Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
I expect that you'll get a lot of grief for this post. I want to make sure I applaud it. It's an incredibly important perspective to have today.

Joe Paterno's legacy will be and should be in tatters. With the benefit of hindsight, all of this is going to be abhorrent. If we're seriously and honestly going to try to understand how this happened and put ourselves in the minds and situations of these people at the time they had to act, then we can't generalize that each and every person's appropriate actions were obvious at the time and the failure to do so is part of some evil conspiracy to inflict damage upon the world. The truth is always in the middle. As much damage as all these PSU alums are doing to their reputation with the constant support of PSU and Paterno, I think the desire to label all of these people as pure evil is equally absurd. Much like Thomas Jefferson or some of our grandfathers and great grandfathers, it is possible for people to be both good and bad, or, maybe more appropriately, evolutionary. That the entire institution wasn't able to evolve fast enough in the face of the other scandals going on at the time is a huge problem, and one that will be and should be paid for. But dissecting the information after the fact to make sweeping generalizations about these men in either direction is probably not accomplishing a lot. Except for Sandusky, who is without a doubt a monster.

I guess to sum it up, or maybe say it in a better way. I'm not entirely surprised that a bunch of old men didn't cope with this seemingly outlier and bizarre situation. I wouldn't even be shocked if they believed the story Sandusky told them because they "knew him" and knew he wasn't like that. Even with evidence and investigations and allegations, people defer to their own judgment and their own experiences. Of course, all of this was disastrously wrong. But as a society we sort of do ourselves a disservice when we don't look to honestly examine how this could have happened and instead try to just bundle these people up as a bunch of lunatics.

edit: I think I veered off point to one extent when I started analyzing the facts of this case. With a little time, I'll be able to read the report, because the facts in this instance may reveal that there was just a massive cover up orchestrated by all these fools. So if you read my post and crawled out of your skin because you've read the report and the details more thoroughly than I to this point, then I get where you're coming from.
Who labeled them "evil?" This is the kind of false moral equivalency that many PSU supporters CONTINUE to try to make -- that everyone has failings, that the "truth" is in the middle, et al. Is the truth of the Holocaust "in the middle" -- were the Nazis good people who just didn't understand that it was wrong to kill people en masse because of their religion?

The report SAYS there's a giant fucking coverup that went on for 14 years and executed by the highest PSU officials, including Joe Paterno. It also says PSU provided continued access to University facilities and privileges -- including football tickets, office space in the football building, lifetime access to football facilities of all stripes -- to Sandusky EVEN AFTER knowing about the 1998 accusation and confession by Sandusky which he then used as "currency" to recruit more child victims.

Read the thing and then comment.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,615
yes. and frankly, that's a stupid thing to say. I gave a historical summary. I didn't say any of it made me happy.

So you'd be cool and wouldnt think of your father as a bad person because he knowingly allowed your kid brother to be molested? And please dont argue that there is a difference between this example and JoePa because the only difference I see is that JoePa allowed this to happen over multiple years to multiple kids and my example only used one kid.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,442
Wow, this excerpt is disgusting:

Penn State officials were familiar with the issues of liability that could arise from Sandusky bringing minors to the Lasch Building. For example, notes maintained by Paterno reflect that Sandusky proposed several continuing connections with Penn State when he retired in 1999. Among those connections was that he would have continuing "[a]ccess to training and workout facilities." A handwritten note on this proposal reads: "Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile kids. No to 2nd Mile. Liability problems." Exhibit 2-G
 

amh03

Tippi Hedren
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 27, 2003
6,388
...Paterno grew up in a time when turning your back and hoping it didn't happen again is what you did. The perpetrator was someone you kept your own kids from, but you didn't make a deal about it. That kind of silence was not only acceptable, it was expected. Paterno showed he was a coward by not breaking the cycle, but it was no different than what many men of his generation would have done.
The events that are specified in this report were taking place in 1999...that's 22 years after your listed date of when child pornography was deemed illegal. Twenty-two years!

Each of those men knew exactly what choice they were making and it has NOTHING do do with hoping it wouldn't happen again. The were trying to protect the reptuation of their program, their school and themselves. THAT was held of higher regard than the well being of children!! There is NO excuse and each of them, as well as the program and the school should be set as an example!
 

scotian1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
16,146
Kingston, Nova Scotia
To be clear, this was not what I was saying in my comments.

My comments were that Paterno was right in saying that this was not a football scandal, because it's much bigger. The football program was merely the catalyst that unleashed the moral depravity below the surface of the PSU culture.
It seemed that the powers that were involved were going to report the 2001 incident to authorities until Curly and Paterno started discussing the matter between themselves. Then it was decided that they would not take the route and would treat Sandusky more "humanely". Wasn't that all about protecting the reputation of the football program. How many children suffered after that decision was made, too many!
 

Ananias

lurker
Mar 29, 2006
193
So you'd be cool and wouldnt think of your father as a bad person because he knowingly allowed your kid brother to be molested?
I said he was a coward and a man of his generation. I said staying silent was socially acceptable during the time in which he grew up. I didn't say I'd be cool. I didn't say I would think he was a good person. I purposefully refrained from using the words other have used (honorable) because I don't think it applies. I responded to a very specific statement you made about whether or not pedophilia had ever been socially acceptable. My response was that covering up for it had been socially acceptable. In my book, socially acceptable in no way equals moral.

edit: re: 1970s vs. 1990s -- Paterno was 50 in 1976. His moral base was set and not going to move much by that point. But I'm not going to be drawn into defending the man. I am trying to talk about the shifting perspective of social resonsibility from one generation to the next. None of that should be taken to imply that I am excusing him. True heroes know when to rise above their society's shortcomings (as John Quincy Adams did regarding slavery). Paterno did not.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
Frankly, I'm thinking some of you just want to play devil's advocate on every issue, no matter what it is, including child rape. You can sit this one out, you have our permission.
 

natpastime162

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,386
Pennsylvania
There's acceptable and there's acceptable. No, pedophilia has never been lauded as a pillar of society, but untill the late 1970s it was not something that was usually talked about publically. The notion that child pornography is illegal wasn't even completely clarified until 1977. Before that, it was seen as creepy and unwholesome but also was considered the kind of thing that not much could be done about. In short, being a pedophile was not socially acceptable -- but choosing to remain silent about a colleague's pedophilia WAS socially acceptable. It is hard for me to comprehend as well, but Paterno grew up in a time when turning your back and hoping it didn't happen again is what you did. The perpetrator was someone you kept your own kids from, but you didn't make a deal about it. That kind of silence was not only acceptable, it was expected. Paterno showed he was a coward by not breaking the cycle, but it was no different than what many men of his generation would have done.
But wouldn't Joe Paterno (being a tenured professor and all) have been exposed to many learning seminars teaching how to identify and report child abuse in all forms?
 

Ananias

lurker
Mar 29, 2006
193
The events that are specified in this report were taking place in 1999...that's 22 years after your listed date of when child pornography was deemed illegal. Twenty-two years!

Each of those men knew exactly what choice they were making and it has NOTHING do do with hoping it wouldn't happen again. The were trying to protect the reptuation of their program, their school and themselves. THAT was held of higher regard than the well being of children!! There is NO excuse and each of them, as well as the program and the school should be set as an example!
I can find nothing in anything you just said that I disagree with or that I previously argued against.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
35,616
Harrisburg, Pa.
Too bad you weren't able to share this. The SoSH lawyers probably would have set your mind at ease -- it is absolutely not a surprise that prosecutors asked Freeh not to interview McQueary, given the importance of his testimony to the pending charges against Curley and Schultz.

And you must be happy to be wrong -- from what I've read so far, the report is unsparing in its treatment of the BoT.
What I'd seen was the genesis of the overall report, it attacks four individuals but IMO doesn't go after the university leaders (the trustees) enough (granted I haven't read the entire thing yet, but haven't seen many excerpts to counteract my thought) for failing to take action against the university administration.

I'm not too happy at all. Until Curley, Shutlz and Spanier are charged and indicted on perjury (and Shultz and Curley possibly much more, including tampering with evidence because they hid files), I won't feel much has been done. Until the PSU BoT changes the culture within itself and the administration, I won't feel much has been done.

The other thing that I need to be "happy" is an investigation to tackle the elephant in the room: The Centre County DA office, the state AG office, etc. I suppose the FBI investigation needs to be the one to do so. Those offices took a decade to bring charges against a man roaming free destroying little boys' lives. Fuck them. I understand being thorough. I understand patience. But when you have basically one person in the AG office covering this for years while the entire office is working on BonusGate, I have problems.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
53,265
deep inside Guido territory
Here are a few of the bylaws and articles in the NCAA Rule Book that are in question of violation that President Emmert referenced to in his 11/17/11 letter to Penn State.

Article 2.1: "It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution's president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program. These principles of institutional control are further elaborated on in Articles 6.01.1 and 6.4 of the NCAA constitution. "
Direct violation.

Article 2.4: "For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program.
Direct violation

Bylaw 10.1 requires that individuals "act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports."
Direct violation

Bylaw 19.01.2 states that "individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen."
Direct violation

http://www.statecoll...acting-1089510/

I'm sure there are many more that are in violation as well.
 

Ananias

lurker
Mar 29, 2006
193
But wouldn't Joe Paterno (being an educator and all) have been exposed to many learning seminars teaching how to identify and report child abuse in all forms?
I agree he should have. That's actually in the report -- the football program habitually excused themselves from such training with no repercussions. I never meant to say anything more than he was not acting uncommonly for someone who grew up in the 1920s. But that generation had many moral failings (as all generations, I suspect, probably do). It is a moral man's responsibility to rise above the blind-spots of his society. The only question I was addressing was whether or not turning your head away from it was a socially (not morally) acceptable response during Paterno's formative years. I've explained it now the best I can.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
37,606
South Boston
Frankly, I'm thinking some of you just want to play devil's advocate on every issue, no matter what it is, including child rape. You can sit this one out, you have our permission.
He's not playing devil's advocate. Major said "never." Ananias said, "Well, no, not never, in fact as recently as 20-30 years ago . . . ." It's not like he went back to ancient Athens.

Serious subject matter doesn't relieve one of the requirement that before flipping the fuck out on a poster (not you, Ringo), one should actually read the fucking thread.

Christ. They're not giving out awards for who can be most faux-outraged about other people's posts.
 

Ananias

lurker
Mar 29, 2006
193
I'm not too happy at all. Until Curley, Shutlz and Spanier are charged and indicted on perjury (and Shultz and Curley possibly much more, including tampering with evidence because they hid files), I won't feel much has been done. Until the PSU BoT changes the culture within itself and the administration, I won't feel much has been done.
I have to agree with this. I was very dismayed at Freeh's statement during the press conference that PSU was now a safe place that he would not hesitate to send his children to. I felt like the hope of any real further action being taken deflated quite a bit with that comment.
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
5,025
02148
https://twitter.com/schadjoe/status/223445651223093249

What??? They COVERED UP CHILD RAPE!!!! How is that NOT a lack of control?
I don't think you know what that phrase means. If anything, the long and far-reaching coverup indicates an excessive amount of institutional control.
 

geoffm33

lurker
Mar 3, 2012
88
It seemed that the powers that were involved were going to report the 2001 incident to authorities until Curly and Paterno started discussing the matter between themselves. Then it was decided that they would not take the route and would treat Sandusky more "humanely". Wasn't that all about protecting the reputation of the football program. How many children suffered after that decision was made, too many!
It would seem to me the Paterno should not have even been in the conversation let alone the (seemingly) deciding voice. He was the football coach. This was not in his "jurisdiction". This should have been a decision made by the university president/administration. THAT is lack of institutional control right there.
 
Aug 1, 2006
5
Charles Robinson ‏@CharlesRobinson
This is often a major example of lack of institutional control. RT@BryanDFischer Report states PSU has no centralized compliance office.
Charles Robinson ‏@CharlesRobinson
NCAA will open or decline to open an investigation into Penn State based on PSU's response to the 4 questions in this:http://bit.ly/vdCZnK
Just by looking at the questions posed in that letter, I can't imagine how they escape some kind of punishment from the NCAA, despite what Joe Schad suggests.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,615
He's not playing devil's advocate. Major said "never." Ananias said, "Well, no, not never, in fact as recently as 20-30 years ago . . . ." It's not like he went back to ancient Athens.

Serious subject matter doesn't relieve one of the requirement that before flipping the fuck out on a poster (not you, Ringo), one should actually read the fucking thread.

Christ. They're not giving out awards for who can be most faux-outraged about other people's posts.
No faux outrage on my part.

I am generally trying to understand how someone thinks that multiple actions that cover up multiple cases of pedophilia is even remotely explainable or forgivable. Its even more damning to me that JoePa opted his organization out of training that would have been about this sort of issue and what do about it.

I was more than willing to give JoePa a large benefit of the doubt but today's report makes it very hard for me to believe anything but an active cover-up occurred.
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,577
jp
I don't think you know what that phrase means. If anything, the long and far-reaching coverup indicates an excessive amount of institutional control.
Yup. And I don't think there is an NCAA by-law against too much institutional control.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,797
No faux outrage on my part. I am generally trying to understand how someone thinks that multiple actions that cover up multiple cases of pedophilia is even remotely explainable or forgivable.
Well, it doesn't really seem like you're trying to understand that when you take this:

There's acceptable and there's acceptable. No, pedophilia has never been lauded as a pillar of society, but untill the late 1970s it was not something that was usually talked about publically. The notion that child pornography is illegal wasn't even completely clarified until 1977. Before that, it was seen as creepy and unwholesome but also was considered the kind of thing that not much could be done about. In short, being a pedophile was not socially acceptable -- but choosing to remain silent about a colleague's pedophilia WAS socially acceptable. It is hard for me to comprehend as well, but Paterno grew up in a time when turning your back and hoping it didn't happen again is what you did. The perpetrator was someone you kept your own kids from, but you didn't make a deal about it. That kind of silence was not only acceptable, it was expected. Paterno showed he was a coward by not breaking the cycle, but it was no different than what many men of his generation would have done.
And respond with this:

So you'd be cool and wouldnt think of your father as a bad person because he knowingly allowed your kid brother to be molested? And please dont argue that there is a difference between this example and JoePa because the only difference I see is that JoePa allowed this to happen over multiple years to multiple kids and my example only used one kid.
That's twisting his words pretty hard there. Maybe it was a just a poor choice of rhetorical device (I think some type of false dilemma, Myt1 can surely say which) intended to draw out his point, but it came off as misplaced outrage. Plus, there's a big difference between "explainable" and "forgivable". I don't get the sense that Ananias is trying to do the latter, and he's not necessarily a NABLA supporter for trying to do the former.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
53,265
deep inside Guido territory
This article also implicates Paterno in a matter of LOIC albeit not linked to Sandusky.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/bruce-feldman/19542098/will-emails-from-penn-state-vp-of-student-affairs-about-paterno-trigger-ncaa
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
35,616
Harrisburg, Pa.
Scott Paterno's on the case.

I'm not disputing the relevance of that, but it's very clear that this thing was investigated fully by police and there wasn't anything more Joe Paterno could have done because it was an unsubstantiated allegation.

...

I honestly believe that it a situation where people who thought they were doing the right thing made mistakes.
 

eccha

lurker
Dec 13, 2005
9
It would appear to me that the issue is not whether these men in power grew up in a time that did not look at child molestation as "immoral"..the problem is that each and every one of them had a personal reason to initate the coverup...and as is usually the case..in for a penny in for a pound. Once it started there was no turning back. They all stood to benefit from keeping this PIG of a man out of trouble. And in any event...If i could not turn in my father for molestation, I certainly would not give him plenty of opportunities to continue it.

TOTALLY DISGUSTING!!!!!
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,943
New York, NY
As far as NCAA sanctions go, is anyone really opposed to a "time served" type punishment here? I don't think anyone thinks the Penn State football program has gotten off light here, and none of the issues of "amateurism" or whatever it is the NCAA purports to deal with have been impugned here.
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,577
jp
As far as NCAA sanctions go, is anyone really opposed to a "time served" type punishment here? I don't think anyone thinks the Penn State football program has gotten off light here, and none of the issues of "amateurism" or whatever it is the NCAA purports to deal with have been impugned here.
Sorry for being ignorant on this front, but what does "time served" look like in this instance? I mean, sure, the PSU football program is now going to be an object of derision and disdain for years to come and serve as an exemplar of what can go wrong when one person is given too much control of a program. Actually, perhaps that will be the best punishment of all.

Is there any precedent for the NCAA allowing all members of a team to transfer and play immediately at another FBS school? I cannot imagine being a football player in that program over the next few years.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
22,934
where I was last at
The PSU people involved were educators entrusted with kids. They knew the right thing to do. But they didn't, they put the football program ahead of kids being raped. The hell with what the NCAA does to PSU, these fuckers should go to jail., for allowing kids to be raped for years.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
I believe there are such examples, and the NCAA also haa the discretion to allow players to stay at PSU during a "death penalty" year and treat it kind of like a red shirt year - meaning they would still retain their 4 full years of eligibility (besides, fewer than 50% of kids these days graduate in 4 years anyways)....
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,336
Austin
Sorry for being ignorant on this front, but what does "time served" look like in this instance? I mean, sure, the PSU football program is now going to be an object of derision and disdain for years to come and serve as an exemplar of what can go wrong when one person is given too much control of a program. Actually, perhaps that will be the best punishment of all.

Is there any precedent for the NCAA allowing all members of a team to transfer and play immediately at another FBS school? I cannot imagine being a football player in that program over the next few years.
and yet they've assembled a top 15 recruiting class so far.

I don't get the "time served" suggestion, as I don't think the football team has suffered in any meaningful way. Sure, they will be the object of ridicule and they had to endure some chaos near the end of the season last year, but I don't see that as meaningful to the nuts and bolts of the program. I recognize the tenuous jurisdiction of the NCAA in these matters, but I've also read in the Freeh report how the culture of football worship permeated the campus and helped create the environment where the abuse could go unreported. I'm still sorting out my thoughts on all this, but I'm pretty sure one thing I don't want to see is a finding by the NCAA that infractions did occur, but the only punishment being "time served". I think I'd rather the NCAA say they don't have jurisdiction, and as outraged as they are about what was allowed to happen, they are the inappropriate body to levy punishment. I think I'd also prefer the NCAA to stake out a jurisdictional claim and shoot for the moon, crippling the program. I just don't think I could stomach the NCAA finding grounds for jurisdiction but refusing to do anything with it.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
37,606
South Boston
No faux outrage on my part.
My attempt to be impersonal left me unclear. I wasn't referring to you. Sorry about that.

I am generally trying to understand how someone thinks that multiple actions that cover up multiple cases of pedophilia is even remotely explainable or forgivable. Its even more damning to me that JoePa opted his organization out of training that would have been about this sort of issue and what do about it.

I was more than willing to give JoePa a large benefit of the doubt but today's report makes it very hard for me to believe anything but an active cover-up occurred.
It's explicable if you think about it in historical context. There has been a sea change/pendulum swing/choose your own metaphor in how American society views child molestation. Probably more than one actually. It went from an incredibly underreported crime (for reasons of embarrassment, issues regarding perceived homosexuality, a lack of understanding of the long term consequences, etc.) to being sensationalized and often inaccurately reported because of 80s issues of fear of satanism, nascent and unproven "therapy" and "investigation" techniques etc., to where we are today. New reports of historical, widespread abuse are evidence of these changing attitudes.

All Ananias is saying is that Paterno was a really old man whose basic understandings of many social issues were already well-formed at the time of the incidents we're talking about. It doesn't make him less of a bad person, or less accountable, or even less likely to be guilty of what he's been accused of. If anything, the older generation's tendency toward silence makes it more likely that Paterno did exactly what you think he did.

Pointing to a reason why someone might have done what he did doesn't make him forgivable, and I don't think anything Ananias has written claims otherwise.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
22,934
where I was last at
The only problem with penalizng PSU now is that the only people being penalized are students who had nothing to do with the crimes. Every adult associated with this should be fired, face criminal charges if appropriate, and the NCAA could ban them from ever holding like positions at member schools.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
35,616
Harrisburg, Pa.
The only problem with penalizng PSU now is that the only people being penalized are students who had nothing to do with the crimes. Every adult associated with this should be fired, face criminal charges if appropriate, and the NCAA could ban them from ever holding like positions at member schools.
This, a NCAA crackdown does nothing.

The DoE, FBI and state education agency are the ones who need to crack down. Criminal charges, loss of grants and accreditations and waivers for finance issues is where this should head.

Start by the state pulling the measly 2-3 percent of its overall funding. Make it private and go from there.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Start by the state pulling the measly 2-3 percent of its overall funding. Make it private and go from there.
You want the state of Pennsylvania to disown the state university? So 40,000 in-state students have to pay twice as much for their education or go elsewhere? I'm not sure how that helps.
 

geoffm33

lurker
Mar 3, 2012
88
You want the state of Pennsylvania to disown the state university? So 40,000 in-state students have to pay twice as much for their education or go elsewhere? I'm not sure how that helps.
Exactly. That sound far more severe than punishing the football program directly.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,147
02130
This, a NCAA crackdown does nothing.
It shows that systemic coverup of terrible crimes for the sake of a football program isn't tolerated. That's a deterrent. The next time someone in a position of power is alerted to a potential issue they will be much less likely to look the other way because they're worried about the damage to the program.

This was covered a couple pages ago, but it's the idea that football is bigger than everything that led to the coverup.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
35,616
Harrisburg, Pa.
You want the state of Pennsylvania to disown the state university? So 40,000 in-state students have to pay twice as much for their education or go elsewhere? I'm not sure how that helps.
Roughly 2 percent of the university's budget comes from the state of PA. It is a state-related, not state-owned, university and thus they are not subject to laws forbidden raising funds, endowments, etc. that the 14 stare-owned schools fall under.

They have for years, no decades, taken state money while not playing by the same state rules. Cutting the funding would barely effect the university's bottom line, regardless of what the president says. Spanier for years worked toward privatizing the school completely, many at PSU want it, so I see no reason why the state shouldn't let it go.

They get to keep their ginormous endowments, they get to keep what some believe to be a $700m-$900m reserve fund. Tuition hikes because a two-three percent cut don't have to occur.
 

Mr. Wednesday

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2007
1,513
Eastern MA
The only problem with penalizng PSU now is that the only people being penalized are students who had nothing to do with the crimes.
They weren't directly involved with the commission of the crimes, but they reap the ill-gotten rewards via the unjustly enriched stature of the university and athletic program, and they were indirectly involved in the commission via the cult of Kim Jo Pa. So I think it's inaccurate to say that they have nothing to do with the crimes.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
22,934
where I was last at
They weren't directly involved with the commission of the crimes, but they reap the ill-gotten rewards via the unjustly enriched stature of the university and athletic program, and they were indirectly involved in the commission via the cult of Kim Jo Pa. So I think it's inaccurate to say that they have nothing to do with the crimes.
The students had nothing to do with the crimes.

That some, not all, may have derived a benefit (ie football glory) is irrlevant.
To punish students today, for crimes commited by adults years ago is misguide.You want a deterant to rogue coachs? Fine put the PSU administrarors in jail tonight.
I guarantee you that by tomorrow oversight of every college sports program will get tripled funded and adhered to.
 

24JoshuaPoint

Grand Theft Duvet
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2004
4,859
Cell Block C
Forgive me if this was already covered but not everyone directly involved in what we now know is a coverup correct? I'm assuming more charges will be forthcoming and if that's the case, how harsh could they be?
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
34,099
Haiku
The report has evidence in the form of emails from Curley to Schultz that Paterno knew about and was kept updated on the 1998 investigation. Paterno denied knowing about 1998 under oath to the grand jury.
Jumping to the index, Curley has emails to Paterno updating him on the 1998 investigation.
It is becoming clearer that the 1998 incident was fully known to all of the administrators and Sandusky was forced into early retirement on its account, so I'm still wondering if and how Wendell Courtney was kept out of the loop. Legal advice was sought on PSU's duties, but we don't know what that advice was and who it was given to. Does Courtney's role come up at all in the report?

But wouldn't Joe Paterno (being a tenured professor and all) have been exposed to many learning seminars teaching how to identify and report child abuse in all forms?
No. Professors, tenured or otherwise, are usually responsible for adults (ie, college student 18 and over), not kids. I can't think of any work-related training that involves dealing with under-age students, although most universities do provide some training and resources for dealing with issues endemic to the 18-25 age group like suicide prevention.

Too bad reanimation is not possible.

Fortunately, we don't have that problem with Spanier, who denied any specific knowledge of the 2001 incident in his testimony. (Not sure what he said about 1998.) He's still among the living, which means that he should soon be among the indicted.
It would appear to me that the issue is not whether these men in power grew up in a time that did not look at child molestation as "immoral"..the problem is that each and every one of them had a personal reason to initate the coverup...and as is usually the case..in for a penny in for a pound. Once it started there was no turning back.
It does seem like the 1998 nonfeasance (no charges filed by the prosecutor) and malfeasance (no crime report "as a courtesy"?!?) was the first step on the road to hell.

I still can't believe that Second Mile was not notified in some way by somebody -- in which case the coverup is still ongoing. Spanier is the highest-ranking and least accountable villain still alive. Charges against him had better be coming soon.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I hate CHB as much as anyone, but he is dead on with this article.

http://www.bostonglo...UA5K/story.html
Nice to see CHB parroting the "lack of institutional control" line without, you know, actually looking up what it means in the context of NCAA rules.

Here's the "Principles of Institutional Control" published by the NCAA.

Among other things, it is clear that "institutional control" relates only to enforcement of NCAA rules -- not the law of the land, or minimal standards of moral conduct, or any number of salutary things that the NCAA has no role in enforcing. Also, from what I have read, "lack of institutional control" appears to be chargeable only where is only where a substantive violation of NCAA rules has been found.

This article provides a good overview. An excerpt:

“It has to be very specifically laid out in NCAA legislation what the rules are, what the violations are and what the consequences are of those violations,” said Don Jackson, an agent and attorney for The Sports Group of Montgomery, Ala. He has defended multiple NCAA athletes.
A charge of unethical conduct historically has been given to administrators and coaches who have lied about or not reported violations of NCAA rules. Charges of lack of institutional control have been given to institutions that have cultivated a culture of negligence or apathy toward NCAA rules.
The common thread is an NCAA violation. Without one, it’s historically not possible to consider these infractions. Even the grounds for the investigation run counter to everything the NCAA has previously done. Its decision to investigate Penn State may have been decided by public pressure as much as duty.
“Along comes an administrative agency that considers something like this,” said Gene Marsh, a lawyer for Lightfoot, Franklin & White in Birmingham, Ala., and a former member and chair of the NCAA Infractions Committee. “They are the caboose on the train. ... Just because they said it in a letter -- which may be as much a PR move trying to make sure the NCAA knows it has an eye on things -- it doesn’t mean they can bring it home.”

If the NCAA turns up the tiniest of infractions, I hope they'll throw the book at PSU, but if they don't, I don't think they sanction PSU based on "lack of institutional control" or any other theory, Mark Emmert's bluster notwithstanding.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
34,099
Haiku
OK, here are the Courtney mentions in the Freeh Report:

1) Courtney declined to be interviewed "on the advice of counsel"

2) 2010-2011 emails:
Courtney emails Schultz: Baldwin “called me today to ask what I remembered about JS issue I spoke with you and Tim about circa eight years ago. I told her what I remembered. She did not offer why she was asking, nor did I ask her. Nor did I disclose that you and I chatted about this.”
Courtney emails Baldwin that “someone ... contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation so that they could do whatever they thought was appropriate under the circumstances, while being apprised of what PSU actions were, i.e., advising JS to no longer bring kids to PSUʹs football locker rooms.”
3) 2011 email exchange in which Schultz appears to lie:
Courtney emails Schultz a newspaper story about the Sandusky charges. Schultz replies: “I was never aware that ‘Penn State police investigated inappropriate touching in a shower’ in 1998.”
4) Courtney DID know about the 2001 issue and do legal research on it for PSU:
February 11, 2001: Schultz Discusses “Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse” with University’s Outside Legal Counsel
On Sunday, February 11, 2001, Schultz had a conference call about the “reporting of suspected child abuse” with Penn State’s then outside legal counsel, Wendell Courtney.z Courtney conducted legal research on this issue and had another conference that day with Schultz about the matter. Courtney charged 2.9 hours of time to Penn State for his legal work. Courtney’s work on the 2001 matter is confirmed in an email Courtney sent to Schultz in 2011 when Penn State received subpoenas for testimony by Schultz and others concerning the criminal investigation of Sandusky.
Wendell Courtney was the outside legal counsel at Penn State from 1980 until 2010. From 2008 to 2011, he was also legal counsel for the Second Mile and sat on its Board.

5) Courtney drew up Sandusky's retirement agreement in 1999.


My conclusion: Spanier and Courtney belong in jail along with Curley and Schultz. They are all part of the coverup, along with Paterno.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
It is becoming clearer that the 1998 incident was fully known to all of the administrators and Sandusky was forced into early retirement on its account, so I'm still wondering if and how Wendell Courtney was kept out of the loop. Legal advice was sought on PSU's duties, but we don't know what that advice was and who it was given to. Does Courtney's role come up at all in the report?
The report does conclude that all the principals (Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz) knew about the 1998 allegation at the time. It is also clear they were all conscious of it as they mulled how to respond to McQueary's report in 2001. I suspect this is going to thin the ranks of Paterno apologists -- some people will never listen to reason, but anyone who soberly considers the facts will find themselves unable to defend his conduct in 2001, when he knew McQueary's allegations did not represent an isolated incident.

Regarding Sandusky's retirement, however, the report's conclusion is actually the opposite of what you said (and what I had previously suspected) -- the process of forcing him out was well underway at the time of the 1998 incident, and did not seem to accelerate as a consequence of that incident.

It does seem like the 1998 nonfeasance (no charges filed by the prosecutor) and malfeasance (no crime report "as a courtesy"?!?) was the first step on the road to hell.
The Freeh report blasts the cops for failing to interrogate Sandusky immediately after his admission to the victim's mother. Once that mistake was made, however, I don't think the DA had any case -- I certainly can't imagine advising a parent in that position to put their child through such an ordeal with such a flimsy case to go on.

I'm not sure what relevance, if any, the prosecutor's decision not to bring charges had to do with PSU's decision not to log the incident as a crime. Obviously, unsolved crimes are still reported as crimes, but in a case where the assailant is known but not charged, I don't know what the correct protocol is.

I still can't believe that Second Mile was not notified in some way by somebody -- in which case the coverup is still ongoing. Spanier is the highest-ranking and least accountable villain still alive. Charges against him had better be coming soon.
We've known for a while that TSM's executive director was informed of the 2001 incident, though he was given incorrect information. The surprise to me was that two board members of TSM also were told, and they evidently concurred with the E.D. that no further action was warranted. I'm stunned that a member of the board for a children's charity could take such a cavalier stance -- even if they felt the charges were baseless, I would have expected them to do something, for CYA reasons if nothing else.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Roughly 2 percent of the university's budget comes from the state of PA. It is a state-related, not state-owned, university and thus they are not subject to laws forbidden raising funds, endowments, etc. that the 14 stare-owned schools fall under.

They have for years, no decades, taken state money while not playing by the same state rules. Cutting the funding would barely effect the university's bottom line, regardless of what the president says. Spanier for years worked toward privatizing the school completely, many at PSU want it, so I see no reason why the state shouldn't let it go.
That's the whole point. It costs the state almost nothing, and yet the people (ie, in-state students) receive a great benefit. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Whomever got control of PSU would feel a big ol' LOLBOOHOO as it happily counted its billion dollar endowment, eliminated the in-state tuition breaks, and recruited higher quality students. Just really a stupid idea.
 

sfip

directly related to Marilyn Monroe
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2003
7,835
Philadelphia suburb
FWIW I haven't seen the report but I've seen the reactions of this thread. Only 2 of my fellow Penn Staters have posted anything on facebook about it today. One of them posted that the BoT, other than the new members, should remove themselves immediately. The other one posted, "I guess the silence from all my Penn State friends speaks volumes today...".

An irony I'm sure some people here will enjoy, one line of the Penn State alma mater song has the lyrics, "May no act of ours bring shame."