Why no talk of death penalty for Penn State?

[Carl Spackler]

If I may be so bold as to give my interpretation of upstater's views:

#1. he believes that nobody in the Power 4 group, is really more culpable than any other member of the PSU power 4.
#2. He's concerned about the depth of the corruption and it's web of extent with the BOT, the cluture of PSU, and extending into local and state goverment, industry and academic situations throughout the state.
#3. He's in favor of shutting down the football program, but like a true academic, doesnt' think it will matter much to change all the stuff in #2.
#4. He's therefore concerned that by taking that action, all the other stuff in #2, will just end up being worse - like a true academic

Me on the other hand, and athletics guy.

I say that the culture of leadership at PSU is FUBAR, and I had no idea how it extended beyond the university until discussion with upstater....and by shutting down the football program, the millions, and millions of people in PA that are football fans, (unconcerned about all the stuff upstater is concerned about) will demand immediate, and clear and dry change, from the top on down, and that will lead to the change in the leadership that upstater wants to see.

And when it's over, the academic people will find away to talk around how football, really wasn't the cause of the both the corruption, and then by damaging it, the cause of the correction.

And the athletic people, will go back to playing football.

It was pointed out to me, something I clearly didn't think of, that PSU has this grand image of never having any sanctioning, rules problems. Over so long.

It's compelte BS. IF the leadership was willing to cover up SAndusky for so long, they've covered everything else up.

Liars. Strike it down, and build again.

 

[ChrisSmith]

No is one arguing that everything is just ok. Something bad happened - things need to be changed and the people involved need to be punished. That's been brought about by people losing their jobs, people going to jail, potential civil liability, and tremendous amounts of negative press.

Are you saying that the PSU FB culture should be saved? As is?

Probably not, but how do you achieve the destruction of the FB culture that led to the cover-up and complete failure of any type of morality?

To me, there is no way to change the culture without a massive hit to the University and some of the players. Unfortunate as it is for the players, what is the alternative way to change the culture and make a statement to the entire country (and the NCAA) that you are changing the culture?

The PSU football culture has already been changed. Coach fired, AD fired, assistant coaches fired, and lots of negative press. People that want to see the death penalty are sadistic or opportunistic.

Everyone that is remotely to blame has already been disassociated from the university (except for maybe the board of trustees). And the message has been more than sent for the future.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Are you saying that the PSU FB culture should be saved? As is?

Probably not, but how do you achieve the destruction of the FB culture that led to the cover-up and complete failure of any type of morality?

To me, there is no way to change the culture without a massive hit to the University and some of the players. Unfortunate as it is for the players, what is the alternative way to change the culture and make a statement to the entire country (and the NCAA) that you are changing the culture?

The only way, is if PSU themselves, the culture itself was clearly, demonstrating change, demonstrating that gravity of the problem proportionally by whatever they're doing.

i don't see it, therefore it's got to come externally.

 

[SubbaBub]

Are you saying that the PSU FB culture should be saved? As is?

Probably not, but how do you achieve the destruction of the FB culture that led to the cover-up and complete failure of any type of morality?

To me, there is no way to change the culture without a massive hit to the University and some of the players. Unfortunate as it is for the players, what is the alternative way to change the culture and make a statement to the entire country (and the NCAA) that you are changing the culture?

There has been plenty of press on how the culture within the FB program has done just that. There are only a couple of holdovers who I suspect will move on in a year or so.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Carl Spackler]

No is one arguing that everything is just ok. Something bad happened - things need to be changed and the people involved need to be punished. That's been brought about by people losing their jobs, people going to jail, potential civil liability, and tremendous amounts of negative press.


The PSU football culture has already been changed. Coach fired, AD fired, assistant coaches fired, and lots of negative press. People that want to see the death penalty are sadistic or opportunistic.

Everyone that is remotely to blame has already been disassociated from the university (except for maybe the board of trustees). And the message has been more than sent for the future.

You're the same person that suggest that a uconn fan want's the most severe punishment possible for PSU football, because it will be easier to recruiti in CT for football, instead of say...a uconn fan wanting the most severe punishment to the PSU football program, for failing to protect children from a serial child rapist for at least 14 years, so that the public image of the football program wouldn't be tainted.

I've tried to ignore that you wrote that, but you made it impossible.

 

[Carl Spackler]

There has been plenty of press on how the culture within the FB program has done just that. There are only a couple of holdovers who I suspect will move on in a year or so.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

FIring underlings -----people, is not enough. The guy that was in charge of it all Spanier, is still sitting in his office.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You're argument is that it must be destroyed, so that it may be saved.

No thanks.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

Not exactly what I'm saying, but we do disagree.

 

[upstater]

I don't know what you are referring to now. No one can keep up with you. You're a moving target. Someone comments on one of your posts, you take umbridge, insult them then you refer to another of your hundreds of posts to refute. It's parody. That's how I'm taking it.

It's one post. On the same page as you're commenting on. What' so difficult? In your reply to me, you even quote-boxed my reply to ZLS's post which claimed that I said only at PSU are there Humanities chairs. Never said anything like that.

 

[Srqhusky]

I guess it depends if you look to it as a statue of joe paterno the coach or joe paterno the human being

 

[Carl Spackler]

"Athletics Guys) knowing about Kafka are suspect.

Not with a UConn degree.

 

[upstater]

If I may be so bold as to give my interpretation of upstater's views:

#1. he believes that nobody in the Power 4 group, is really more culpable than any other member of the PSU power 4.

Close, but actually I've said Paterno/Spanier are most culpable since they are the most powerful 2. Curley was Paterno's minion and Schultz was in his last month before retirement.

#2. He's concerned about the depth of the corruption and it's web of extent with the BOT, the cluture of PSU, and extending into local and state goverment, industry and academic situations throughout the state.

My main concern, yes. I think the academic side of PSU is going to take a big hit here.

#3. He's in favor of shutting down the football program, but like a true academic, doesnt' think it will matter much to change all the stuff in #2.

It won't. Death penalty is appropriate.

#4. He's therefore concerned that by taking that action, all the other stuff in #2, will just end up being worse - like a true academic

I didn't say this. I said, IF the BOT decides to take over operations--given the political nature of this particular BOT and all their lamebrained pet projects they'd like to institute to replace existing programs--it may turn for the worse. But this is quite outside what happens to football. It may or may not happen regardless of what happens to football. I wrote that this is my main concern.

Me on the other hand, and athletics guy.

I say that the culture of leadership at PSU is FUBAR, and I had no idea how it extended beyond the university until discussion with upstater....and by shutting down the football program, the millions, and millions of people in PA that are football fans, (unconcerned about all the stuff upstater is concerned about) will demand immediate, and clear and dry change, from the top on down, and that will lead to the change in the leadership that upstater wants to see.

And when it's over, the academic people will find away to talk around how football, really wasn't the cause of the both the corruption, and then by damaging it, the cause of the correction.

And the athletic people, will go back to playing football.

It was pointed out to me, something I clearly didn't think of, that PSU has this grand image of never having any sanctioning, rules problems. Over so long.

It's compelte BS. IF the leadership was willing to cover up SAndusky for so long, they've covered everything else up.

Liars. Strike it down, and build again.

I have pointed out that not only was Sandusky covered up, but also other sex abuse scandals, so yes there has been a culture of CYA there. If you get into BOT politics, it's even worse since there is a close group of people in the center that freeze out all other (elected) BOT members, and those at the center are political appointees. Sharp knives are out.

I don't want to get into conspiracies but I do admit that in the back of my mind, the timing of Corbett ramping up the investigation into Sandusky (remember, Corbett was the prosecutorial bigwig in Centre County at the time of Sandusky's abuses, and he waited 2 full years after the Clinton County revelations in 2008 to put more than a single assistant--a newbie--on the case) coincided precisely with his battles with Spanier over control of both funding for PSU and the PSU branch campus system. Spanier has been totally emasculated. BUT, he still has his job. Corbett hasn't prosecuted him. The BOT, which now takes directions from Corbett, hasn't fired his former enemy Spanier. Sometimes it's better to keep your enemies close.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

After all that Carl goes 2 for 4. BTW PA people want to see their football.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I have pointed out that not only was Sandusky covered up, but also other sex abuse scandals, so yes there has been a culture of CYA there. If you get into BOT politics, it's even worse since there is a close group of people in the center that freeze out all other (elected) BOT members, and those at the center are political appointees. Sharp knives are out.

I don't want to get into conspiracies but I do admit that in the back of my mind, the timing of Corbett ramping up the investigation into Sandusky (remember, Corbett was the prosecutorial bigwig in Centre County at the time of Sandusky's abuses, and he waited 2 full years after the Clinton County revelations in 2008 to put more than a single assistant--a newbie--on the case) coincided precisely with his battles with Spanier over control of both funding for PSU and the PSU branch campus system. Spanier has been totally emasculated. BUT, he still has his job. Corbett hasn't prosecuted him. The BOT, which now takes directions from Corbett, hasn't fired his former enemy Spanier. Sometimes it's better to keep your enemies close.

The voting population of the state of Pennslvania, needs to speak to create the change you want upstater. It's that simple. I can't believe (well actually I do, given what it took to get you to clearly begin to write that sanctioning the football program is warranted, even with caveat that you don't think it will change anythign) .....believe that you don't realize that, and that the PSU football program, is what the voting population will make their ballot choices primarily about.

Academics, I've found, don't want to really acknowledge things like that, because it really flies in the face of the idealistic view of the world that often exists in academia, as rightly it should - in that realm. The last thing you want at an institution where higher education is key, is a bunch of realism smacking you in the face.

Generalization, I know - but moving on...

THe voters will speak, and I guarantee that everybody on that BOT, and everybody in central pennsylvania local government, and state PA governmental offices in any way tied to PSU, are fully aware of it, and that's why nobody from PSU in those positions will make a peep about it - sanctioning the football program. They know that severe sanctions to the program, means the end of their own jobs when it's election time.

 

[Carl Spackler]

After all that Carl goes 2 for 4. BTW PA people want to see their football.

Batting .500 against an English Lit prof hell bent on defeating your argument? I'll take that any day.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Batting .500 against an English Lit prof hell bent on defeating your argument? I'll take that any day.

BTW: believe it or not, I was fully aware that he said that he thinks Spanier and Paterno are primarily to blame, rather than the other two, but I wrote what I did, to emphasize that he doesn't think Paterno is the root. (which I do)

So, I could have gone 3 for 4, but I sacrificed a bunt to advance a runner.

 

[upstater]

The voting population of the state of Pennslvania, needs to speak to create the change you want upstater. It's that simple. I can't believe (well actually I do, given what it took to get you to clearly begin to write that sanctioning the football program is warranted, even with caveat that you don't think it will change anythign) .....believe that you don't realize that, and that the PSU football program, is what the voting population will make their ballot choices primarily about.

Academics, I've found, don't want to really acknowledge things like that, because it really flies in the face of the idealistic view of the world that often exists in academia, as rightly it should - in that realm. The last thing you want at an institution where higher education is key, is a bunch of realism smacking you in the face.

Generalization, I know - but moving on...

THe voters will speak, and I guarantee that everybody on that BOT, and everybody in central pennsylvania local government, and state PA governmental offices in any way tied to PSU, are fully aware of it, and that's why nobody from PSU in those positions will make a peep about it - sanctioning the football program. They know that severe sanctions to the program, means the end of their own jobs when it's election time.

There's a difference between center county and the rest of the state. And, lots of people inside PSU are peeping. Every article I read contains a name I know. The Triponey article itself had academics peeping. In a way, it's because they have tenure that they do it. I'm sure the people have better things to do than worry about the university's academic side. Look at UVa. Who spoke up with that controversy last month? Students, faculty, alumni. The only people that will care.

 

[upstater]

BTW: believe it or not, I was fully aware that he said that he thinks Spanier and Paterno are primarily to blame, rather than the other two, but I wrote what I did, to emphasize that he doesn't think Paterno is the root. (which I do)

So, I could have gone 3 for 4, but I sacrificed a bunt to advance a runner.

When two people agree on a strategy, you'll find difficulty finding a root. I think the Freeh report leaks planted that idea, even if the evidence showed they conspired together much earlier than the leaked emails. But this is sorta like the controversy over Niger uranium in 2003 to Iraq. I'm one of the few liberals I speak to that accepts that the screw up is as Condi Rice described, a case of multiple people in the admin buying/developing a story that was half-baked, without it being directed by the likeliest actors (i.e. Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rumsfeld).

 

[Carl Spackler]

There's a difference between center county and the rest of the state. And, lots of people inside PSU are peeping. Every article I read contains a name I know. The Triponey article itself had academics peeping. In a way, it's because they have tenure that they do it. I'm sure the people have better things to do than worry about the university's academic side. Look at UVa. Who spoke up with that controversy last month? Students, faculty, alumni. The only people that will care.

Oh upstater. "It's because they have tenure that they do it."

I understand why a 3 year teacher with a Master's degree, struggling to be on a tenure track, with little to no funding on any research projects planned, and/or very little guidance from their superiours academically and struggling to get papers published would be reluctanct to say anythign negative about their schools leadership chain above them.

I understand why a tenured Ph.D. would have no qualms about saying their department head, or BOT rep is a clown.

But the fact, that you yourself, among people you know, are willing to say in this circumstance, that "It's because they have tenure that they do it." meaning clearly question the culture of the university leadership.......is exactly the resaon the university is in HUGE trouble, and needs the entire culture of Pennsylvania to vote against everybody - over football getting shut down.

Becuase there is no faculty member at Penn State, from a grad assistant T.A. to a tenured Ph.D., that should have any sort of fear of any retribution, for clearly stating that their university leadership is duckED UP!!!!

What you wrote right here, about your faculty acquaintances, IMO, is no different than the Korean War vet janitor that witnessed Sandusky's horror, and talking to his fellow employees and fearing for their jobs because of it.

Strike the football program down, and the voting PSU alumni, the voters of PA in general, will create the change you want in the school adn community (local and state) faster than you can imagine.

Ideally, there would be a different solution.

Realistically, it is the only solution.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Can we all agree....that if anything deserves the death penalty....it's all of these PSU threads?

 

[SubbaBub]

Eventually they will move it inside the sports museum after all the legal proceedings are complete. It doesn't make sense to keep it in public as a target for vandalism.

They won't move it under duress, or risk pissing off a good portion of the donor base. Reality is what it is. Like it or not, Paterno will always have fans within the PSU community. No amount of screaming will change that, he did too many good things for them that didn't involve football games.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Carl Spackler]

When two people agree on a strategy, you'll find difficulty finding a root. I think the Freeh report leaks planted that idea, even if the evidence showed they conspired together much earlier than the leaked emails. But this is sorta like the controversy over Niger uranium in 2003 to Iraq. I'm one of the few liberals I speak to that accepts that the screw up is as Condi Rice described, a case of multiple people in the admin buying/developing a story that was half-baked, without it being directed by the likeliest actors (i.e. Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rumsfeld).

The 2003 example, I think you're on the right track, and I"ve alluded to that kind of situation repeatedly in this discussion. The. U.S. was in a position where a change in the culture of Iraq, was a decision that had been made. It was a matter of how that would happen. The suspicion, and then subsequent confirmation of the WMD, is what put the U.S. in the position to be an aggressor and go into that country with force.

It's why you have to be very, very sure about why you choose to inflict damage. But that is causing damage that will kill people. The people that made the choice to invade Iraq in 2003, knew that people would die.

But this is Penn State University. I don't see inflicting damage as an aggressive move that is going to cause serious collateral damage, to innocents. Nobody will die if the football program shuts down.

Innocent children though, were abused horrificly, and repeatedly though, because of the actions of the Penn State football program leadership.

I see inflicting damage on the Penn State football program, as a defense of any future children, and a defense of any individual for any reason, that would have their personal freedoms squashed by the institution that is Penn State.

 

[Palatine]

Latest news.

CNN reports three men claim they were abused by Sandusky in 70s and 80s.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Can we all agree....that if anything deserves the death penalty....it's all of these PSU threads?

Point taken Jimmy.

Place your bets.

 

[CL82]

I would suggest that some of you voluntarily ban your paychecks this.month because, let's be honest, you've spent a lot of company time on the boneyard this month, let alone what you do in the lavatory....eeesh.

I'm fascinated by then relentless call to punish innocent people in order make yourselves feel better by venting outrage at what is essentially corporate letterhead. If you believe the Freeh Report, those involved have been removed to the jurisdiction of the.justice system.

If your concern is that PSU the organization should suffer some.monetary penalty, the civil court system will surely see to that.

If your concern is to prevent this from happening again, then not playing football games does nothing to advance that goal, nor does it send any 'message' to anyone.

From an earlier thread:

I think this goes to the lack of institutional control/death penalty issue that has been debated to death here. The school did a risk/benefit analysis and decided that the benefit of maintaining the illusion of institutional integrity outweighed the risk of sanctions if caught. It is hard to change the risk portion of this analysis as some people will hope that they won't be caught. So if you want to change the analysis, you have to change the severity of sanctions. Make sure that PSU and every institution in the country will opt for the embarassment of disclosure of the activity rather than risk severe sanction.

The failure to severely sanction the program confirms that their analysis of the risk was accurate. Why change "policies/proceedures" if the cost of taking no action is no different than the cost of self reporting? This is a watershed moment. PSU needs to become an example of what happens to an institution where the reputation of the institution becomes more important than welfare of innocents. I, for one, don't feel the least bit sorry for them.

If your concerned that the NCAA should have something say about one of it's member organizations behaving so reprehensibly, then finally we can agree.

As I've posted elsewhere, the NCAA should place the entire University on two years probation, I don't think that they have the ability to do that- to implement the governance reforms outlined in the Freeh Report to sufficiently assure that no small group of people can commit future crimes of this magnitude in the name of the university. Failure to do so would result in a ban from participation in all NCAA sponsored activities until compliance is achieved. The two year window is to prevent a hastily thrown together response.

Anyone else have anything productive they'd like to see result from this other than blind vengeance?

Yes changing the cost portion of the cost benefit analysis of doing nothing.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[UCFBfan]

Can we all agree....that if anything deserves the death penalty....it's all of these PSU threads?

What else would there to be to talk about then???

 

[CL82]

When two people agree on a strategy, you'll find difficulty finding a root. I think the Freeh report leaks planted that idea, even if the evidence showed they conspired together much earlier than the leaked emails. But this is sorta like the controversy over Niger uranium in 2003 to Iraq. I'm one of the few liberals I speak to that accepts that the screw up is as Condi Rice described, a case of multiple people in the admin buying/developing a story that was half-baked, without it being directed by the likeliest actors (i.e. Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rumsfeld).

...of course Great Britain still stands behind that intelligence report.

 

[uconnbill]

I would suggest that some of you voluntarily ban your paychecks this.month because, let's be honest, you've spent a lot of company time on the boneyard this month, let alone what you do in the lavatory....eeesh.

I'm fascinated by then relentless call to punish innocent people in order make yourselves feel better by venting outrage at what is essentially corporate letterhead. If you believe the Freeh Report, those involved have been removed to the jurisdiction of the.justice system.

If your concern is that PSU the organization should suffer some.monetary penalty, the civil court system will surely see to that.

If your concern is to prevent this from happening again, then not playing football games does nothing to advance that goal, nor does it send any 'message' to anyone.

If your concerned that the NCAA should have something say about one of it's member organizations behaving so reprehensibly, then finally we can agree.

As I've posted elsewhere, the NCAA should place the entire University on two years probation, to implement the governance reforms outlined in the Freeh Report to sufficiently assure that no small group of people can commit future crimes of this magnitude in the name of the university. Failure to do so would result in a ban from participation in all NCAA sponsored activities until compliance is achieved. The two year window is to prevent a hastily thrown together response.

Anyone else have anything productive they'd like to see result from this other than blind vengeance?


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

So the university should have no culpability in what happened at the university. Sorry but some punishment should happen in what is serious issue. If they get off scott free what does that tell those who were raped by a member of PSU staff. The university has to pay some penalty, otherwise what message does it send to others. This is much worst then paying some player, this destroyed lives.

 

[upstater]

Oh upstater. "It's because they have tenure that they do it."

I understand why a 3 year teacher with a Master's degree, struggling to be on a tenure track, with little to no funding on any research projects planned, and/or very little guidance from their superiours academically and struggling to get papers published would be reluctanct to say anythign negative about their schools leadership chain above them.

I understand why a tenured Ph.D. would have no qualms about saying their department head, or BOT rep is a clown.

But the fact, that you yourself, among people you know, are willing to say in this circumstance, that "It's because they have tenure that they do it." meaning clearly question the culture of the university leadership.......is exactly the resaon the university is in HUGE trouble, and needs the entire culture of Pennsylvania to vote against everybody - over football getting shut down.

Becuase there is no faculty member at Penn State, from a grad assistant T.A. to a tenured Ph.D., that should have any sort of fear of any retribution, for clearly stating that their university leadership is duckED UP!!!!

What you wrote right here, about your faculty acquaintances, IMO, is no different than the Korean War vet janitor that witnessed Sandusky's horror, and talking to his fellow employees and fearing for their jobs because of it.

Strike the football program down, and the voting PSU alumni, the voters of PA in general, will create the change you want in the school adn community (local and state) faster than you can imagine.

Ideally, there would be a different solution.

Realistically, it is the only solution.

I think you misunderstood two things about my post.

It was faculty members in those articles who were backing up Triponey, not speaking to fear on campus.

There is fear from non-tenure people on every campus. Because that's the way academia works. Tenure-track means you are on probation in a variety of ways. And, we are not talking about whether someone should report a possible crime here. We are discussing faculty taking on the powers that be higher than them. We see this in all institutions. In business, you don't call out the CEO when you are an entry-level employee, do you? All I stated is that faculty have more ground to criticize superiors because of tenure. In business, you don't have tenure so the ground is fraught.

As for the rest, I'm only looking at the recent examples at places like UC Davis, UC Berkeley, U Virginia and Illinois. When the Presidents and BOTs at those places enacted certain policies, there was a great deal of pushback from faculty, students and alumni that overturned them.

 

[upstater]

The 2003 example, I think you're on the right track, and I"ve alluded to that kind of situation repeatedly in this discussion. The. U.S. was in a position where a change in the culture of Iraq, was a decision that had been made. It was a matter of how that would happen. The suspicion, and then subsequent confirmation of the WMD, is what put the U.S. in the position to be an aggressor and go into that country with force.

It's why you have to be very, very sure about why you choose to inflict damage. But that is causing damage that will kill people. The people that made the choice to invade Iraq in 2003, knew that people would die.

But this is Penn State University. I don't see inflicting damage as an aggressive move that is going to cause serious collateral damage, to innocents. Nobody will die if the football program shuts down.

Innocent children though, were abused horrificly, and repeatedly though, because of the actions of the Penn State football program leadership.

I see inflicting damage on the Penn State football program, as a defense of any future children, and a defense of any individual for any reason, that would have their personal freedoms squashed by the institution that is Penn State.

I was just comparing who/how the strategy was developed to cover-up (in the PSU case) and to concoct (in the Bush admin. case). There may indeed have been a single person who came up with the strategies (Paterno at PSU or say Cheney) but when you look at that handwritten memo by Schultz/Spanier on 2/12/01, it seems that Spanier signed off on the strategy after conversing with Paterno and lawyers just a couple days after the rape.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think you misunderstood two things about my post.

It was faculty members in those articles who were backing up Triponey, not speaking to fear on campus.

There is fear from non-tenure people on every campus. Because that's the way academia works. Tenure-track means you are on probation in a variety of ways. And, we are not talking about whether someone should report a possible crime here. We are discussing faculty taking on the powers that be higher than them. We see this in all institutions. In business, you don't call out the CEO when you are an entry-level employee, do you? All I stated is that faculty have more ground to criticize superiors because of tenure. In business, you don't have tenure so the ground is fraught.

As for the rest, I'm only looking at the recent examples at places like UC Davis, UC Berkeley, U Virginia and Illinois. When the Presidents and BOTs at those places enacted certain policies, there was a great deal of pushback from faculty, students and alumni that overturned them.

I understood your message to mean that a major reason why faculty are secure in speaking out against their administration is because of tenure. I understand the difference between tenure and non-tenure, I think you skipped over that part of my message convenitently.

My point is this - and you do emphasize it by referencing other institutions where faculty, alumni and students have created change in the culture of their leadership.

AT PSU, tHere should be no fear from any faculty member at PSU, today July 2012, tenured or non-tenured, T.A. to tenure Ph.D, as I wrote before....to speak up and say WTF is Spanier still doing in his office? Among all the other things you ahve written about, not football related. Now is the time to rise up and create change, if that student body, facutly and alumni trully want it.

If those faculty members at PSU, at whatever level on track, have knowledge of sketchy things, there is no reason why anyone should have fear of speaking up about anything to create change at the highest levels of the university right now. If ever there was a time to question yuour leadership within an institution, about anything and everything.....now at PSU, is the time.

The things you describe, the faculty, alumni, students creating change at other institutions - why isn't this happening at Penn State? Are you trying to tell me it is? If you are, I don't believe you and I disagree. I see a BOT that's concerned with the image of Joe Paterno, and his legacy. I see a BOT, that by your own info, is completely corrupt, well beyond this incredibly disgusting scandal. (and to me that's no surprise, b/c to be capable of how they managed SAndusky, it is complete expected to find the kinds of things you discuss in other aspects of their business)

I think the culture of fear, and absolute power is real, and it pervades the entire community, and that's the answer to the question as to why a guy like Spanier, who should be long gone, is still there.