RIP Joe Pa

[scoutpilot]

Let me add that I, like most people on this board I assume, understand that there is a huge difference between legal responsibility and moral responsibility.

But Joe simply did NOT know. He was one of the most humble people on earth, and he truly believed that he was doing the right thing when he passed the info on to people who knew what to do.

How do you pass on information to the right people without knowing the information? It sounds as though you're contending that he told the proper authorities that Sandusky was caught in the shower, but simultaneously did not know that Sandusky was up to no good. Which is it?

I'm sorry someone you held in such high esteem failed you. That is never a good moment. However, you can't wish it away, and your attempts to do so seemingly on the basis of the fact that you really like Paterno make me seriously question some things.

 

[scoutpilot]

Incorrect. I would like to know your source. Please don't quote some ESPN reporter who made it up.

This is an extremely complicated, tragic and disturbing case. There were failures all along the way for years and years. There is a lot of schleck written about this case, much of which is supposition and speculation. The Grand jury presentment as well as transcripts from the Curley/Schultz hearing. There also is some good investigative reporting. Beware of anything ESPN etc published about this case.

Here's the thing - Joe Paterno was fired as a knee jerk reaction by the BOT and encouraged by Gov Corbett.
Now the plot thickens -- Gov Corbett was the AG when this case came to him in the spring of 2008. From then until the arrest last fall - Sandusky was allowed to freely operate. No mention of the ongoing investigation was made until two short articles in the Patriot-News last March 31 and April 1. However, even the current PSU President Erikson claims not to know about these reports. Bottom line is - while under investigation by the State's AG office for over THREE years Sandusky roamed freely.

During this time Corbett was campaigning for Governor. He assigned ONE trooper to the investigation who broke it open when PSU finally released their police reports and the 1998 investigation was discovered. Shultz knew about this investigation but never volunteered the information. During this time Corbett told the boy's mother that he could not prosecute ONE case. He needed to find other cases. After Corbett became Gov., the case broke wide open and to deflect from his own incompetence as AG, Corbett then encourage the BOT to dump Paterno knowing it would create a media sensation. Corbett even has his own appointed State Police Commissioner make a statement of Paterno's lack of moral responsibility.

PA law - Paterno acted properly. Even if he had asked he would not have been informed of the progress of any investigation.
Lets say a school teacher suspects abuse. They are to make a report to their supervisor. Once that report is made - the teacher is out of the picture. They are told nothing about any investigation and cannot even ask. This is how the process and law works in PA.

usna14 - folks who have their mind made up are not interested in the truth. They refuse to wait for it. They enjoy the sensationalistic speculation.

Just making sure I understand your post...allow me to summarize...

"Don't believe ESPN or other media outlets because they're liars and sensationalists. Allow me to offer you a handy conspiracy theory to be taken as fact."

Riiiight. Got it. Now, go re-read Luigi's post. His contention is correct. Paterno knew Sandusky was a pederast, and did meet his legal obligation (after not disturbing their weekends) by eventually telling his boss(es). Where he failed, as the big cheese, was in not telling Jerry Sandusky to stay the hell away from every PSU athletic facility. Instead, Sandusky used them for years to come.

How do you explain that failure?

Are we going to play the "he did the legal minimum, so let's all exalt his character" game again?

 

[goaliedad]

Just making sure I understand your post...allow me to summarize...

"Don't believe ESPN or other media outlets because they're liars and sensationalists. Allow me to offer you a handy conspiracy theory to be taken as fact."

Riiiight. Got it. Now, go re-read Luigi's post. His contention is correct. Paterno knew Sandusky was a pederast, and did meet his legal obligation (after not disturbing their weekends) by eventually telling his boss(es). Where he failed, as the big cheese, was in not telling Jerry Sandusky to stay the hell away from every PSU athletic facility. Instead, Sandusky used them for years to come.

How do you explain that failure?

Are we going to play the "he did the legal minimum, so let's all exalt his character" game again?

OK, tell me how does Paterno know that Sandusky is a pedophile? He has an assistant coach come in and make an accusation who may or may not have an axe to grind (we don't know the past relationships between these 2 individuals). Perhaps he had heard about an investigation that went nowhere many years ago which may say there is more or may say that there is a smear going on. Point here is that Joe Parterno was not a direct witness to anything. He is not in a position to make a police report himself, nor take direct action against Sandusky, as Sandusky has not reported to him in years. Taking him to the AD and the officer in charge of the University Police force was an appropriate way to deal with an accusation to which he had nothing to add.

As to telling Sandusky to stay away from PSU facilities, that would be the job of the AD or University President. As much as people would like to think that Joe Pa had authority above the University President, that was not the case.

My personal (without any particular evidence to back it up) thoughts on why this thing went the way it did (only based upon my observations of how a powerful people acting out of bounds get away with things at institutions of higher education) is that the football program at PSU is an institution that drives a lot of the image of the school as well as its fundraising. Officers from the President down through the AD view it as their mission to protect the image of that football program from all threats. I wouldn't be surprised if Sandusky's leaving in 1998 was negotiated to avoid the negative publicity of the situation at that time with Sandusky receiving the "normal" rights to use of facilities to avoid the perception of a scandal.

Sandusky then set up business again knowing that the cover-up up the food chain in his original departure would be enough to give him free reign. McQueary's accusation was the thing that made that whole arrangement come unglued.

Getting back to Joe Paterno, I don't believe he was in on the original handling of the 1998 issue (his repsonsibilities are only as coach). Unfortunately, he was the messenger of the bad news (Sandusky being up to it again), and once the administration couldn't bury it again, they shot the messenger. Of course, a few responsible individuals were also dismissed, but ultimately I believe there were even more complicit parties to the failure to investigate both times.

And of all the parties involved in the scandal, he has been the most forthcoming since the events, which to me says more about the truth of how he has presented things than any of the other parties. Everyone else seems to have lawyered up pretty good.

As much as people want to call him an enabler, what did he provide to Sandusky as part of or after his original departure? If he were truly trying to avoid "hurting" Sandusky and trying to "protect" something, wouldn't he have done less - not even gone up his food chain and leave McQueary to deal with it by himself?

I can accept his admission that he wish he had done more given how things turned out. I'm sure there have been a few stories like this in the military where known "bad actors" weren't stopped earlier because someone assumed the CoC was handling the investigation thoroughly once someone had reported seeing bad behavior.

 

[bjkuds]

2 cents from central pa

Where the failure was IMO for JoePa .. I was taught that you go to Law Enforcement, not you supervisor. Whether you witness it, are told about it..doesn't matter.. you still go. Been there as a youth Minister, and you go to who has jurisdiction which would have been PSU PD or PSP.. not anyone else. Even if I don't do that and I go to my supervisor instead.. I know the police can't divulge information regarding a case especially involving a juvenile, but after a day or two I would wonder why they hadn't contacted me for a statement. If I am passing on information to my supervisor and assume they are contacting the right people I certainly would suspect that a detective would be knocking on my door with a notebook in hand rather promptly..Police aren't big on second and third hand information. If not, then I am certainly going to following up on my own. I think Joe knew he was wrong and in the end he did not place blame on anyone else although many failures exist in this case. I believe he was removed justly and held some liability as do many. I grew up admiring JoePa and what he stood for. I am saddened by this as are many. He was symbolic of everything that was good and right in the eyes of most PSU fans, that is what makes this so difficult to digest. I just pray that our nation will learn from this..pedophiles join little league and sports teams and Sunday schools and will work for years to establish themselves to a point of trust..never be afraid to err on the side of a child. If you can't protect a child from abuse or are afraid of repercussions...what are you good for? Heck of a world we live in isn't it.

 

[goaliedad]

Where the failure was IMO for JoePa .. I was taught that you go to Law Enforcement, not you supervisor. Whether you witness it, are told about it..doesn't matter.. you still go. Been there as a youth Minister, and you go to who has jurisdiction which would have been PSU PD or PSP.. not anyone else. Even if I don't do that and I go to my supervisor instead.. I know the police can't divulge information regarding a case especially involving a juvenile, but after a day or two I would wonder why they hadn't contacted me for a statement. If I am passing on information to my supervisor and assume they are contacting the right people I certainly would suspect that a detective would be knocking on my door with a notebook in hand rather promptly..Police aren't big on second and third hand information. If not, then I am certainly going to following up on my own. I think Joe knew he was wrong and in the end he did not place blame on anyone else although many failures exist in this case. I believe he was removed justly and held some liability as do many. I grew up admiring JoePa and what he stood for. I am saddened by this as are many. He was symbolic of everything that was good and right in the eyes of most PSU fans, that is what makes this so difficult to digest. I just pray that our nation will learn from this..pedophiles join little league and sports teams and Sunday schools and will work for years to establish themselves to a point of trust..never be afraid to err on the side of a child. If you can't protect a child from abuse or are afraid of repercussions...what are you good for? Heck of a world we live in isn't it.

Don't get me wrong, I think Joe Pa, even in the course of action he took (going up his food chain), failed in not following up with McQueary to insist that McQueary not let it rest. Joe Pa had nothing to report directly except what would be 2nd hand information.

My guess is though that McQueary had plenty to fear for his career if he continued on as a whistle blower.

Let's just say that in my direct chain of command in higher ed, a certain executive was said to have sent an awkward photo (not obscene but certainly inappropriate) to a certain "pool secretary" while reportedly out drinking who let a few folks know that it wierded her out. Before she could get the guts together to file a complaint, she was "reassigned" (message sent).
This same executive reportedly had his wings clipped at his previous employer (where a security breach could result in a congressional investigation) for snooping on email.

Unrelated to the above incident, the same executive also made comments to a vendor indicating that he would take job action to end my and another employee's employment without regards to university employment policy (having nothing to do with my performance nor being personal, but because he was not a fan of the project I was assigned to). Needless to say, the past year or so has been incredibly stressful. Fortunately for me, said executive has moved on to another position at another institution. I still say nothing about my experience because there are some in my office whose reputations would be tarnished if I mentioned who had direct knowledge of these incidents. It would certainly mean the end of my career, despite whistle blower laws as I question whether there would be many supportive witnesses.

Now what I have here are 3 pieces of 2nd or 3rd hand information that would indicate that this executive is likely to be a problem child in his employment. That is very little in comparison to the situation Joe Pa was in. While the stakes were astronomically higher for the young boys if McQueary was reporting the truth, the impact to many careers if he pushes this and McQueary backs off or recants (it has been known to happen) are not trivial.

My point here is the responsibility to act is a function of how close you are to how serious of a situation considering the potential fallout of a failure to conclusive prove the actual problem. While Joe Pa was reasonably close (2nd hand) to a very serious situation (child molestation), without much more than the initial report and no feedback from his reporting it up the food chain (to someone who has responsiblity over the law enforcement agency responsible for investigation), how far do you push what could end up being unsustantiated charges and potentially destroy many people's lives? Hindsight is 20/20 now that other people have stepped up, but at that point in time, all Joe Pa had was McQueary's story and a couple meetings with people, one of which had a legal responsibility to take action. Joe Pa's biggest failure was a failure of trusting the wrong people up his food chain.

 

[bjkuds]

Don't get me wrong, I think Joe Pa, even in the course of action he took (going up his food chain), failed in not following up with McQueary to insist that McQueary not let it rest. Joe Pa had nothing to report directly except what would be 2nd hand information. .

That is the criminal investigators job to sort it out in the end.
I had a youth group member that lied A LOT tell me she was touched by a family member. She told me while in an impromptu counseling session. She was a kid with a horrible reputation. If she said the sun was out at high noon I would have to look out the window before I would believe her. When she told me this I struggled because the person in question was reputable and she was not IMO. I immediately called my husband who has a law enforcement background and he was very direct that the law was plain and simple.. (I knew it already, but I needed to hear it). It doesn't matter if you hear a rumor or if a person tells you directly.. If they are a juvenile you have to speak up on their behalf. In this case as in most the police don't make known to people what is going on until charges are filed because of the damage factor if it is not substantiated enough to go that far. that is why going to the police is preferable to a supervisor.. the fewer that know..the better for the suspects sake if it is untrue. The Detectives will work their way from the 3rd party to the 2nd party on down till they get to the victim. If their is a break in that chain via differences in stories etc then they generally don't pursue the case because it is unfounded and the DA will advise against wasting the taxpayers money. It is up to them to say it is legitimate or not and to prove or disprove it. Sex crimes against children aren't like most crimes that you hear about. Go to the police and say Bobby stole something from someone else... If that victim doesn't come forward and make a report no one pursues it because they won't go on hear say for something like that unless the victim makes a report. With crimes against children adults are expected to be their advocates, and failure to act is criminal. The accusation is the only thing that has to be there to be held responsible to make a report. 1st 2nd or 3rd hand doesn't matter because of the nature of it,,so many victims don't go forward especially as children. In my case when the patrolman walked in my office.. I said that I didn't believe her but I had to report it.. He said yes you do. They questioned the teen 2 different times and got 4 different stories... It went no further that I know of and no ones reputation was tarnished because I kept my mouth shut to my Senior Pastor and everyone else. Some things are gray..but when a child is involved that can't defend themselves if there is any doubt..it's too much of a risk to not say anything for yourself and the childs sake.

 

[Luigi59]

...folks who have their mind made up are not interested in the truth. They refuse to wait for it. They enjoy the sensationalistic speculation.

Or put another way.....

Folks who have their minds made up in support of Paterno are not interested in the truth. They enjoy deifying some guy in Pennsylvania because he put the winning of football games and the reputation of some college ahead of the well being of children who were being raped and molested while he knew about it, yet did nothing.

They enjoy the "rah rah" cheering on Saturday rather than exposing his failures as a human being.



Of course, ESPN and other national media (sports or otherwise) is just making it all up out of jealousy or some grand conspiracy.

We should instead believe others who "know the real story" (yet for some reason cannot get anyone else to believe them).

Where he failed, as the big cheese, was in not telling Jerry Sandusky to stay the hell away from every PSU athletic facility. Instead, Sandusky used them for years to come.

How do you explain that failure?

Are we going to play the "he did the legal minimum, so let's all exalt his character" game again?

Exactly. They built a statue to him on campus, they didn't wan't it to get dirty, truth (and child welfare) be damned.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

bjkids - a couple of points...

The LAW in PA says that you must make a report to your supervisor. Teachers are to tell their prinicples etc.

Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. RNs, LPNs and CRNPs who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the RN, LPN or CRNP, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).

Furthermore - Gary Shultz as a VP was the direct supervisor of the Penn State Chief of Police. He was the overseer of the bonafide police department with jurisdiction.

Now Gary Shultz is an alleged liar - about to stand trial for perjury; so we don't know if we can trust what he says. Clearly, he did not contact the Dept of Public Welfare. If he had then Sandusky would have failed the PA Child Abuse History Clearance.
IN fact, this did happen after the principal at a high school filed a report - only after many meetings with the boy's mother and Sandusky was flagged when he tried to volunteer for Juniata college last fall.

In 1998, the police and DA had a victim who came forward. He was simply not believed. They even set up Sandusky at the boy's house and listened to a conversation with they boy's mother where he admitted showering naked with the boy and cried apologies. Said he wished he was dead ..blah blah. No charges were brought.
Prosecutors have learned a lot since 1998 and even 2002.

The Paterno/Sandusky relationship was not friendly. They were not friends and did not socialize. They did not get along well. Paterno was not involved in Second Mile. He was busy coaching football and building libraries. The writing was on the wall concerning Sandusky's career for years. In 1999 Pennsylvania offered a lucrative early retirement package and Paterno, tired of Sandusky, told him to take it.
After the retirement he had virtually no contact with Sandusky - who had access because he was a retired tenured professor at PSU.

Now - did Joe Paterno make mistakes? Sure he did. Hindsight is always 20/20. His sin was of omission. He was a 75 year old man who did not know how to handle the information he was given. He sent it UP the chain and trusted that those above him would handle it appropriately. Curley, Schultz and Spanier failed Paterno. But even more importantly they failed those kids. They were not the only ones. The high school principal failed the kids when he asked the boys mother if she really wanted to report Sandusky. The DA failed those kids by not prosecuting Sandusky. The current Gov failed those kids when he allowed the investigation to drag on for three years. The media fails the kids everytime they deflect the conversation away from Sandusky - the perp- and blame Paterno.
OF all of those, who apologized? Paterno.
Up to the end he was classy.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

@Scoutpilot - yes ESPN. The same media outlet who had proof of Bernie Fine sexually molesting young boys and did NOTHING!!! They who jumped on the "Blame Paterno" bandwagon, called for his firing - yet were silent on the question of Jim Boeheim's firing.
ESPN was extremely irresponsible in their 'reporting'.

 

[scoutpilot]

Now - did Joe Paterno make mistakes? Sure he did. Hindsight is always 20/20. His sin was of omission. He was a 75 year old man who did not know how to handle the information he was given. He sent it UP the chain and trusted that those above him would handle it appropriately. Curley, Schultz and Spanier failed Paterno. But even more importantly they failed those kids. They were not the only ones. The high school principal failed the kids when he asked the boys mother if she really wanted to report Sandusky. The DA failed those kids by not prosecuting Sandusky. The current Gov failed those kids when he allowed the investigation to drag on for three years. The media fails the kids everytime they deflect the conversation away from Sandusky - the perp- and blame Paterno.
OF all of those, who apologized? Paterno.
Up to the end he was classy.

Aww, poor Joe Paterno! You're right, he's a victim too! Just a sweet old man with his knee-high socks and belly-button candies. He just couldn't be expected to know how to handle that information. It's not his fault! He was let down by all those people.

Give me a break. The "information" was about the alleged rape of a child, not instructions to an iPad. There's nothing about this that old age excuses. Next excuse?

 

[bruno]

It seems to me that after the fact remote judgement and certitude is an attribute mostly found on the internet,the oped pages and cheesy product liability law suits- "I would do this". Kind of like Mark Wahlberg's comments about how he would have gone down fighting had he been on American Airlines flight 11 from Boston to LA that crashed into the WTC- comments which he later retracted because he had the wisdom to understand that he was not in the situation, only knows 3rd or 4th hand what people knew at the time and could not possibly know how he really would have reacted.

We all like to think that we would have perfect insight into how to react to different situations, and many of us perhaps would have reacted differently at that time because we would have understood the issue differently. Perfect understanding of what this guy was doing from the safety of 10 years of watching the Boston Arch-Diocese scandal is pretty easy, and it is clear from that context that Paterno should have reacted forcefully and reported this to the law before or simultaneously with reporting it to the PSU administration in 2002. But is that really the context that an old man (and in 2002 he was an old man presented somewhat obliquely with something that frankly is rather unbelievable to a much younger man even now) whose life was spent running a football program would have had?

Joe Paterno is dead after losing his job unceremoniously, and his legacy will always be tarnished by this blot. Heaping coals on him after his death because you "know that you would have done better" seems both uncharitable to someone who quite honestly may have thought at the time he had done what he should, and is judgment from safety and distance without context. Personally I think that the forum should give this a rest- the courts will take care of this scum bag Sandusky(if my kid was involved he would be dead and the court would be prosecuting me), and other programs and places will act to prevent similar things happening- which one assumes is really the outcome you want.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Aww, poor Joe Paterno! You're right, he's a victim too! Just a sweet old man with his knee-high socks and belly-button candies. He just couldn't be expected to know how to handle that information. It's not his fault! He was let down by all those people.

Give me a break. The "information" was about the alleged rape of a child, not instructions to an iPad. There's nothing about this that old age excuses. Next excuse?

See, you don't get it. Who said he was a victim. Not me. Not him.

But, yeah, don't wait for the facts, don't wait for the whole story to come out. Go ahead, like ESPN and make up your own facts to fit your version of the story. It makes everyone feel better. Did ESPN tell you that when a parent came to him about her child he told her NOT to report it? This man is still a principal.

See, even though the FBI has published papers on how these child molester pervs live among us doing their dirty deeds - most people can't imagine that can happen. They need to believe that someone else is to blame and that people *must* have known.

The lesson here is don't become complacent. When you have your own kids do not ever let them be along with another adult. I am dead on serious here. Don't allow your kids soccer coach to give him/her a ride home or develop any kind of relationship other than player/coach. This goes for teacher, scout leader, etc. etc. Make sure you have the Dept of Public Welfare phone number on speed dial.
Most youth organizations did not put these rules into effect until after 2002, when the Boston Priest scandal broke. For some reason The Second Mile never put child protection rules into effect or perhaps they exempted their founder, Sandusky.

When you objectively examine all aspects of this case - you will find that Paterno's omission was tiny and yet huge in the grand scheme.

So, yes it's about rape of a child. It's about a man with a wife and family who molested young boys. It's about culture and how this was allowed to continue, it's about grown ups not believing children and prosecutors not believing *hysterical* mothers. It's about a naive 75 year old men not being able to get his head around what his 28 year old grad student was talking about when he saw molestation in the shower. It's about people not being able to talk explicitly in sexual terms.
What it's not about is enabling and conspiracy and Joe Paterno "providing" a lair for Sandusky. It's not about Paterno putting football first. It's not about Paterno protecting his program.

 

[scoutpilot]

OK, tell me how does Paterno know that Sandusky is a pedophile? He has an assistant coach come in and make an accusation who may or may not have an axe to grind (we don't know the past relationships between these 2 individuals). Perhaps he had heard about an investigation that went nowhere many years ago which may say there is more or may say that there is a smear going on. Point here is that Joe Parterno was not a direct witness to anything. He is not in a position to make a police report himself, nor take direct action against Sandusky, as Sandusky has not reported to him in years. Taking him to the AD and the officer in charge of the University Police force was an appropriate way to deal with an accusation to which he had nothing to add....

....I can accept his admission that he wish he had done more given how things turned out. I'm sure there have been a few stories like this in the military where known "bad actors" weren't stopped earlier because someone assumed the CoC was handling the investigation thoroughly once someone had reported seeing bad behavior.

Just to make sure that I understand your position...

1. You would have us believe that because there is no documented record of Paterno being officially informed of the 1998 investigation, he therefore had absolutely no knowledge of the accusations surrounding his assistant.

2. You would have us believe that Sandusky's departure following the investigation in 1998 was completely unrelated to the investigation, and that Paterno truly "wanted to make a coaching change" to get rid of a defensive coordinator whose defenses had been among the best in the country, averaging 15 points allowed per game.

3. You would have us believe that as the most popular and prominent man with four decades in the job as the head coach of Linebacker U., he could do no more than he did in terms of preventing Sandusky's actions after the 1998 and 2002 incidents. He, as a man of purportedly exceptional character, absolutely did all he could have and should have done.

Just making sure I understand your position.

One last question...(and nothing personal is implied here, honestly)

It's 2002. It's not some nameless, poor, 10-year-old boy in the shower with Sandusky. It's goaliegirl.

Do you still feel the same about Paterno's actions?

 

[scoutpilot]

See, you don't get it. Who said he was a victim. Not me. Not him.

Hmmm.

He was a 75 year old man who did not know how to handle the information he was given. He sent it UP the chain and trusted that those above him would handle it appropriately. Curley, Schultz and Spanier failed Paterno.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Just to make sure that I understand your position...

1. You would have us believe that because there is no documented record of Paterno being officially informed of the 1998 investigation, he therefore had absolutely no knowledge of the accusations surrounding his assistant.
I believe that people should not make up *facts*. Paterno in his own words said he did not know. The Grand Jury found him credible. He has no reason to lie about this.

2. You would have us believe that Sandusky's departure following the investigation in 1998 was completely unrelated to the investigation, and that Paterno truly "wanted to make a coaching change" to get rid of a defensive coordinator whose defenses had been among the best in the country, averaging 15 points allowed per game.

Yes. Sandusky was very distracted by his time and energy spent with The Second Mile. (Now we know why) It was frustrating Paterno. It's quite well known in State College that the two did not get along. Correlation does not imply causation.

3. You would have us believe that as the most popular and prominent man with four decades in the job as the head coach of Linebacker U., he could do no more than he did in terms of preventing Sandusky's actions after the 1998 and 2002 incidents. He, as a man of purportedly exceptional character, absolutely did all he could have and should have done.
Did I say that?? You need to re-read my prior post. Carefully.
After the 2002 incident Sandusky is not accused of any perversions in the locker room. He had moved onto other places and other opportunities. Now sure how Paterno was to know what was going on in Sandusky's basement?



One last question...(and nothing personal is implied here, honestly)
None taken. You might have a daughter someday.

It's 2002. It's not some nameless, poor, 10-year-old boy in the shower with Sandusky. It's goaliegirl.
Good Point. If it was a girl the McQ most likely would not have walked away. If you read about sex abuse in boys and girls - adults tend to act much more quickly if a girl is involved. Sad for the boys. Most parents would not allow a male coach/mentor to get 'too close' to their daughter but would not think twice if he got 'too close' to their son.

Clearly there are many questions that need to be answered. Several investigations are occurring.

Do you still feel the same about Paterno's actions?
I think Paterno was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He had second hand information that was not explicit and he fully did not digest. He did not have a victim. In fact, this victim has never been found. He should have asked the question instead of making an assumption. Heck he was told that The Second Mile would be advised. If they were and Sandusky was guilty then surely the would not have allowed him to continue to have children around??
Paterno did fault and he did own up to it, this speaks to his character. However the entire (majority) brunt of the blame does not lie with him.

 

[scoutpilot]

3. You would have us believe that as the most popular and prominent man with four decades in the job as the head coach of Linebacker U., he could do no more than he did in terms of preventing Sandusky's actions after the 1998 and 2002 incidents. He, as a man of purportedly exceptional character, absolutely did all he could have and should have done.
Did I say that?? You need to re-read my prior post. Carefully.
After the 2002 incident Sandusky is not accused of any perversions in the locker room. He had moved onto other places and other opportunities. Now sure how Paterno was to know what was going on in Sandusky's basement?



One last question...(and nothing personal is implied here, honestly)
None taken. You might have a daughter someday.

It's 2002. It's not some nameless, poor, 10-year-old boy in the shower with Sandusky. It's goaliegirl.
Good Point. If it was a girl the McQ most likely would not have walked away. If you read about sex abuse in boys and girls - adults tend to act much more quickly if a girl is involved. Sad for the boys. Most parents would not allow a male coach/mentor to get 'too close' to their daughter but would not think twice if he got 'too close' to their son.

Clearly there are many questions that need to be answered. Several investigations are occurring.

Do you still feel the same about Paterno's actions?
I think Paterno was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He had second hand information that was not explicit and he fully did not digest. He did not have a victim. In fact, this victim has never been found. He should have asked the question instead of making an assumption. Heck he was told that The Second Mile would be advised. If they were and Sandusky was guilty then surely the would not have allowed him to continue to have children around??
Paterno did fault and he did own up to it, this speaks to his character. However the entire (majority) brunt of the blame does not lie with him.

Sigh.

That response and included question were not directed at you. They were for goaliedad. Hence, I quoted goaliedad. And asked about goaliegirl for that reason.

 

[goaliedad]

Sigh.

That response and included question were not directed at you. They were for goaliedad. Hence, I quoted goaliedad. And asked about goaliegirl for that reason.

JAM actually did quite a good job of answering the question for me.

As to goaliegirl (who BTW does look at this forum from time to time), I'll start with the fact that she did attend a PSU sponsored summer camp on PSU's campus in 2003 and used the athletic facilities during that time. Her camp was run by a different (male) coach from a different sport. I did some research on that camp with a known (to me) and well trusted female coach who also was one of the consultant coaches to the camp. I knew before sending her there how it was run, who would be responsible for her and the history of the principals running the camp.

That being said, but for the grace of God, she could have been in such a situation as existed with Sandusky.

While the parallels are more difficult to draw (single sex vs. coed), I can certainly tell you my anger would have been most directed at those who had a responsibility to stop the predator. That starts with the Schultz who has a duty being responsible for the police on campus of acting upon credible reports (provided by McQueary by publicized accounts) and enforcing the law. The next in line is the AD who needed to take immediate action to suspend Sandusky's access to the campus facilities upon the report he received at least until he could conduct a hearing to verify the complaint.

Third on my list would probably be McQueary, who although initially trying to do the right thing, pretty much abandoned the issue in the face of an administration and police that abandoned the investigation. If he had evidence of a crime (his testimony) and felt the police were covering it up, he then has a responsibility to report the public corruption. I don't know how much feed back he may or may not have been given to his report to make this judgement. I'd certainly be upset with him and want to know why.

Joe Pa could have told McQueary to go to the campus police and file a report and stepped aside. He did take the action of getting him in touch with what he thought would be the best law enforcement contact (Schultz - in charge of the campus police) to deal with the crime and to the best source to stop the campus' involvement with Sandusky - the AD (who is in charge of all access to all athletic facilities). To me, this is helpful. The fact that he did not receive adequate feedback from these reports and didn't seek it out is a bit troubling given the nature of the incident. It is easy to be irrational and think that everyone is going to do absolutely everything possible to protect my daughter. People, even very good people, aren't perfect. I've seen the tape of Joe Pa admitting he should have done more and can accept that he is pained by his inaction. I'm sure I would be angry hearing that, but I know that I would have to pick up the pieces and move forward. Ultimately, this is not about being a victim, but being able to live your life.

I don't think you've had to deal with a serious setback to your child's life yet. I have a bi-polar, Asperger's autistic son as well. His autism diagnosis didn't come until age 12, despite our best effort to get diagnostic and learning help from the time he was an infant. There have been many school staff, professional counselors, and medical providers who have done a poor job during that time to help us get the diagnostic and support services necessary at an early age where his ability to adapt would have been much greater. I look at it now as having a choice. I can spend my life bitter about those who have let me down or I can work with the resources at hand to make his life better going forward with the knowledge I have gained over the years. Can you guess what choice I've made?

 

[bruno]

Folks- I will reiterate what I posted earlier (which was promptly ignored) and suggest that you let this thread go to bed. When you are talking about each other's choices the thread shows every likelihood of getting out of control rapidly.

 

[scoutpilot]

Thank you for your intelligent and measured response, goaliedad. It's a rarity, especially in the crop of conspiracy theories and apologists.

I think the saddest thing about this whole discussion is how hard people on a site dedicated to institutions which develop moral and ethical leaders are working to hold up Joe Paterno's effort to do the bare minimum in this case as acceptable.

You're right. He could've done more. That's the mantle of leadership. That's what separates leaders from those who are placed in leadership positions. The former can be counted on to do the right thing, above and beyond. The latter cannot. Paterno showed, in the face of the Sandusky situation, that he was in a leadership position, but was anything but a leader.

JAM and her cohort are right...he met his legal obligations. But there is no evidence to suggest that he did anything more, and by his own admission, he should have. He was presented with a leadership challenge and shied away from asking the tough questions and taking ownership of the situation. Leaders face problems in their midst and take ownership of finding a solution. They don't push problems up, wipe their hands of it, and hope "higher" will handle it. They don't say "well, I did what was required of me."

We expect more from leaders. If, by happenstance, one of your children becomes one of my lieutenants, you had better believe that I will not accept the bare minimum in pursuit of moral and ethical solutions to problems and you shouldn't want your child to work for a commander who would. It's high time we as a nation started holding our rich and powerful leaders to the same standard to which we hold our 23-year-old lieutenants.

Joe Paterno may be a lot of things, but a leader he is not. In the end, he turned out to be nothing more than a football coach.

 

[goaliedad]

Thank you for your intelligent and measured response, goaliedad. It's a rarity, especially in the crop of conspiracy theories and apologists.

I think the saddest thing about this whole discussion is how hard people on a site dedicated to institutions which develop moral and ethical leaders are working to hold up Joe Paterno's effort to do the bare minimum in this case as acceptable.

You're right. He could've done more. That's the mantle of leadership. That's what separates leaders from those who are placed in leadership positions. The former can be counted on to do the right thing, above and beyond. The latter cannot. Paterno showed, in the face of the Sandusky situation, that he was in a leadership position, but was anything but a leader.

JAM and her cohort are right...he met his legal obligations. But there is no evidence to suggest that he did anything more, and by his own admission, he should have. He was presented with a leadership challenge and shied away from asking the tough questions and taking ownership of the situation. Leaders face problems in their midst and take ownership of finding a solution. They don't push problems up, wipe their hands of it, and hope "higher" will handle it. They don't say "well, I did what was required of me."

We expect more from leaders. If, by happenstance, one of your children becomes one of my lieutenants, you had better believe that I will not accept the bare minimum in pursuit of moral and ethical solutions to problems and you shouldn't want your child to work for a commander who would. It's high time we as a nation started holding our rich and powerful leaders to the same standard to which we hold our 23-year-old lieutenants.

Joe Paterno may be a lot of things, but a leader he is not. In the end, he turned out to be nothing more than a football coach.

I'll agree that Joe Pa didn't have the leadership that we would expect out of our young lieutenants, and he didn't turn out to be much more than someone who could turn young football players into men better than most.

He was on a high pedastol, although I think it was the public looking for a hero more than Joe's persona that put him up there. I do think he was as good at what he did as any, but lacked what he needed when held up to a higher challenge.

If we held our elected leaders to the same standard, we might just have to start over in DC, as it is very difficult to find these qualities there. Just getting elected to dog catcher these days takes a super pac that then owns your vote until eternity.