Paterno and Spanier both fired!

[blackbird]

Sorry, don't give me that "we should be rationale" bs. Paterno and the rest of the athletic deparment enabled a child rapist. That's what they did, and there's no getting around it.

Want some more information..In 1973, Penn State quarterback Tom Shuman raped a freshman student. Paterno himself got involved and intimidated the girl to keep charges from happening. That was in 1973..how many times do you think that's happened since.

It's despicable. And the people defending the guy are the people who look irrational.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I have been and remain reluctant to comment. But I get very distressed by some of the comments I have read here (this isn't the only place, or only subject, where I read distressing comments). So I would like to share my take on Joe Pa (which is just one small piece of the whole puzzle:

I believe that Joe Pa, through his failure to follow up and possible hazy informing of his superiors, did indeed make an error in judgement that he is responsible for. Whether or not better judgement would have made a difference in the end result is indeterminate, but probable. Since this is the case, he has and presumably will continue to suffer negative consequences of his actions, since all actions have consequences.

THAT SAID, I am unable to make statements that he did this to preserve his reputation, etc. He may have. He may not have. There are many other reasonings that could account for his behavior, both "psychological" and also just practical. How confortable was a then grad assistant in being explicit to Joe, who was his grandfather's age? And if there was any wiggle room at all, how likely was Joe to minimize out of pure discomfort with the whole subject? I'm not saying this happened, but it could have. Etc., etc.

My point is that I cannot see taking an extremist position accusing Joe Pa of deliberately doing this or that -since I can see alternatives - until it is known. I am neither prepared to blindly believe things he says, nor to discredit things he says. I will not disbelieve it if it turns out that he deliberately turned a blind eye, nor will I disbelieve it if it turns out that his motives were not so bad (which does not excuse the behavior, incidently).

But more and more I see folks immediately make judgements, assume positions, and refuse to consider that those positions could (not are, just could) be wrong. I see it in such minor things as Women's Basketball game and team issues, I see it in some defining issue like this, and also in many political positions. I find that tendancy - possibly further promoted by the whole internet culture - extremely distressing and unrepresentative of what I and many believe is the best of humanity.

 

[meyers7]

Sorry, don't give me that "we should be rationale" bs. Paterno and the rest of the athletic deparment enabled a child rapist. That's what they did, and there's no getting around it.

Well that is what they are accused of. We don't actually know if that is true or not yet.

Not defending them, just defending our justice system. Which quite a few people on here seem to have forgotten about.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

Defendants, Lawyers ,and Judges will and should have their day in court. Pounds of flesh will be debated. News stories will move on. Money will exchange hands. Football scores will be reported.

And…Many will forget the utter failure to protect the children, who could not protect themselves. There will never be Justice for them.

 

[ctchamps]

Well said JS. And just to be clear, my statement that no one connected to the university tried to discover the identity of the boy who was raped in the shower in 2002 was based on a finding by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury Presentment states as follows on page 10:

Although Schultz oversaw the University police as part of his position, he never reported the 2002 incident to the University Police or other police agency, never sought or reviewed a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so.

I doubt the Grand Jury made this finding for effect.

That statement by the grand jury is quite different than this:

"No efforts were made by anyone connected with PSU to identify the boy, including the man (McQueary) with whom the boy made eye contact in the locker room that evening. The reason seems fairly obvious: if we don't know who he is, it's easier to forget it happened, even when confronted with the ongoing presence of the perpetrator of that heinous crime on our campus."

In a courtroom I imagine your statement might be leading the witness. You specifically state McQueary in your response when it is quite clear the GJ is talking about Schultz. You add the eye contact part, which was not in the GJ report nor was the conjecture at the end. I happen to agree the conjecture has merit. But I don't agree with your choice of twisting my writing to serve your agenda. You chose only a small part of a larger post I wrote, the part, in its isolated presentation by you, had quite a different meaning than when presented in it's entirety.

I believe we agree that the acts of Sandusky were horrific. I believe we agree that there were failures by many individuals and institutions from stopping Sandusky, and that there were many opportunities that could have stopped and tragically none were acted upon.

If it is important for you to destroy people who commit bad acts than I can't follow your lead. If you think that my intent of pointing out something positive in Paterno's and McQuaery's behavior was to negate all the negatives in their actions, I can't stop you.

There appear to be at least two differences between you and me. You have made up your mind. I'm still trying to learn more about this before I make up my mind. But more importantly I'm trying to find some compassion for these human beings, even after knowing they played a part in the atrocities. You are picking and choosing who we should give mercy to. I'm not attempting to white wash the horrors committed on innocent victims. I'm trying to keep us from crossing the line, where on one side we are moral and spiritual beings, and on the other we become our own form of monsters.

Good people do bad things. Bad people do good things. Lots of people make bad choices. I prefer to condemn acts and not people. The converse is true as well. I prefer pointing out positives people do rather than making them into icons or idols.

I cringe every time I watch a group of people work themselves into a frenzy over their anger. That type of process frequently leads to it's own set of horrific consequences.
Justice is different than vengeance.

I know it is hard to find pity with the people who have been a part of these horrific acts. I don't blame people for not wanting to. But it is my standard, my moral compass. Any criminal activity has to be punished. The law has to be followed. But if we can't find mercy in administering justice, we have become our own victims.

 

[UConnCat]

That statement by the grand jury is quite different than this:

"No efforts were made by anyone connected with PSU to identify the boy, including the man (McQueary) with whom the boy made eye contact in the locker room that evening. The reason seems fairly obvious: if we don't know who he is, it's easier to forget it happened, even when confronted with the ongoing presence of the perpetrator of that heinous crime on our campus."

In a courtroom I imagine your statement might be leading the witness. You specifically state McQueary in your response when it is quite clear the GJ is talking about Schultz. You add the eye contact part, which was not in the GJ report nor was the conjecture at the end. I happen to agree the conjecture has merit. But I don't agree with your choice of twisting my writing to serve your agenda. You chose only a small part of a larger post I wrote, the part, in its isolated presentation by you, had quite a different meaning than when presented in it's entirety.

I'll repeat the Grand Jury finding that served as the basis for my statement that no one connected to the university tried to identify the 2002 victim and I'll highlight the relevant language:

Although Schultz oversaw the University police as part of his position, he never reported the 2002 incident to the University Police or other police agency, never sought or reviewed a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so.

When the Grand Jury said "no one from the University" I took that to mean, well, no one from the university including those who knew about the incident (McQueary, Spanier, Paterno, Schultz and Curley).

As for the "eye contact part," according to the Grand Jury report (p. 7) McQueary testified that he "noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him." I suppose McQueary could have concluded that the boy "saw him" by not seeing the boy's eyes. My statement about what might have motivated those involved not to try to identify the young boy is indeed conjecture. I look forward to hearing what all of the PSU officials have to say about why they didn't attempt to identify the young boy. And I sincerely hope that at some point this now young man is able to come forward, identify himself and make eye contact with those who chose not to help him.

Your thoughts as reflected in the remainder of your post are of no interest to me and I won't respond.

 

[intlzncster]

Sorry, don't give me that "we should be rationale" bs. Paterno and the rest of the athletic deparment enabled a child rapist. That's what they did, and there's no getting around it.

Want some more information..In 1973, Penn State quarterback Tom Shuman raped a freshman student. Paterno himself got involved and intimidated the girl to keep charges from happening. That was in 1973..how many times do you think that's happened since.

It's despicable. And the people defending the guy are the people who look irrational.

And this is why some people are taking exception (though maybe getting caught up in details they shouldn't). Do you know that the rest of the athletic department enabled a child rapist? I know some did. But I'm pretty certain they all didn't. There's over 200 people in the PSU athletic department. I hope a bunch of innocent folks (and their families) don't get smeared with this, as they get caught up by other peoples emotion. No need for more casualties in this mess.

 

[ctchamps]

I'll repeat the Grand Jury finding that served as the basis for my statement that no one connected to the university tried to identify the 2002 victim and I'll highlight the relevant language:

Although Schultz oversaw the University police as part of his position, he never reported the 2002 incident to the University Police or other police agency, never sought or reviewed a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so.

When the Grand Jury said "no one from the University" I took that to mean, well, no one from the university including those who knew about the incident (McQueary, Spanier, Paterno, Schultz and Curley).

As for the "eye contact part," according to the Grand Jury report (p. 7) McQueary testified that he "noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him." I suppose McQueary could have concluded that the boy "saw him" by not seeing the boy's eyes. My statement about what might have motivated those involved not to try to identify the young boy is indeed conjecture. I look forward to hearing what all of the PSU officials have to say about why they didn't attempt to identify the young boy. And I sincerely hope that at some point this now young man is able to come forward, identify himself and make eye contact with those who chose not to help him.

Your thoughts as reflected in the remainder of your post are of no interest to me and I won't respond.

You are good. I have to give you credit for that. I'll try in the future not to be lazy on researching my "facts."

I'm not surprised that the remainder of my post doesn't interest you. You made that clear in your response to my original post.

This may seem ridiculous but I hope that in the course of your life, you never find yourself in a position where society turns on you for any reason, justified or not.

 

[intlzncster]

My point is that I cannot see taking an extremist position accusing Joe Pa of deliberately doing this or that -since I can see alternatives - until it is known. I am neither prepared to blindly believe things he says, nor to discredit things he says. I will not disbelieve it if it turns out that he deliberately turned a blind eye, nor will I disbelieve it if it turns out that his motives were not so bad (which does not excuse the behavior, incidently).

But more and more I see folks immediately make judgements, assume positions, and refuse to consider that those positions could (not are, just could) be wrong. I see it in such minor things as Women's Basketball game and team issues, I see it in some defining issue like this, and also in many political positions. I find that tendancy - possibly further promoted by the whole internet culture - extremely distressing and unrepresentative of what I and many believe is the best of humanity.

Good post. Wholeheartedly agree with this. As I said above, the mob mentality always bothers me, probably because, in retrospective moments, I've observed myself get caught up in it in the past.

 

[ctchamps]

Good post. Wholeheartedly agree with this. As I said above, the mob mentality always bothers me, probably because, in retrospective moments, I've observed myself get caught up in it.

It should bother all of us. That mob mentality was behind a lot of bad human events, whether it was Kristallnacht and the rise of Nazism, Tutsis incited by a colonel to rise up and kill more than 800,000 Hutus, or the nearly five thousand people lynched in this country without a trial.

In every case there was a rationale for outrage, there were no disincentives to check the outrage, and the individuals who acted upon their outrage, did not have the ability to check their outrage. Instead they reinforced one another and justified their atrocities.

This is a vicious cycle.

There is justifiable outrage over child assault. And hopefully justice will be served. I understand why people want to see people punished over these incidences. Someone should have stepped up and stopped the cycle of vicious acts on innocent children. That didn't happen. Instead people chose silence. And that has triggered an extreme emotional response in many of us.

So if you or KnightBridgeAZ or any other person are trying to intercede when people are acting mob like, you are taking a course of action and are attempting to avert something that we might regret if that action wasn't taken.

 

[Icebear]

Thank you to all in this last two or so pages. It is the best discussion of the related issues in the last week.

No one at Penn State looked for the child involved in 2002 but not everyone was responsible to do so specifically, Gary Schultz was responsible for that. AD Tim Curley is, also, being held accountable for failure to report. They clearly had that responsibility and failed.

Some want to hold JoePA and Mike McQueary responsible for searching out these kids, too. Some have made blanket statements concerning the whole department, such as, no one at Penn State. We might as well say no in PA or no one in the US.

The question I would ask is how do they go about finding those kids. Neither JoePA nor McQueary are not professionally trained and licensed investigators do we want them running around on their own. If so, who do they contact, the PSU police, the administration? They supposedly were involved in Gary Schultz, Tim Curley, go there and they likely get the same response given to Second Mile. If given that response are they supposed to conduct their own investigation because they don't believe the professionals. What authority or ability do they have to do that? Should the janitors have been expected to perform a similar investigation to identify that child, why or why not?

Certainly the masses at PSU who knew nothing about those events could not have conducted investigation about anything.

The ones responsible are indicted and what measures they did or did not take will come out if they go to trial.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Ice, in all probability the child in question is associated with Sandusky's charity, a simple visit to the charity may have located the child. Someone at the charity may have known who Sandusky was seen with on a frequent basis and led to the child. How about something as simple as asking Sandusky who the child you were with on the day in question and then following up with the child to see if he was okay. Joe and McQueary could have found the child in question with I consider minimal efforts on their part. Legally should they have done this, probably not. How about Morally? All I know is they and those informed of the event should have done much more then what they apparently did which was nothing.

 

[meyers7]

True. To elaborate, it's something of a stacked deck consisting of what one side (the prosecution) chooses to present.

True. We have not heard "the other side". And from reports I have heard, Sandusky is saying he is innocent and none of these things happened.

He is innocent right now......until proven guilty.

 

[Icebear]

Ice, in all probability the child in question is associated with Sandusky's charity, a simple visit to the charity may have located the child. Someone at the charity may have known who Sandusky was seen with on a frequent basis and led to the child. How about something as simple as asking Sandusky who the child you were with on the day in question and then following up with the child to see if he was okay. Joe and McQueary could have found the child in question with I consider minimal efforts on their part. Legally should they have done this, probably not. How about Morally? All I know is they and those informed of the event should have done much more then what they apparently did which was nothing.

And doing so might run the risk of interfering with an investigation which they had reasonable expectation was being conducted? Or maybe compromise an investigation that may not want anyone at Second Mile aware of the investigation in case there is entanglement there. Let the outrage for the moment be aimed at Sandusky, and Curley and Schultz. If and when fuller facts are revealed concerning JoePA or others then there will be time later to focus outrage there. A parishioner who works for youth and Children's services told me yesterday morning that under their training Joe is not a mandated reporter. If he should be then change the law. I have already stated that I believe everyone should be a mandated reporter.

 

[DaddyChoc]

True. We have not heard "the other side". And from reports I have heard, Sandusky is saying he is innocent and none of these things happened.

He is innocent right now......until proven guilty.

very few expect him to say "yeah I was blowing (his belly) on a 10yr old in my basement and playing officer friendly by patting down a wet naked 12yr in the showers of Penn State football locker rooms... it was all in fun and we had a great time"

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

Excellent, well thought, and stimulating posts in this thread. Thanks.

For me, final verdicts will not “unring” the bell of sexual abuse. Retribution rests outside of myself.

 

[Icebear]

Excellent, well thought, and stimulating posts in this thread. Thanks.

For me, final verdicts will not “unring” the bell of sexual abuse. Retribution rests outside of myself.

There is nothing that can unring that bell, Oz. The best that can be hoped for is to eliminate any future abuses and to provide all the support needed for those victimized.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Ice, Wrong there was no investigation going on during 2002 when the shower incident allegedly took place. Even if there was, the health and welfare of the child was more important. If anything if the child was found it would have helped the investigation if one was ongoing, which there wasn't.

Just like what happened in 1999 the powers to be at PSU just wanted to sweep in under the carpet and hope it never saw the light of day.

 

[UConnCat]

You are good. I have to give you credit for that. I'll try in the future not to be lazy on researching my "facts."

I'm not surprised that the remainder of my post doesn't interest you. You made that clear in your response to my original post.

This may seem ridiculous but I hope that in the course of your life, you never find yourself in a position where society turns on you for any reason, justified or not.

Like most on this board, I've rarely revealed personal information about myself on this board but I will in this instance. I practiced law for many years so I understand how our justice system works and I understand the difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion. I also worked as an executive with a company that committed the largest corporate fraud in American history. As a representative of that company and its innocent employees (myself included), I do know how it feels to have society, the media and politicians "turn on you." I experienced up close what personal and institutional failure looks like and how those failures can affect the lives of many who lost their jobs and their life savings. (BTW, I'm in no way trying to equate corporate fraud with the horrific crimes that occurred here, nor am I trying to equate employees' financial harm with the emotional and psychological damage to the victimized children.) The former CEO of my company is now in prison. When he was convicted and sentenced I was asked whether I felt good about that. I said no; I feel badly for him and understand that his life in prison will not undo the harm done to many employees. I'm now a nurse and in that role I care and advocate for those who are most vulnerable and in need of help. So please don't presume to know the full spectrum of emotions I'm feeling about everyone involved in this scandal.

Like everyone, I am sad, angry and disappointed by the personal and institutional failures that didn't stop heinous crimes from being committed against children. I believe that for the PSU employees and officials involved in this mess, the interests of the institution and its football program trumped the interests and lives of innocent children. Right now, I'm having trouble moving beyond that belief and it has driven the focus of my discussion on this message board which is the inaction of many and the harm that inaction caused. I truly hope that all involved, including McQueary, are able to find some measure of peace.

 

[Icebear]

Ice, Wrong there was no investigation going on during 2002 when the shower incident allegedly took place. Even if there was, the health and welfare of the child was more important. If anything if the child was found it would have helped the investigation if one was ongoing, which there wasn't.

Just like what happened in 1999 the powers to be at PSU just wanted to sweep in under the carpet and hope it never saw the light of day.

I didn't say there was an investigation I was suggesting expectation that an investigation was taking place. JoePA reported it to Curley and made sure Curley was meeting with McQueary. We aren't sure if Joe knew of Schultz involvement or not but if he was it would be more reason to expect an investigation would be taking place. That should have led to an investigation and "technically" in the weaknest sense of the word did since 10 days later McQueary was interviewed. Curley implied to Second Mile that it had been checked into (investigated) and there was nothing. Which in itself is strange. Nothing to it but we are telling you. (Wink, wink) CYA. I do not know if there is a feedback loop to Joe or not and I certainly have no idea what he was or wasn't told.

 

[Kibitzer]

Throughout this long, interesting and occasionally contentious thread, I keep thinking back to the words of Senator Howard Baker during the Watergate hearings. What he said of President Nixon could be applied to several individuals (or groups) at PSU: "What did he know, and when did he know it?"

I wish we knew the answer for Joe Paterno and his coaching colleagues, university officials, law enforcement people, and so on. Eventually, we will.

In many instances, guilt or innocence, responsibility or negligence, courage or cowardice will be largely based on the answer to this question, as determined by the long overdue investigation that the public now demands.

 

[Icebear]

Throughout this long, interesting and occasionally contentious thread, I keep thinking back to the words of Senator Howard Baker during the Watergate hearings. What he said of President Nixon could be applied to several individuals (or groups) at PSU: "What did he know, and when did he know it?"

I wish we the answer for Joe Paterno and his coaching colleagues, university officials, law enforcement people, and so on.

In many instances, guilt or innocence, responsibility or negligence, courage or cowardice will be largely based on the answer to this question, as determined by the long overdue investigation that the public now demands.

Amen, Kib. I am glad I am not preaching today, we have a guest speaker for thankoffering today, because it gives me a week to gain further distance and perspective on these issues. I expect that I will address them next week. I expect to ask every mandated reporter in the congregation to stand up.

 

[ctchamps]

Like most on this board, I've rarely revealed personal information about myself on this board but I will in this instance. I practiced law for many years so I understand how our justice system works and I understand the difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion. I also worked as an executive with a company that committed the largest corporate fraud in American history. As a representative of that company and its innocent employees (myself included), I do know how it feels to have society, the media and politicians "turn on you." I experienced up close what personal and institutional failure looks like and how those failures can affect the lives of many. BTW, I'm in no way trying to equate corporate fraud with the horrific crimes that occurred here. The former CEO of my company is now in prison. When he was convicted and sentenced I was asked whether I felt good about that. I said no; I feel badly for him and understand that his life in prison will not undo the harm done to many employees. I'm now a nurse and in that role I care and advocate for those who are most vulnerable and in need of help. So please don't presume to know the full spectrum of emotions I'm feeling about everyone involved in this scandal.

Like everyone, I am sad, angry and disappointed by the personal and institutional failures that didn't stop heinous crimes from being committed against children. I believe that for the PSU employees and officials involved in this mess, the interests of the institution and its football program trumped the interests and lives of innocent children. Right now, I'm having trouble moving beyond that belief and it has driven the focus of my discussion on this message board which is the inaction of many and the harm that inaction caused. I truly hope that all involved, including McQueary, are able to find some measure of peace.

That took a lot of courage. I'm sorry you had to go through that experience. In no way do I presume to know anyones full spectrum of emotions.

You, or others, may think what I'm about to write is weird. So be it. I sometimes get a random thought in my head. Where it comes from I don't know. But I "sensed" (I don't get a time sense, just an event sense) that you would have or have had an experience as you described. That is why I made the statement in the previous post:

"This may seem ridiculous but I hope that in the course of your life, you never find yourself in a position where society turns on you for any reason, justified or not."​

It was totally random which is why I prepositioned the statement "this may seem ridiculous" . I wasn't wishing that you would have to face a lesson to experience my point of view. I was actually fearful for you.​

 

[UConnCat]

That took a lot of courage. I'm sorry you had to go through that experience. In no way do I presume to know anyones full spectrum of emotions.

You, or others, may think what I'm about to write is weird. So be it. I sometimes get a random thought in my head. Where it comes from I don't know. But I "sensed" (I don't get a time sense, just an event sense) that you would have or have had an experience as you described. That is why I made the statement in the previous post:

"This may seem ridiculous but I hope that in the course of your life, you never find yourself in a position where society turns on you for any reason, justified or not."​

It was totally random which is why I prepositioned the statement "this may seem ridiculous" . I wasn't wishing that you would have to face a lesson to experience my point of view. I was actually fearful for you.​

Believe me, there was absolutely no courage involved. If I've learned anything through this Penn State mess, it's that I'll reserve my use of the words "brave" and "courageous" for those who truly deserve it, such as the victims and mothers who have come forward. Our thoughts and emotions over tragedies like this are naturally shaped by our life experiences. With that in mind, I have strong and well-defined thoughts and feelings about the inaction of a powerful institution and the powerful people who were part of it, as well as the children who lacked the power to protect themselves.

 

[ctchamps]

Believe me, there was absolutely no courage involved. If I've learned anything through this Penn State mess, it's that I'll reserve my use of the words "brave" and "courageous" for those who truly deserve it, such as the victims and mothers who have come forward. Our thoughts and emotions over tragedies like this are naturally shaped by our life experiences. With that in mind, I have strong and well-defined thoughts and feelings about the inaction of a powerful institution and the powerful people who were part of it, as well as children who lacked the power to protect themselves.

I don't think there is anyone in this thread that doesn't share those thoughts and feelings.

In an earlier post in this thread I expressed my concern that there is a danger in interfering with the "grieving process" some of us need to go through when something of this nature is suddenly thrust on us. The issue is still too raw for us.

People weren't wrong in looking at the story from different perspectives. In fact when done well, this is how we learn from one another. However when our emotions are charged, or when the issue is personal, we don't learn from each other. The opposite occurs. Now we are not only angry with the initial horrific act, we are resentful with the various perspectives that develop regarding that original act that differ from our own.

Originally everyone was appalled by Sandusky. That hasn't changed. But the degree of animosity we have towards the other aspects of these crimes is varied. This variation would normally be tolerated with many issues by most people. But not in a charged climate.

When I observed three posters I have great admiration for, HuskyNan, JS and icebear, reaching a point in their discussion that showed a lot of tension, I became concerned. I'm very familiar that anger isn't looking for arbitration. It has to play out and hopefully when it does the parties involved with the anger can reconcile. So normally I prefer staying on the sidelines. But the discussion was spilling over and affecting more and more people. If it continues the odds increase that someone will say something that will be regrettable and people will find it difficult to forgive.

I never meant to get into a specific discussion with you. I'm not interested in changing your point of view. Having a discussion with you allowed me to express ideas and clarify positions. It gave me an opportunity to learn something from you. It allowed others to learn about different ideas regarding this horrific story. That was my intent. I recognize that not everyone is doing this, that in some discussions it is more about self validation than pursuit of growth. I can live with that.

I don't know if we'll engage in future discussions with one another. I sure hope so.