Paterno and Spanier both fired!

[Aluminny69]

Some thoughts on McQueary:

McQueary was a 28 year old graduate asssitant at the time and I contend that nothing in his life prepared him for what he saw when he looked into the shower on that Friday night in 2002. If someone had told him what he was going to see before he looked into the shower that night then he could have prepared a response for that but he observed an act that very few of us have ever observed. ( I am reminded of a 25 year old Ron Goldman stumbling upon OJ brutally attacking his ex-wife.)

Two years earlier the janitors at PSU saw the same thing with Sandusky and a child at PSU and they didn't act to stop that. The first janitor that spotted Sandusky and the kid nearly had a breakdown. I think we have to understand that walking in on such an act is one of the most gutwrenching things in a person's life and many don't have the capability of reacting quick enough to stop the act.

As far as calling the police, McQueary, as a hired hand, did the correct thing by reporting it up the chain of command. After finding out that the chain of command did not report it to the police, I could understand his willingness not to report it. One thing he should have done differently is quit working at PSU and find a new place of employment.

 

[Northeast86]

It is called a hypothetical situation. The point is for people to stop and see if their feelings are more out of support for Paterno, or the process.

[politics deleted. JS]

Sorry that you think the exercise is inane. I am betting a lot of people would not like what they would discover about themselves if they truly examined what they would be calling for if that situation occurred.

 

[Icebear]

Alum, add to that the fact that the McQueary family and Sandusky family and the kids reportedly grew up together playing grade school sports, etc. and you have a family dynamic that may approach turning in a favorite uncle. It is hardly a surprise the first person he called was his father. The psychological components here are powerful.

 

[JS]

This piece by Joe Posansky says everything I have tried to say for the last few days . . . He speaks of all of the emotions, the rage, and the runaway train this has become. . . . When all the facts are known there will be plenty of time to condemn the right people . . . http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/11/10/the-end-of-paterno/

Posansky himself reaches the following conclusions about Paterno:

So, two points to get out of the way:
1. I think Joe Paterno had the responsibility as a leader and a man to stop the horrific rapes allegedly committed by Jerry Sandusky, and I believe he will have regrets about this for the rest of his life.
2. Because of this, Joe Paterno could no longer coach at Penn State University.

He reaches these conclusions without waiting until that magic moment when "all the facts are known" and there is "plenty of time to condemn the right people."

JoePa is one of the right people, and Posansky says so just as a "point to get out of the way." He also gets out of the way how much he feels for the victims and their families ("All that matters are the victims") before amply demonstrating that that's not all that matters.

In fact the main point of his blog, his reason for writing this piece, is obviously that he's at least as upset, and apparently more so, about the horrible things being said by somebody or another about Paterno:

there has been a desperate race among commentators and others to prove that they are MORE against child molesting than anyone else. That makes me sick.

Screw you JoeP II, resident biographer of JoeP I. You paint a picture of people dancing on JoePa's grave, calling him an inhuman monster, failing to stand up for him when they should, etc. etc. So attack the attackers, decimate the straw men, stand up for your "client"/book subject. Scream and howl at the carrion crows you see dropping bird doo on the statue you're building.

But to borrow a phrase, there will be plenty of time for you to condemn them when all of the facts are known and they're proven wrong. You reached the two important conclusions for now, insofar as the story concerns the subject of your pending book (and it concerns a lot more) as quoted earlier, and you reached them without the further and lengthy factual development to come.

1. Joe Pa had the responsibility and ability to stop a series of horrific rapes and he didn't do so.

2. Because of that he had to go.

No one here is saying more than that. No one here is calling Joe Pa a monster.

And no one here has to wait before forming some conclusions, just as you've formed some. They're always tentative conclusions anyway, pending further investigation, but form them we may.

You say Joe Pa isn't charged with a crime. One of my tentative conclusions is that he's escaping indictment only by grace of an overly narrow Pennsylvania reporting statute that covers administrators (such as those PSU administrators targeted by the grand jury in this case) and teachers, but not coaches (who ought a fortiori to be covered for good reasons, including the existence of locker rooms and showers). I feel certain the Pennsylvania legislature will amend this statute to broaden and strengthen it -- as a direct result of this case. And that's all to the good.

 

[Icebear]

It is called a hypothetical situation. The point is for people to stop and see if their feelings are more out of support for Paterno, or the process.

And frankly it is not a bad exercise to engage in.

Sorry that you think the exercise is inane. I am betting a lot of people would not like what they would discover about themselves if they truly examined what they would be calling for if that situation occurred.

If one changes their expectations for justice to change like that then one is not guided by core values and principles. If one is driven solely by feelings one is already lost.

 

[Northeast86]

I was simply pointing out the similarities between the two situations. People had their heroes publicly tarnished and their dreams of them shattered. It is hard for anyone. My point is that I doubt a lot of the Paterno supporters would be supporting another person in the same situation. We try to rationalize what happened or minimize our own hurt. Sorry if that is offensive to some people, but I bet we can all think of a time that has happened. For some it is happening right now.

_____________

Not a matter of it offending some people. We have a rule here against discussing politics. Doesn't matter which political figure you pick as an example to make your point. Others will want to take an example from the other side, and there we go.

Your current statement of your point is fine. You could illustrate it, if you want to, by examples from fields other than politics.

JS

 

[Icebear]

Posansky himself reaches the following conclusions about Paterno:

So, two points to get out of the way:
1. I think Joe Paterno had the responsibility as a leader and a man to stop the horrific rapes allegedly committed by Jerry Sandusky, and I believe he will have regrets about this for the rest of his life.
2. Because of this, Joe Paterno could no longer coach at Penn State University.

He reaches these conclusions without waiting until that magic moment when "all the facts are known" and there is "plenty of time to condemn the right people."

JoePa is one of the right people, and Posansky says so just as a "point to get out of the way." He also gets out of the way how much he feels for the victims and their families ("All that matters are the victims") before amply demonstrating that that's not all that matters.

In fact the main point of his blog, his reason for writing this piece, is obviously that he's at least as upset, and apparently more so, about the horrible things being said by somebody or another about Paterno:

there has been a desperate race among commentators and others to prove that they are MORE against child molesting than anyone else. That makes me sick.

Screw you JoeP II, resident biographer of JoeP I. You paint a picture of people dancing on JoePa's grave, calling him an inhuman monster, failing to stand up for him when they should, etc. etc. So attack the attackers, decimate the straw men, stand up for your "client"/book subject. Scream and howl at the carrion crows that you feel are dropping bird doo on the statue you're building.

But to borrow a phrase, there will be plenty of time for you to condemn them when all of the facts are known and they're proven wrong. You reached the two important conclusions for now, insofar as the story concerns the subject of your pending book (and it concerns a lot more) as quoted earlier, and you reached them without the further and lengthy factual development to come.

1. Joe Pa had the responsibility and ability to stop a series of horrific rapes and he didn't do so.

2. Because of that he had to go.

No one here is saying more than that. No one here is calling Joe Pa a monster.

And no one here has to wait before forming some conclusions, just as you've formed some. They're always tentative conclusions anyway, pending further investigation, but form them we may.

You say Joe Pa isn't charged with a crime. One of my tentative conclusions is that he's escaping indictment only by grace of an overly narrow Pennsylvania reporting statute that covers administrators (such as those PSU administrators targeted by the grand jury in this case) and teachers, but not coaches (who ought a fortiori to be covered for good reasons, including the existence of locker rooms and showers).

JS, a wonderful example of how two people read things completely differently. I see none of your assertions in his writing except as Posansky readily acknowledges. Nor was he addressing the situation here. There have been those in PA who have wanted Joe gone for years because he was too old and the game had passed him by. A number of those are connected to the sports department of the Harrisburg Patriot are among these. With three years of research in Posansky knows this well. It is, also, to me the attitude of a number in the media. There is indeed much dancing on his grave just as there was when Rene P. left. To me neither was a reason for rejoicing.

 

[Northeast86]

Renee Portland harassed, berated and finally kicked players off of her team for being lesbians or her believing they were lesbians. Her leaving was a reason to celebrate if only to introduce a new era of women's basketball at PSU where players would only be criticized for their play and not for their personal life.

 

[Icebear]

Renee Portland harassed, berated and finally kicked players off of her team for being lesbians or her believing they were lesbians. Her leaving was a reason to celebrate if only to introduce a new era of women's basketball at PSU where players would only be criticized for their play and not for their personal life.

Since I know personally a number of those who suffered under Rene I know well the emotions I would say it was more relief than joy. Too many people suffered and still do.

 

[JS]

Nor was he addressing the situation here.

You have been.

 

[Icebear]

You have been.

Then I apologize for losing track of your prepositions.

I have not seen anyone here whom I would term dancing on Joe's grave.

 

[pap49cba]

Ice,

With all due respect I find it a bit odd you keep insisting we “let it all play out” and at the same time seem compelled to respond to nearly every post in this and the original thread.

 

[Northeast86]

Since I know personally a number of those who suffered under Rene I know well the emotions I would say it was more relief than joy. Too many people suffered and still do.

Is it possible and I mean slightly possible- that people outside of who you talked to might have felt joy at her leaving? From other message boards it seemed that people were quite jubilant (if I may be so bold) about the PSU athletics department finally ousting her. But frankly we are getting off the main point.

 

[JS]

Then I apologize for losing track of your prepositions.

I have not seen anyone here whom I would term dancing on Joe's grave.

Don't know about my prepositions, and my propositions may be even more suspect, but you've been counseling all along "Patience . . . don't form conclusions until all the facts are in . . . there's too much rushing to judgment . . . too much emotion."

Much of that has explicitly been directed at the board. And I'm saying, patience before forming what conclusions? The ones Joe P II formed? I don't think you originally wanted us to go there either. And I'm saying we all form tentative conclusions, subject to revision, and saying "patience" can just be a damper on expression of those one doesn't like.

 

[Aluminny69]

Ice,

With all due respect I find it a bit odd you keep insisting we “let it all play out” and at the same time seem compelled to respond to nearly every post in this and the original thread.

I am not exactly sure what IceBear's relationship with PSU is, but suffice to say he is very "affected" by the situation. I completely understand his desire to respond when appropriate.

 

[Icebear]

Is it possible and I mean slightly possible- that people outside of who you talked to might have felt joy at her leaving? From other message boards it seemed that people were quite jubilant (if I may be so bold) about the PSU athletics department finally ousting her. But frankly we are getting off the main point.

I am sure some did.

 

[Icebear]

I am not exactly sure what IceBear's relationship with PSU is, but suffice to say he is very "affected" by the situation. I completely understand his desire to respond when appropriate.

No direct or formal relationship but I was involved for support for a number affected by Rene. I know have known some on the board and have about two dozen alumni in by congregation including the local DA and local Judge in our county. As soon as I am home I will have about a dozen or so visits to make doing follow up with folks. I have a couple of former Blue Band members, too. In the spirit of Northeast's earlier question consider the impact of a situation parallel to this hitting Geno and the women's program. Consider the response we had to the NCAA complaint from the SEC and now add everything else on top. My first parish was in Clinton County wear Victim 1 came from and I, also, know numerous teachers and administrators from that school district.

 

[stamfordhusky]

where were the parents of the abused boys over the years (the ones that knew)? Why the hell didn't one of them go to the police and or at least make this all public (anonymously) long ago? If that happened to my kid, I wouldn't rest until I nailed that guy. A pedophilic act doesn't strike me as a one time deal. A number of innocent kids might have been spared.

1. A large number of these kids came from broken homes - with little or no parental supervision - or else had various problems that would have made it unlikely that their parents would know. Sandusky's Second Mile Foundation was set up to "help" troubled youths.

2. Most victims are too scared or ashamed to tell anyone. Sandusky no doubt threatened all of them as to what would happen if they told anyone, either no-one would believe them or he would hurt them or who knows what else.

3. One parent did go to the authorities in 1998 but it seems to have been swept under the rug - with Sandusky being pushed out of his coaching job but with no other repercussions.

 

[Kait14]

While you are certainly justified in being emotionally involved in the situation, you can't just go cleaning house in totality. You'd be firing a ton of innocent people, thereby making the situation and its affects worse than they already are. You'd ruin a ton of innocent folks' and their families' lives to satisfy a need for revenge. I'd bet that the vast majority of the Athletic Department had no clue. This is something that certain people were trying to keep under wraps, which implies that they weren't spreading stories to all their colleagues and underlings.

Find out the people involved, and deal with them as individuals. Don't execute people who weren't involved.

You're right.. not the entire athletic department, but I'd say the entire Football coaching staff. Because if you read the GJ report, there's a 99.999999% chance that they all knew

 

[meyers7]

You're right.. not the entire athletic department, but I'd say the entire Football coaching staff. Because if you read the GJ report, there's a 99.999999% chance that they all knew

Agreed, from what I am hearing (ESPN, Sports Talk radio, etc) from coaches, coaching staffs are very tight. They would talk and know about something like this. Maybe not formally, but as has been said, they hunt, fish together, go on recruiting trips together, families vacation together, etc. Might be more than 99.999999%.

 

[intlzncster]

1. A large number of these kids came from broken homes - with little or no parental supervision - or else had various problems that would have made it unlikely that their parents would know. Sandusky's Second Mile Foundation was set up to "help" troubled youths.

2. Most victims are too scared or ashamed to tell anyone. Sandusky no doubt threatened all of them as to what would happen if they told anyone, either no-one would believe them or he would hurt them or who knows what else.

3. One parent did go to the authorities in 1998 but it seems to have been swept under the rug - with Sandusky being pushed out of his coaching job but with no other repercussions.

Thanks for the information. Much of that makes sense. I wonder what authorities outside the PSU athletic administration were involved in 1998 (ie polic force etc).

 

[JS]

Mike McQueary, who reported what he saw to Paterno, placed on administrative leave.

The leave is "indefinite," according to President Rodney Ericson.

 

[arty155]

Don't know about my prepositions, and my propositions may be even more suspect,
-Finally... one thing we may all agree on... that's preposterous!

-Great thread, on such a tough subject, guys. Thanks!

 

[Icebear]

Don't know about my prepositions, and my propositions may be even more suspect, but you've been counseling all along "Patience . . . don't form conclusions until all the facts are in . . . there's too much rushing to judgment . . . too much emotion."

Much of that has explicitly been directed at the board. And I'm saying, patience before forming what conclusions? The ones Joe P II formed? I don't think you originally wanted us to go there either. And I'm saying we all form tentative conclusions, subject to revision, and saying "patience" can just be a damper on expression of those one doesn't like.

Just arrived home after the 6 hour trip. Now I understand your point. If that is how you are framing it then I disagree. On the ride home I heard numerous sports commentators now calling for the death penalty from the NCAA. Sole purpose of suggesting that patience should be the rule of the day is solely so that actions do not take place that cannot be reversed if information and facts are significantly different than the speculation occurring presently.

 

[Icebear]

Thanks for the information. Much of that makes sense. I wonder what authorities outside the PSU athletic administration were involved in 1998 (ie polic force etc).

Campus police, Schreffler and Ralston, the DA, Gricar, who chose not to prosecute, and a representative from the State Welfare Department, Lauro. NYT article on 1998 event

I would, also, note the following from Second Mile:

As The Second Mile’s CEO Jack Raykovitz testified to the Grand Jury, he was informed in 2002 by Pennsylvania State University Athletic Director Tim Curley that an individual had reported to Mr. Curley that he was uncomfortable about seeing Jerry Sandusky in the locker room shower with a youth. Mr. Curley also shared that the information had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing. At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the Grand Jury report.

What if Joe was told the exact same thing.