarily. The University of North Dakota successfully got a preliminary injunction against NCAA stopping any sanctions over the University's refusal to go along with NCAA's ban on Native American team nicknames. Eventually, and after a statewide referendum, the University had to abandon its "Fighting Sioux" nickname.

Kenny Jackson was a PSU All-American wide receiver. He played in the NFL. He coached wide receivers for years, including Pittsburgh Steelers and (amazing!) PSU!

When PSU needed a wide receivers coach, who did they hire? Mike McQuery, a former quarterback with scant coaching experience but with known knowledge of an incident involving [Jerry] Sandusky four years earlier. Tell me how his resume was stronger than Kenny Jackson's. Inquiring minds want to know. (So does the NY Times.)

I just watched a program in which Michael Smerconish, a Philly area guy, raised that very point, and it appears Louis Freeh is looking into it. The implication is that JoePa made the McQueary hire in order to keep McQueary quiet.

You earlier said that more about JoePa's conversation with Curley will eventually emerge. I don't know. Probably. In the meantime, it's all circumstantial evidence (ditto the events of 1998 and their aftermath). Icebear will want full video and audio of JoePa telling Curley to forget reporting to the outside authorities (sorry, Ice, just a small needle) before he'll be willing to start connecting the dots.

Curley may eventually testify to the conversation with JoePa that preceded his change of mind on following the reporting law. It probably won't be in his criminal trial, as his legal team won't likely put him on the stand. But in the civil litigation to follow, he may well be called upon to testify to that conversation -- most likely by his own lawyers if they see an advantage to it, but possibly by the plaintiffs.

I now seek a continuance.

Granted. If you're tackling the NCAA rules, you have some reading to do, and it's tough sledding (if I can use that term in this infernal heat).

 

[Icebear]

It should be noted that the Paterno family has called on Louis Freeh to release all of the emails and PSU communication as soon as possible because of the way the media is using the lack of disclosure to create a negative perception of Joe's part in events.

As to wanting sound or film regarding any comments between Curley and JoePA I will simply say I learned to question anything Curley said during the events involving Rene.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation...ecords-in-penn-state-abuse-investigation.html