1. He was misled about how the situations was handled, presumably by the AD
2. Prosecutors need him as a witness and want to buttress his credibility so the are making him sound like a "good guy"
3. He did or is doing more than we know to aid in the investigation
Why else would they say he did the right thing?
an ad hominem attack is a fallacy in logical argument. It involves making a case against the person or their background, not the reasoning or evidence they present in their argument. It's like saying that you can't believe Nelson Mandela's autobiography because he was once deemed a criminal and spent time in jail.
Credibility is a factor when one questions the accuracy of specific factual claims made (based on prior experience of getting facts wrong). I do think that it's not unreasonable to have some skepticism about even so eminent a paper as the NYT given its modern history and occasional severe problems with journalistic integrity. That said, I still read it (with a grain of salt, perhaps two).
roywhite seems to be concerned with using the NYT as a source; if he read the piece, he'd know that the story mostly summarizes what is in the grand jury presentment. If one is concerned about whether the NYT accurately summarized the GJP, a good solution to is to go to the source directly. [PDF]
Last edited by cspan37421; 11-07-2011 at 09:14 AM.
One hopes that there is some positive stuff we don't know about - people who tried to do the right thing, including JoePa. But I think most of us know enough about cognitive dissonance to understand that it would be very hard for anyone in that area to throw JoePa under the bus for (arguably) doing the minimum - reporting it to his boss, and (possibly) nothing else. He is revered in PA, not only for his record-setting accomplishments, but for doing so while running a cleaner program than many (for its level of success), and for his character and integrity. It's hard to call those into question when you have such emotional investment in the guy.
In time hopefully we'll have a better impression of who reported what, to whom, and when.
But I guess when I hear about a man who starts a charity to help disadvantaged boys, then allegedly abuses them in showers on university grounds over seven years, five years after a campus investigation, my need to blame may override my patience.
1. I think it's likely the grad. assistant "under-reported" the incident to Joe; did not include graphic details
2. Joe promptly informed his superiors, specifically the Athletic Director
3. In football parlance, it may have been a weak hand-off, but the ball was then with the Athletic Director, and the matter was not handled properly (full investigation and contact authorities)
4. Should Joe have been further involved from that point? It certainly looks that way now, but we don't know the details of the information he received (point #1)
5. What Joe had was a second-hand report of misconduct which he properly reported to the athletics director; at the time, Sandusky was not on the football staff
6. In some organizations, policy is that someone who had a second-hand report is actually not entitled to particpate further or monitor an investigation; I don't know PSU policies, which may have been lacking
7. Joe has earned a high degree of credibility over the years
Extra, extra, read all about it.
Look, my primary point was that no newspaper is the source of record anymore and certainly not the NYT. As to your critique of the slant of the WSJ, the same is true, and more so of the NYT. That's why I wrote a variety of sources should be read.
Are you cranky this morning?
I am probably feeling guilty 'cuz I have led the charge against the NY Times sports pages, which have been guilty of straining at the leash to deliver unjustified whacks to Duke and to Amaker's Harvard team.
'I thought the sports pages at the Times were worthless, but it has done a good job on the conference realignment issues'
2. Promptly = a day later? I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but in a case when you've got child rape, waiting a day could mean another victim, or another incident of the same victim.
4. I don't know the law but it seems to me that a case could be made that EVERYONE who knew it had an obligation to report to the police or child protective services.
5. Second hand? How do you figure that? He had a first-hand report. His report, without the GA present, would be second-hand.
7. No one is questioning the credibility of a claim JoePa has made in this matter. They're asking about who did what, and who should have done what.
In the event that this is curtains for Joe Pa, let me tell my one Joe Paterno story.
My friend Dick Smith, who is a few years older, was at a camp in New England in the 1940s, and Joe Paterno, then a quarterback at Brown, was his counselor. Dick's mother was very ill, which was one of the reasons Dick was sent to camp. Unhappily, his mother passed away, and Joe Paterno pesonally delivered the word.
Fast forward 30 or 35 years. My friend, who had an advertising firm, was at Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Jersey for a meeting. Joe Paterno was also in the reception area, so Dick approached the Coach and said, "My name is Dick Smith. I don't know if you remember me, but you were my camp counselor." "Oh my God," said Paterno, "How could I forget?" I think Paterno is a very decent human being.
I do take issue with "first hand"; Joe did not witness the incident; that would have been first-hand; he had an account from someone who saw the incident.
As for first hand, my point is that the GA's account was first hand. Joe could have (and probably should have) had the GA sit down with him and the AD on that Sunday (preferably Saturday, same day) so that the reporting didn't turn into a game of telephone. He could have said, "Mr. AD, this is my GA. GA, tell the AD what you saw."
If JoePa reported what he was informed of in 2004 but Sandusky was not part of the team since 1999, how can this possibly taint JoePa? Once he reported it to the higer authorities the ball was not in their court. They are the ones who screwed-up & glad they are no longer part of the program.
I do think this will be the point where JoePa hangs it up after the season. Rumor around here all season long has been Urban Myer wants the job.
It's so ironic that Joe Paterno and the athletic department was such big supporters of Rene Portland, who had a hard stance forbidding lesbians in her program. Yet, they allowed a staff member to have sexual relations with male children and they chose to stick their heads in the sand...
First of all remember Paterno got the information second hand. We don't know what he said to GA. Maybe he told the GA to report it to the police and he would report it to the Penn State authorities, which he did. Maybe the Penn State people came back to him and said that they turned it over to the police or that they had investigated and found nothing. Remember they are being charged with lying.
If someone came to you and and said they witnessed someone committing a crime would you, with no other evidence, go to the police yourself or would you tell him/her to go to the police. Paterno's son thinks that Joe knew nothing of the earlier allegation.
My take is that the GA should have gone to the police, as should the janitor in the earlier case. Neither did.
There are two new pieces of information that shed light on Paterno's involvement. The first was his statement denying knowledge of the specific details that the GA allegedly reported to Curley and Schultz. This seems consistent with the grand jury report. The second piece of information is the report that the GA in question is current assistant coach Mike McQueary. This is now being widely reported, but I haven't seen confirmation outside of the unnamed sources cited by the Patriot-News of Harrisburg.
1. There's nothing in Paterno's past or in the publicly known details of the case that would cause me to doubt him.
2. Still, we know that Paterno testified that the GA was "very upset" and that he thought it a serious enough matter to call the AD to his home on a Sunday. We also know that he knew enough details to describe the event as "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy," and that it involved the showers in the PSU football building.
Even if he thought the administration was handling things with the police, isn't that enough information to at a minimum insist that Sandusky be banned from his football facilities?
Putting yourself in the same situation, wouldn't you ask the GA followup questions like: What exactly do you think you witnessed? Is there any chance that there's an innocent explanation for what you witnessed? Do you believe you witnessed a criminal act? etc.
The Grand Jury Report is brutal. If true, there is absolutely no excuse for his actions. However, having lived through the Duke Lax Case, I will reserve judgement until all the facts are proven true.
In the case of JoePa's actions, I think it's a tough call. Imagine if it was one of your best friends for life who was working in your firm or business. You found out through third party that your friend was engaged in a serious offense/crime. What would you do? Notify someone, or hand him over to the police? I guess I'll never know until I'm confronted with the circumstances.
The events as presented seem an overwhelming, solid, and damning accusation. But let's not forget that the process must be allowed to play out - we all know how a rush to judgment is fraught with peril. We just have allegations so far; we have no certainty about who said what to whom, or when.
Let's be careful with speculation and presumption. All of these are real people with real lives.
And please stay on topic and civil.