Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
In corporate America, I would say that (1) when an executive who is seen as the CEO's heir apparent loses that status, they usually end up being forced out of the organization altogether; and (2) executives who are forced out are frequently given unduly generous severance packages.

We know that Sandusky had become Paterno's heir apparent until Paterno decided, for reasons not known to us, that he didn't want Sandusky to be his successor. Sandusky was treated as a similarly situated business executive would have been treated. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the analogy between Paterno and a CEO, or Sandusky and a C-level executive, but since college football is big business, it doesn't strike me as suspicious that Sandusky was treated that way.
I understand this, but there is one point that this doesn't address. Paterno wasn't going anywhere and didn't need to tell Sandusky whether or not he was heir apparent. In fact, from reading I have recently found, there were some who believed that Fran Ganter - OC who turned down a Big 10 job in 1994 - was next in line. Also, Paterno had so much power if he just said that he wanted a different DC, no one would have batted an eye.

I think it's clear that Sandusky's retirement package was designed to buy silence. Whether that was just silence in terms of the PSU football program - keeping him as a good soldier - or whether there was something else will be a question that we will probably never know.

Too many secrets. Not enough facts.
 

Alternate34

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2006
2,456
Corning, NY
If it was just a rare situation created by the fact that a coach was allowed to coach for 60 years and got way too powerful, then maybe the NCAA should just let it go with Paterno's death. But I agree with maufman here. It could have happened at any football school because of the money and stakes involved. The only difference would be the head coach wouldn't be the one pressuring everyone else involved to be quiet. It would be a president, or athletic director. The scary thing is is this wasnt just Paterno, but all the other PSU officials who just let it happen. No matter how powerful Paterno was, all it would take is one whistle blower who really knew what was going on, years before it did. That's why PSU needs to be heavily punished, to help keep it from happening again.
This isn't Paterno defense, because he definitely was part of the pressure package, but Graham Spanier seemed just as involved in pushing for a cover up as Paterno. There is the email from Curley talking about how he talked to Paterno and they decided to change their course of action, but Spanier spent his time lying to the BoT and had the most sinister comments on the whole thing about not being "heard". As Reverend noted, the President was in on this which is enormously fucked up. It indicates that it is about football and it being the beacon and cash magnet for the school. Spanier was concerned about beefing up the endowment and donations and made a deliberate decision to cover in order to keep getting that cash. He didn't do it just to preserve the football program. He preserved the football program to preserve the Penn State brand.

The disturbingly ironic thing is that this hasn't seemed to effect donations. Many alumni have no qualms giving money and there may have been an initial surge of sympathy money. Donations going to the school might make sense as there are many who don't feel connected to the football program (as a grad student there, I had no real support for the program and probably mildly resented it because students seemed to think it a legitimate excuse for not doing shit among other reasons) but there are people who think that this was a few bad apples that have been cleared out. Ugh.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
The disturbingly ironic thing is that this hasn't seemed to effect donations. Many alumni have no qualms giving money and there may have been an initial surge of sympathy money. Donations going to the school might make sense as there are many who don't feel connected to the football program (as a grad student there, I had no real support for the program and probably mildly resented it because students seemed to think it a legitimate excuse for not doing shit among other reasons) but there are people who think that this was a few bad apples that have been cleared out. Ugh.
Prior to the release of the Freeh report, the bolded portion was accurate. And to a certain extent, it was understandable, as PSU alums were operating with partial information and acting in an almost tribal fashion to protect the institution.

Now that the leadership of the institution itself has been exposed as being the problem, I think you'll see things change dramatically. Just look at the reaction of LaVar Arrington, who had been a staunch defender of both Paterno and the University and who now says "I didn't know the person I thought I did."
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
If it was just a rare situation created by the fact that a coach was allowed to coach for 60 years and got way too powerful, then maybe the NCAA should just let it go with Paterno's death. But I agree with maufman here. It could have happened at any football school because of the money and stakes involved. The only difference would be the head coach wouldn't be the one pressuring everyone else involved to be quiet. It would be a president, or athletic director. The scary thing is is this wasnt just Paterno, but all the other PSU officials who just let it happen. No matter how powerful Paterno was, all it would take is one whistle blower who really knew what was going on, years before it did. That's why PSU needs to be heavily punished, to help keep it from happening again.
I don't think harshly punishing PSU will have the deterrent effect you desire. If the individuals here acted to protect the program, then I would agree with you, but after reading the Freeh report, I'm convinced that by 2001, they were acting mainly to protect themselves.

I don't think the principals' conduct in 1998-99 was defensible by any means, but it pales in comparison to what they did in 2001. The former was gross negligence; the latter was deliberate, monstrous evil. If the ultimate goal is to keep this from happening again, it's necessary to punish the individuals involved for what they did (or rather, didn't do) in 2001, but it's also necessary to create an environment where similarly situated actors in the future decide that coming clean about their past mistakes is in their best interest.A draconian punishment for PSU doesn't further that objective; if anything, it will further incent people who find themselves halfway in the shit to keep digging instead of coming clean. This is why I would prefer for someone in a position to impose draconian penalties (probably the DoE) to stay that power in exchange for a sweeping consent decree that changes the culture at PSU, and hopefully becomes a model for other schools.



I think it's clear that Sandusky's retirement package was designed to buy silence. Whether that was just silence in terms of the PSU football program - keeping him as a good soldier - or whether there was something else will be a question that we will probably never know.
The report makes it pretty clear that Sandusky's departure had nothing to do with Sandusky being a molester -- the process was well underway when Spanier and Paterno learned of the 1998 investigation, and was not hastened in response to that development. It's also clear (to me, anyway) that Sandusky wasn't keeping any secrets that Paterno was concerned about; if he was, Paterno wouldn't have forced him out the way he did.

It's worth asking why Spanier pushed so hard to give Sandusky such a generous severance package. In my experience, however, businesses are routinely overly generous to departing executives, without necessarily having a rational basis for that largesse. In my experience, this was even more true in the late 1990s than it is today. I think no one blinked an eye at the financial compensation.

It's clear that some people did object to the emeritus title (which, in hindsight, was far more important than the money), but I can certainly understand why the decision makers at PSU dismissed those people as naive idealists whose objections were rooted in denial that college football is big business.
 

sfip

directly related to Marilyn Monroe
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2003
7,838
Philadelphia suburb
Average Reds, if you're saying things will change dramatically regarding donations, I'm not so sure about that. As ashamed as alumni are about what happened, there are plenty with the mentality that this involved a handful (please don't dwell on that choice of word as I know it's subjective) of people and those people in general are no longer in charge. The donations will likely continue to come in at a high pace, especially at a time when alumni know PSU needs it the most. I can understand why that's difficult to understand from an outsider's view, but from talking to fellow alumni there's still a sense of pride in our alma mater in general.

I recently posted in facebook asking where they feel we as Penn Staters go from here. Here was one of the responses, which I'd say is an example of what I'm talking about:

I saw your post earlier today and wanted to give more thought before commenting. While the "football experience" provided some great memories, I can definitively say that neither the football team, nor the athletic department as a whole did any personal financial or personal improvements to my life. It is definitely a sad thing to believe such lack of action could have taken place in the name of preserving a cherished football program, but at the end of the day, Penn State University as a whole gave me the tools to succeed, and offered me the opportunity to make friends that I will cherish until my last day on this Earth.

Even through all of what has happened in Happy Valley, I continually tell the story of how great Penn State was to be part of to my 7-year old, and every night she still sleeps with her Nittany Lion held tight. I tell her that if she studies hard, she too can continue the proud tradition of being a Nittany Lion. We should never try to mask what has happened, but rather take what we have learned, accept the truth, and make a better place because of it. That, is what I believe being a Penn Stater is all about.
 

natpastime162

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,944
Pennsylvania
I got a question for the crowd. Should a student avoid going to Penn State for a graduate degree?

Does your opinion change depending on whether it is main campus vs. branch campus?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I got a question for the crowd. Should a student avoid going to Penn State for a graduate degree?

Does your opinion change depending on whether it is main campus vs. branch campus?
No and no.

A few months ago, I might have felt differently, but since reading the Freeh report, I'm convinced this could have happened anywhere.

The report also seems to have thinned out the ranks of Paterno apologists. A few holdouts aside, the cult of personality is dead.

The only reason to have second thoughts would be if you think this scandal will have a lasting impression on how people view PSU, but I don't think that will be the case. No one will think you're soft on pedophilia because you got a graduate degree from Penn State.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
No one will think you're soft on pedophilia because you got a graduate degree from Penn State.
I agree with that. But all other things being equal, I might just want to avoid the initial reaction. The stink is going to stay a while.

Nat, what's the degree?
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,428
Harrisburg, Pa.
I'd not turn down going to graduate school at PSU, especially if the degree is in what they excel at itself. I did however donate my only Penn State clothing item this past weekend because I don't want anyone to believe I have turned a blind eye to the failure of the university or joined into the Paterno Scapegoat cult that's somewhat arden here.

On an aside, a few friends that are close to the university and athletic department honestly believe there's a very legitimate chance they lose a season of football, and seem to be resigned they are definitely losing games somehow. We'll see - PSU turns over their findings to the NCAA in a few days.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
A few months ago, I might have felt differently, but since reading the Freeh report, I'm convinced this could have happened anywhere.
I concur. Except I would say it has happened elsewhere. The venue for this scandal (i.e. a major college football program) and the celebrity involved (Paterno) just brought bigger spotlights. Somewhere, Alt-Spanier and Alt-Paterno are having second thoughts about their decisions to cover for Alt-Sandusky. I'm not naive enough to think they "do the right thing" because of these events, but I do think that with the lights on, the scurrying rats will be easier to spot. Many on-going investigations that "went nowhere" are now being re-evaluated and some predators will be caught. A small silver lining in the morass of evil.

On the subject of the plane banner, the statue and the remaining Paterno loyalists - this will not end well. The siege mentality is exacerbated by stunts like the plane banner and threats only pile on the PSU community, most of whom are no longer loyalists. The PSU community needs to decide to take down that statue - not have it taken down by anti-PSU agitators . The former is another sign that the PSU community has understood the situation; the latter, besides being criminal itself, would set the PSU community aflame. Of course, if the PSU community chooses to leave the statue up they would be again proven to be ostriches with their heads in sand.
 

Alternate34

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2006
2,456
Corning, NY
I got a question for the crowd. Should a student avoid going to Penn State for a graduate degree?

Does your opinion change depending on whether it is main campus vs. branch campus?
I may be biased because I am currently studying for a Ph.D. at the main campus, but my reaction is that a student shouldn't worry about it.

The purpose of the degree might make a little difference. If they are planning to get a job in the academy, it shouldn't be a deterrent at all. My general understanding from conferences and the like is that people in the academy know that grad departments had nothing to do with this. Penn State is enormous and if anything, the professors in my department somewhat resented the football program because it overshadowed a lot of the good work being done in the department. Academics know that they have no interaction with sports except for complaints that big sports often interferes with the main mission of the University in a variety of ways.

If they are getting the degree for a profession outside the academy (non-professor), I would doubt that it has an effect. If you get a masters in Chemical Engineering, you're employer will know that Chemical Engineering students have nothing to do with the Athletic Department. Though Myt1 could be right that the initial stink could turn off someone all other things being equal. I don't think he is, but I am not worried about getting a job outside of professor.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
I'd not turn down going to graduate school at PSU, especially if the degree is in what they excel at itself. I did however donate my only Penn State clothing item this past weekend because I don't want anyone to believe I have turned a blind eye to the failure of the university or joined into the Paterno Scapegoat cult that's somewhat arden here.

On an aside, a few friends that are close to the university and athletic department honestly believe there's a very legitimate chance they lose a season of football, and seem to be resigned they are definitely losing games somehow. We'll see - PSU turns over their findings to the NCAA in a few days.
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't modify the death penalty and take away their home games for a season or 2.
shortened season would preclude them from gaining any bowl eligibility
other teams' wouldn't suffer the lost home date / gate
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
I think the problem for most people will be how they respond to the inevitable questions a prospective boss, colleague, client or whatever will have about the scandal. It will come up as in "Wow, that Sandusky thing was crazy. Were people aware he was a pedophile?" or something along the lines of "Did anyone think Paterno would cover up something like this?" etc. How the alum answers those seemingly innocuous questions will be used to evaluate them. If you show anything but disgust or contempt for what happened there, then it'll be a problem for you.
 

natpastime162

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,944
Pennsylvania
I agree with that. But all other things being equal, I might just want to avoid the initial reaction. The stink is going to stay a while.

Nat, what's the degree?
I am in the really early stages, but the specific degree I was referencing was Penn State Harrisburg's MBA program (which has an accounting track).
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I got a question for the crowd. Should a student avoid going to Penn State for a graduate degree?

Does your opinion change depending on whether it is main campus vs. branch campus?
It wouldn't deter me for a second. Life often rewards the few who run to trouble rather than from it -- especially when so much of the trouble will flow from nihilistic sentiments like, "let us raze the whole goddamn campus as the fruit of JoePa's poisonous tree."

There was no more reviled institution in this than the military in the mid to late 1970s. One year, West Point could not even fill its entering class for lack of qualified applicants. The New York Times published an article quoting serious people to the effect that service academies might have to be merged. There were substantial reasons to avoid service post Vietnam -- for one thing, the military had a horrendous drug problem. But there were more compelling reasons to embrace it, and more than a few who did then are now wearing stars on their shoulders.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
The report makes it pretty clear that Sandusky's departure had nothing to do with Sandusky being a molester -- the process was well underway when Spanier and Paterno learned of the 1998 investigation, and was not hastened in response to that development. It's also clear (to me, anyway) that Sandusky wasn't keeping any secrets that Paterno was concerned about; if he was, Paterno wouldn't have forced him out the way he did.
Just as a point of clarification, what the Freeh report made clear was that Paterno started to move against Sandusky prior to the reporting of the May 1998 incident.

The Freeh report also contained a handwritten note from Paterno saying something to the effect that Paterno thought Sandusky was spending "too much time" at 2nd Mile.

I think you will admit that there is a couple of ways to parse this. One, you can think that Paterno didn't believe that someone could coach PSU and be heavily involved in a local charity.

Or, on a much more terrifying level, that Paterno actually knew what Sandusky was doing at 2nd Mile prior to 1998 and just hoped that it would never come out.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Just as a point of clarification, what the Freeh report made clear was that Paterno started to move against Sandusky prior to the reporting of the May 1998 incident.

The Freeh report also contained a handwritten note from Paterno saying something to the effect that Paterno thought Sandusky was spending "too much time" at 2nd Mile.

I think you will admit that there is a couple of ways to parse this. One, you can think that Paterno didn't believe that someone could coach PSU and be heavily involved in a local charity.

Or, on a much more terrifying level, that Paterno actually knew what Sandusky was doing at 2nd Mile prior to 1998 and just hoped that it would never come out.
If Paterno knew about Sandusky's proclivities, and that was part of his motive for forcing him out, wouldn't he have accelerated the process after the 1998 investigation? The Freeh report doesn't explicitly rule out what you're suggesting, but I think it's extremely unlikely -- which surprised me, because before reading the report I has the same suspicions as you.

On a related point, mental health professionals say that pedophiles become more brazen as they get away with their crimes over and over again. Only a pedophile who had been at it for decades would dare rape a boy in a locker room where someone could walk in and witness it. So, while Sandusky was probably molesting boys throughout his tenure at PSU, the incidents in 1998, 2000, and 2001 were likely far more brazen than his earlier behavior. So Paterno may have had suspicions about Sandusky before 1998, but it's entitely possible that he didn't.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
9,579
NOVA
If Paterno knew about Sandusky's proclivities, and that was part of his motive for forcing him out, wouldn't he have accelerated the process after the 1998 investigation? The Freeh report doesn't explicitly rule out what you're suggesting, but I think it's extremely unlikely -- which surprised me, because before reading the report I has the same suspicions as you.

On a related point, mental health professionals say that pedophiles become more brazen as they get away with their crimes over and over again. Only a pedophile who had been at it for decades would dare rape a boy in a locker room where someone could walk in and witness it. So, while Sandusky was probably molesting boys throughout his tenure at PSU, the incidents in 1998, 2000, and 2001 were likely far more brazen than his earlier behavior. So Paterno may have had suspicions about Sandusky before 1998, but it's entitely possible that he didn't.
Or he felt "brazen" in the PSU locker room with young boys for a reason.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
Look at it at face value: assistant coach who molests little boys gets -- by administrators own ("private") admission -- outrageously strange, secretive, and valuable retirement package.

I can't be the only one reading between the lines here, right? I know the physical evidence in the Freeh report doesn't go that far back but COME. ON. They were bending over backwards for the now outed pedophile...WHY?

The thing that fucks with me the most is the part of the agreement to coach a middle-school-aged football squad. Fucking *SHUDDER*
 

Alternate34

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2006
2,456
Corning, NY
If Paterno knew about Sandusky's proclivities, and that was part of his motive for forcing him out, wouldn't he have accelerated the process after the 1998 investigation? The Freeh report doesn't explicitly rule out what you're suggesting, but I think it's extremely unlikely -- which surprised me, because before reading the report I has the same suspicions as you.

On a related point, mental health professionals say that pedophiles become more brazen as they get away with their crimes over and over again. Only a pedophile who had been at it for decades would dare rape a boy in a locker room where someone could walk in and witness it. So, while Sandusky was probably molesting boys throughout his tenure at PSU, the incidents in 1998, 2000, and 2001 were likely far more brazen than his earlier behavior. So Paterno may have had suspicions about Sandusky before 1998, but it's entitely possible that he didn't.
Maybe, but getting away with it is the tricky term there. Merely doing it over and over while his wife Dottie was in denial could make him more brazen. Even if witnessing or getting caught were an important aspect, any number of people could have witnessed or caught him and encouraged him. We agree that Paterno could have had suspicion prior.

uncannymanny, you aren't the only one reading between the lines. In fact, after this story broke, that was one of the primary pieces of evidence that people said demonstrated Paterno's knowledge of the situation. Ultimately, for me, it doesn't really matter because (1) it is clear Paterno had knowledge from the more direct evidence (2) there are other things (like the middle school thing you mention) that are far more repugnant than the retirement package and force out. Allowing him to remain a prominent part of The Second Mile probably disturbs me the most.
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,345
Austin
One thing that still doesn't quite square in my mind, with regard to Sandusky's retirement/being forced out by Paterno in the late 90's, is his pursuit of both the UVA and Maryland jobs. The Washington Post went through their archives for contemporaneous accounts of Sandusky and various coaching vacancies at UVA and Maryland here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/jerry-sandusky-maryland-and-virginia/2011/11/10/gIQAdvI18M_blog.html.

It depicts Sandusky as bitter at being passed over for the Maryland job in 1996 and claimed to have "not been dealt with honestly". Sandusky was a finalist for the UVA job in 2000 (the year after he retired) and was considered the front runner who could be hired within the week. UVA sent a delegation up to Pennsylvania to meet with Sandusky, and then abruptly went in a different direction. The official reason given was that UVA wasn't sure about Sandusky's commitment to coaching, due to the Second Mile.

I realize this is all murky speculation and nothing concrete will ever likely come of it (in other words, the kind of baseless idle speculation that is perfect for the internet!), but it doesn't seem to me that Sandusky was just riding off into the sunset after putting in his 30 years, collecting his pension and focusing on TSM. He seemed to have a burning desire to be a head coach, even after he retired. He was seen as a strong candidate for two separate jobs, only to have both somewhat abruptly go in different directions at a late stage. While it may very well be true that Paterno felt Sandusky's attention was too divided with TSM, and thus told him he wouldn't be the heir apparant, and that interviewers at others schools came to the same conclusion, independently...I guess I just don't buy that.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
Second Mile was seen by some as a Pedophile Victim Factory and that was credible enough to the UVA people (and perhaps the Maryland people) to ice his candidacy. I can't imagine that if they heard whispers from low level people about Sandusky, they would have made the decision to bail without first talking to Paterno and others in the football program.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Maybe, but getting away with it is the tricky term there. Merely doing it over and over while his wife Dottie was in denial could make him more brazen. Even if witnessing or getting caught were an important aspect, any number of people could have witnessed or caught him and encouraged him. We agree that Paterno could have had suspicion prior.

uncannymanny, you aren't the only one reading between the lines. In fact, after this story broke, that was one of the primary pieces of evidence that people said demonstrated Paterno's knowledge of the situation. Ultimately, for me, it doesn't really matter because (1) it is clear Paterno had knowledge from the more direct evidence (2) there are other things (like the middle school thing you mention) that are far more repugnant than the retirement package and force out. Allowing him to remain a prominent part of The Second Mile probably disturbs me the most.
Completely agree with this, especially the bolded part.

Perhaps he thought the police would inform TSM, but given Paterno's prominence in State College, and the fact that TSM's Board was a who's who of influential people in town, Paterno probably had to go out of his way not to mention the investigation.

The failure to tell the middle school is even more inexplicable, There, Sandusky was using his connection to PSU football even more explicitly than with TSM, and Paterno had no reason to think anyone else would inform that school about the allegations.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Second Mile was seen by some as a Pedophile Victim Factory and that was credible enough to the UVA people (and perhaps the Maryland people) to ice his candidacy. I can't imagine that if they heard whispers from low level people about Sandusky, they would have made the decision to bail without first talking to Paterno and others in the football program.
Is this true, or just internet rumor?

If someone at UVA "heard whispers" and asked Paterno about them, I would think the UVA folks would have made haste to come clean when this scandal first broke, lest they be accused of hiding something when their knowledge was revealed by Freeh, the Pennsylvania AG, or someone else. Besides, my understanding was that most folks outside State College thought Al Groh was the better candidate, and therefore no one was surprised that UVA chose him over Sandusky. But hey, if what you're saying is true, it would hardly be the weirdest thing we've heard.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
No, I'm just positing why UVA abruptly dumped Sandusky after the visit to State College. He was a finalist and then they pulled the plug after going there. Alrhough they surely didn't know the guy was a Pedo, it's not far fetched to think they smelled smoke.
 

Alternate34

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2006
2,456
Corning, NY
No, I'm just positing why UVA abruptly dumped Sandusky after the visit to State College. He was a finalist and then they pulled the plug after going there. Alrhough they surely didn't know the guy was a Pedo, it's not far fetched to think they smelled smoke.
I think it is far fetched. They weren't there to investigate The Second Mile. They weren't there to tour the area. They interviewed Sandusky. There were people who knew Sandusky far better who didn't know he was a pedophile and didn't even smell smoke. There are a ton of other reasons not to consider him including age and his focus on something other than football.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
What I see is not a malicious conspiracy to selfishly protect the university and football program at the expense of the safety of children, but a failure to really look at what was happening open-eyed and deal with it. In short, the events at Penn State (other than Sandusky's, of course) were not acts of evil but failures to do good.

At least nine people (other than Sandusky and the victims) knew about the instances of abuse. Three, McQueary and two janitors, witnessed it directly. Six more - another janitor, McQueary's father, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, were aware second- or third- hand. And none of them went to the police. None of them. Most people, including most of the people in this thread, conclude that the reason for that is that they all feared Paterno. I don't think this is true. I say that not out of naivete but out of a profound cynicism; I think the reality is that most people when confronted with such vile acts will within reason deny them, avoid making decisions related to them, and ultimately try to forget they ever existed. I think that's what happened here.

Of the two janitors who saw something, neither intervened directly. One saw Sandusky pinning a boy against the wall and performing oral sex on him - and did absolutely nothing. The other had heard of this account and saw Sandusky leaving the shower with a boy. He didn't confront Sandusky, and he didn't report it. His reasoning was that "Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone." I'm not denying this was true, but it is a weak excuse. It is tantamount to putting one's own job security ahead of the welfare of children. What could Joe Paterno do to a janitor that could possibly compare to what Jerry Sandusky could do to those boys? I think it is an after-the-fact rationalization, and that the reality is that both janitors (and the third janitor they told) were so horrified that they didn't know what to do. Even in the moment, when they would have presumably just been reacting on instinct rather than thinking about long-term ramifications, the janitors did nothing.

I think McQueary falls into the same boat. He didn't confront Sandusky after what happened. Here is a quote from the Freeh report regarding McQueary's actions after seeing Sandusky "having some type of intercourse" with a boy in the shower:

McQueary testified that he slammed his locker shut and moved toward the shower. He said Sandusky and the boy separated and looked directly at McQueary without saying a word. Seeing how the two separated, McQueary said he "thought it was best to leave the locker room."
He thought it was best to leave the locker room, leaving Sandusky and the boy he had just raped alone together. And his first action was not to yell or rush to intercede, it was to slam his locker. Basically, it was to signal to Sandusky that someone was there so Sandusky could "separate" from the boy and maintain plausible deniability that no one had seen him, and so McQueary could plausibly pretend he hadn't seen anything, not for sure.

McQueary's next action was not to go to the police, it was to call his father for advice, because he still didn't know what to do. McQueary's father didn't call the police, he passed the buck to Paterno. Paterno made a big show about how McQueary "did what he had to do" and then he would take it from there. He then passed the buck to Curley and Schultz, who passed it to Spanier. No one wanted to deal with it. They came up with a half-assed action plan, and as soon as Curley / Paterno suggested a plan where they do even less, they all readily agreed. Curley met with the Second Mile people, who decide they didn't need to do anything. Hell, even the cops who investigated in 1998 didn't seem like they wanted to really pursue this; they heard Sandusky say "I want to die" but declined to push the issue and concluded there was no criminal activity. I think all of these people (other than McQueary) can claim, truthfully, that they didn't know Sandusky was a pedophile, but that's only because they didn't want to seriously contemplate the question.

McQueary took a full-time job at Penn State a couple years later, and probably ran into Sandusky from time to time. He was probably in the locker room where the rape happened several times a week. I bet he blocked out of his head what really happened. Per the Freeh report, Paterno told him at the end of their meeting that he would let McQueary know what would happen next. Do you think Paterno ever updated him? Do you think McQueary ever asked? I'm guessing no and no.

I've been kind of thinking about this post for three days, and only today did it occur to me that I have more direct experience. There are two instances that I know of third-hand of child sexual abuse between one family member and another. I only became aware of these years after they happened, and since both happened a while ago and the victims are adults know I don't really think it's my place to say anything. That's what I tell myself. I try not to think about it much. Neither incident was reported to the police. I can't imagine I'm the only one here who knows of something like this going unreported. Maybe some good will come of this whole PSU debacle, and the next time someone hears about child abuse this will clarify in his mind what the right thing to do is.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Did i just hear on the WEEI flash that the JP statue would be taken down as soon as this weekend or was it the decision would be made?
Ringo posted a tweet to that effect in the other thread. I don't think other sources are reporting that; AP (via Harrisburg Patriot-News) is still saying the Trustees will decide in the next week or so.

Edit: Also, if you click that link, you can read the sculptor's thoughts -- she wants the statue to be covered for at least six months pending a final decision one way or the other. Not saying I agree (it should come down), but if the Trustees have trouble reaching consensus, they might go this route.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
Ringo posted a tweet to that effect in the other thread. I don't think other sources are reporting that; AP (via Harrisburg Patriot-News) is still saying the Trustees will decide in the next week or so.

Edit: Also, if you click that link, you can read the sculptor's thoughts -- she wants the statue to be covered for at least six months pending a final decision one way or the other. Not saying I agree (it should come down), but if the Trustees have trouble reaching consensus, they might go this route.
WTF dude. I am not Corsi.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
At least nine people (other than Sandusky and the victims) knew about the instances of abuse. Three, McQueary and two janitors, witnessed it directly. Six more - another janitor, McQueary's father, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, were aware second- or third- hand.
Nice post. Don't forget Gricar and his lead investigator who heard Sandusky state that he was wrong and asked for forgiveness. Also, Jack Raykovitz (CEO of 2nd Mile) and Wendall Courtney, who apparently research liability issues and was GC for PSU and 2nd Mile. At the very least.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/graham-spaniers-gig-as-a-federal-worker-is-a-mystery/2012/07/26/gJQAbAx5BX_blog.html?hpid=z4

Spanier gets a job at some federal agency. Rest assured we know he can keep secrets.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,404
"Sweet Caroline" no longer will be played at Penn State games. According to PS, it has nothing to do with the lyrics "touching me, touching you."

LINK
 

24JoshuaPoint

Grand Theft Duvet
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2004
4,944
Cell Block C
According to PS, it has nothing to do with the lyrics "touching me, touching you."
If you come right out and say it isn't due to that fact then I'm pretty sure we know that's why you removed it from the playlist.

I didn't know that was a song they played in the stadium. Pretty gross when you think about it which i'm trying not to do.
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
The Red Sox should retire it too, since ya know, they had a child molester for a clubhouse manager back in the 70s, oh and Sweet Caroline is a song about touching a 12 year old girl.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,885
Alexandria, VA
The Red Sox should retire it too, since ya know, they had a child molester for a clubhouse manager back in the 70s, oh and Sweet Caroline is a song about touching a 12 year old girl.
She was 11 when he wrote it, but the picture that inspired him was of her at age 9.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/21/usa.musicnews
The inspiration for the song came from a photograph of the then nine-year-old Kennedy the singer saw in a magazine while staying at a hotel in Memphis.
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
4,047
South Carolina via Dorchestah
Some "celebrity friar" (who'dathunk?) weighs in. Reverse!

Father Benedict Groeschel blamed some teens for “seducing” unsuspecting priests. He also referred to convicted Penn State pedophile Jerry Sandusky as a “poor guy.”
Groeschel, a Franciscan friar and longtime Catholic radio and television host, made his comments during a seemingly routine sitdown with the religious publication timed to the 25th anniversary of Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, the religious order he founded.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
RT @SIPeteThamel: Just got an email that Al Pacino is going to play Joe Paterno in a movie about the Sandusky scandal.

*slams head against wall*

:barf:



Really? What is wrong with people?
 

Hyde Park Factor

token lebanese
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2008
2,789
Manchvegas
Mike McQueary filing a whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mike-mcqueary-estranged--files-4-million-whistleblower-lawsuit.html

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8454527/mike-mcqueary-files-defamation-suit-penn-state


It's hard to call McQueary a victim, but he's evidently being left to twist in the wind by the powers that be. You have to feel for the guy - he's the only one that said or did anything about Sandusky (whether he did enough is a different discussion) and now he's out on his ass while Penn State continues to fund the defense of Curley and Schulz.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,539
South Boston
Mike McQueary filing a whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mike-mcqueary-estranged--files-4-million-whistleblower-lawsuit.html

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8454527/mike-mcqueary-files-defamation-suit-penn-state


It's hard to call McQueary a victim, but he's evidently being left to twist in the wind by the powers that be. You have to feel for the guy - he's the only one that said or did anything about Sandusky (whether he did enough is a different discussion) and now he's out on his ass while Penn State continues to fund the defense of Curley and Schulz.
As far as I am concerned, McQueary is not one to feel for. I actually suspect he KEPT his job because he was a whistleblower.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
As far as I am concerned, McQueary is not one to feel for. I actually suspect he KEPT his job because he was a whistleblower.
While technically true, he is no longer employed, as PSU let his contract lapse. So his whistleblower status has been worth exactly nothing to him.

Unless you are referring to his entire tenure as a coach, in which case you may very well be correct.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,539
South Boston
Yea, but if you are given a job and kept it (and weren't there reports that people were surprised at how quickly he rose through the ranks) and you KNEW that the reason was b/c you knew too much info, that is a horrible human being and fuck him
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Yea, but if you are given a job and kept it (and weren't there reports that people were surprised at how quickly he rose through the ranks) and you KNEW that the reason was b/c you knew too much info, that is a horrible human being and fuck him
What we still don't know is whether the circumstances of McQueary's employment are as you've defined them. It's certainly a reasonable conclusion, but until we get through the trial with Schultz and Curley we're probably not going to know for sure.

It could be that McQueary was a hapless dupe who tried to do the right thing and then remained quiet over the years because he was lied to about how the case against Sandusky was proceeding (best case) or it could be that he was paid off with a job to keep silent (worst case).

I think the truth is probably somewhere in between. While he is no hero, McQueary alone tried to do the right thing when he was confronted with the evil that was Jerry Sandusky. And his behavior while giving testimony to the grand jury (he was described as being anxious to testify and visibly relieved to be testifying) does not square with the notion that he was paid off. But it does conform with the narrative that people at Penn State simply wanted to avert their eyes and pretend that the entire thing didn't happen. And since McQueary went along with this for whatever reason, he's never going to be seen as a profile in courage.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,428
Harrisburg, Pa.
This motherfucker released a three minute statement to PSU's student radio station, which they played tonight.

Well at least he waited until marriage to fuck his wife.

Here's the transcript.

I’m responding to the worst loss of my life. First I looked at myself. Over and over, I asked why? Why didn’t we have a fair opportunity to prepare for trial? Why have so many people suffered as a result of false allegations? What’s the purpose? Maybe it will help others. Some vulnerable children who could be abused might not be as a result of all the publicity. That would be nice, but I’m not sure about it. I would cherish the opportunity to become a candle for others as they have been a light for me.

They can take away my life, they can make me out as a monster, they can treat me as a monster, but they can't take away my heart. In my heart, I know I did not do these alleged, disgusting acts. My wife has been my only sex partner and that was after marriage. Our love continues.

A young man who is dramatic and a veteran accuser and always sought attention started everything. He was joined by a well-orchestrated effort of the media, investigators, the system, Penn State, psychologists, civil attorneys and other accusers. They won. I've wondered what they really won. Attention, financial gain, prestige will all be temporary.

Before you blame me, as others have, look at everything and everybody. Look at the preparation for the trial and the trial. Compare it to others. Think about what happened, why and who made it happen. Evaluate the accusers and their families. Realize they didn't come out of isolation. The accusers were products of many more people and experiences than me. Look at their confidants and their honesty. Think about how easy it was for them to turn on me given the information, attention, and potential perks. I never labeled or put down them or their families. I tried and I cared, then asked for the same. Please realize all came to the Second Mile because of issues. Some of those may remain.

We will continue to fight. We didn’t lose to proven facts, evidence, accurate locations, and times. Anything can be said. We lost to speculation and stories that were influenced by people who wanted to convict me. We must fight unfairness, inconsistency, and dishonesty. People need to be portrayed for who they really are. We’ve not been complainers. When we couldn’t have kids we adopted. When we didn’t have time to prepare for trial we still gave it our best. We will fight for another chance. We have given many second chances and now will ask for one.

It will take more than our effort. Justice will have to be more than just a word. Fairness be more than just a dream. It will take others. Somebody apolitical with the courage to listen, to think about the unfairness, to have the guts to stand up and take the road less traveled. I ask for the strength to handle everything and the willingness to surrender only to God regardless of the outcome.