The Sex Abuse Scandal at PSU

[mph]

I read about 4 pages, when I thought why is all the focus on Paterno? Just because he's a big football coach. Just to make the story even bigger? To make yourself feel morally superior to a famous coach (semi-jk). In the big picture, the authorities are going after the guys they should be going after, Sandusky and the 2 school officials. If you have so much self righteousness in you, sure go after the coach too.

The obvious answer is because Sandusky has been arraigned and will face justice for his alleged crimes. Curley and Schultz also face a reckoning for their role. But what happenned at Penn State wouldn't have happenned without failures up and down the chain of command. That includes McQueary, Paterno, and perhaps Spanier. While there are no reports that Paterno committed a crime, there's enough evidence in the grand jury report and Paterno's written statement that, at a minimum, raises serious doubts about his judgement in handling a case that could have protected the boy being abused in 2002 and the who knows how many other victims in the ensuing years. These are obviously legitimate questions and many loyal Penn Staters are heartbroken to have to ask them. Self-righteousness has nothing to do with it.

[JamminJoe]

Well, you might be right. But just like in the lacrosse case, I'd rather wait for the facts to come out before making a judgement.

[fan345678]

Well, you might be right. But just like in the lacrosse case, I'd rather wait for the facts to come out before making a judgement.

The lacrosse case was an immediate reaction by an overzealous DA and a university administration that was, from my own undergraduate experiences with the office of student development, just dying for an excuse to throw some students under the bus. The Penn State matter as it now stands is the result of a multi-year investigation by a grand jury. There's a BIG difference.

Based on my own interactions with the OSD at Duke, I'll never back down from the statement I just made about them, but I will assert that if something like this had come to their attention at Duke, I think they would have had the perpetrator's head on a platter within hours.

Duke was guilty of overreacting and not gathering the facts in the lacrosse case, and a number of students suffered as a result. The other side of that coin is that if, say, a high profile basketball assistant at Duke were witnessed doing what Sandusky did, I am confident that the university administration would have acted with extreme prejudice. In fact, I think that an excuse to de-emphasize athletics would have been welcomed by the Nan-ites (yes, I know Brodhead had just gotten there, but it was still mostly Nan's people).

One of the problems that Duke brought upon itself in the Keohane years was that in an effort to protect themselves, they found ways to move high liability situations off of campus. As a result, they put themselves in the position of trusting the city of Durham. It backfired on them, but at least the discovery and ultimate fault for wrongdoing in the investigation weren't confined to the university...or, if you prefer metaphors, they cut out the middle man (themselves), then tried to have their cake and eat it, too (the lacrosse accusations were a dream come true for some of the admins).

[JamminJoe]

The only thing I'm equating here is the rush to judgement. And I'm not talking about Sandusky (duh to mph), I'm talking about Paterno. You don't see a parallel between the DBR headlines today and the headlines about the lacrosse boys. I am assuming all the people talking about how they've never turned their backs on injustice are writing from Africa on the front lines of real injustice. Tongue in cheek again, but hopefully you get the point. All I'm saying is just wait for the real facts and don't be imagining some horror film scenario about how evil Paterno is.

[cspan37421]

The only thing I'm equating here is the rush to judgement. And I'm not talking about Sandusky (duh to mph), I'm talking about Paterno. You don't see a parallel between the DBR headlines today and the headlines about the lacrosse boys. I am assuming all the people talking about how they've never turned their backs on injustice are writing from Africa on the front lines of real injustice. Tongue in cheek again, but hopefully you get the point. All I'm saying is just wait for the real facts and don't be imagining some horror film scenario about how evil Paterno is.

Here's the difference: The facts in the Lacrosse case were in dispute from day one. What is being debated here is based on information that, as far as any of us knows, is NOT in dispute. Unless someone is holding back information, we have several adults who had been informed about child sexual sexual abuse in their midst and they (apparently) did nothing but seek to move the problem off campus. Perhaps they did more ... but to my knowledge they haven't claimed to have done more! So it's not in dispute right now.

If there were contradictory claims about the efforts these adults made to contact the proper authorities regarding the crime that was witnessed, then yes, picking sides in that dispute prematurely would be a rush to judgment. I'm unaware of such a controversy over these particular facts, and therefore I don't see it as a rush to judgment.

Moreover, as far as I know, no one is calling JoePa evil. In fact, I see the self-preservation instincts at work as all too human (and I would not be surprised if some of the principals' notions of self integrate PSU itself to some degree). Not all moral actions are easy to take (such as rescuing the kid in the shower, or calling authorities on a longtime trusted coach) ... some require courage and a placing of others at or above self-interest.

[peterjswift]

Here's the difference: The facts in the Lacrosse case were in dispute from day one. What is being debated here is based on information that, as far as any of us knows, is NOT in dispute.

To be fair, it sounds like Sandusky is pleading not-guilty so he clearly disputes this, and no one has really heard the accused side of things yet. Given the evidence, I think it is unlikely that he is innocent, but I still think the accused should be given his day in court to dispute this.

[devilsadvocate85]

To be fair, it sounds like Sandusky is pleading not-guilty so he clearly disputes this, and no one has really heard the accused side of things yet. Given the evidence, I think it is unlikely that he is innocent, but I still think the accused should be given his day in court to dispute this.

To me, the key difference in the discussion regarding Spanier, Paterno, McQuery and others is that their obligation to report, follow-up, do more, etc does not go away regardless of the guilt or innocence of Sandusky. The persons in power to prevent further incidents did not do enough and if there are legal statutes that compel the reporting of such incidents, they are clearly guilty in that regard.

[cspan37421]

To me, the key difference in the discussion regarding Spanier, Paterno, McQuery and others is that their obligation to report, follow-up, do more, etc does not go away regardless of the guilt or innocence of Sandusky. The persons in power to prevent further incidents did not do enough and if there are legal statutes that compel the reporting of such incidents, they are clearly guilty in that regard.

Yes, in the spirit of what JamminJoe said above, I'm not talking about Sandusky. I totally agree that he deserves his day in court and no one should rush to judgment on him - and we should and will rely on a jury for this. I'm also not talking about the perjury charges against the AD and VP.

What I'm saying isn't in dispute, to my knowledge, is that an eyewitness account of child sexual abuse on PSU's campus was reported to a few, if not several, other adults - including some high-ups at PSU, and none of them alerted the authorities. Unless that's in dispute, I think it's fair to stake out an opinion on that.

[GDT]

What I'm saying isn't in dispute, to my knowledge, is that an eyewitness account of child sexual abuse on PSU's campus was reported to a few, if not several, other adults - including some high-ups at PSU, and none of them alerted the authorities. Unless that's in dispute, I think it's fair to stake out an opinion on that.

I would just add that the eyewitness was later hired as an assistant coach. I'm trying to think of a scenario where an intern comes to the board of directors of a company to say he saw the retired CFO on company property in the shower molesting a boy and that intern is later hired and the CFO walks free. I guess even though the intern was horribly mistaken in what he saw, he was still trustworthy enough to be given a position of responsibility.

[SMO]

I would just add that the eyewitness was later hired as an assistant coach. I'm trying to think of a scenario where an intern comes to the board of directors of a company to say he saw the retired CFO on company property in the shower molesting a boy and that intern is later hired and the CFO walks free. I guess even though the intern was horribly mistaken in what he saw, he was still trustworthy enough to be given a position of responsibility.

This is why I'm a bit mystified at the disproportionate media focus on Paterno. Either no one has figured this out yet or they'd rather pen opinions on the more well-known name. I'm guessing the latter. I also heard McQueary was a family friend of Sandusky, which sheds more light on his response.

[BD80]

The "case" against Paterno and PSU revolves around the detail with which McQuery reported the sole incident about which Paterno received information. McQuery NOW recalls he was specific and detailed in what he reported to Paterno - but Paterno recalls differently. At that point, Sandusky was seen to be a community leader who had a very solid reputation for HELPING and working with children. Sandusky had adopted and raised SIX children - one of whom is in charge of personel with the Cleveland Browns. There had been an allegation of impropriety years earlier, but it had been investigated and found to have had no basis.

Most children who are helped by these organizations have no or little contact with their fathers. As much as they may need financial aid, they are also lacking contact with an adult male who cares about them. In addition to running the charity, Sandusky was seen as someone who donated his TIME and actually tried to connect with the boys. Imagine the chance to go work out at the PSU football facilities with a former PSU coach - one responsible for producing the most impressive group of linebackers in the history of college or pro football?

If Paterno had been specifically told that Sandusky was having sex with a young boy in the shower - he would have remembered that detail, and would have pursued the matter more vigorously. McQuery may believe he was more specific, but I am sure he was hesitant about: 1) telling his idol that his well respected friend was a pedophile, and 2) using descriptive language with such a grandfatherly figure. Maybe McQuery used descriptive language in talking with his father and is now confusing the conversations these many years later. I would suggest that McQuery was not as specific or detailed with Paterno as he remembers, and that there was a difference in the level of impropriety he implied in recounting his observations and that which Paterno inferred.

McQuery must have doubted what he saw - the shear horror of it would make anyone question their own eyes - particularly since it involved such an iconic figure on campus and because it occured in such a safe place that he considered home. If he was certain, how could he not follow up with the police?

Paterno should retire at the end of the season, his actions examined, but he should not be pilloried for what he could have but didn't do unless it is clear he knew what was happening.

If guilty, Sandusky should go to prison, where he shall reap what he has sown.

[PADukeMom]

What has been coming out here in the media which is Penn State Country is that McQuery went to Paterno the following day to report that he witnessed inapproprtaie behavior between Sandusky & the child. He did not report that he witnessed the molestation which very well could have been true. Paterno reported what he was told as inappropiate behavior to his superiors which he is required to do. The head of the university, Graham Spangier did NOTHING! Why is his head not on a silver platter?
I am not in any way defending Paterno in his responsibility in this matter. As a Mom I am furious. Maybe he was prohibited from finding out the idenity of the child due to laws restricting access to the child's idenity. All I know is I am sad, depressed & angry.
There are 3 games left on the Penn State schedule. I just think the school has to let Paterno finish out the remaining games & allow him to retire. No bowl game this season. Remember if you fire Paterno at this point, you have to let the entire coaching staff go as well. Is the university going to forfiet those 3 games? What about the current players? Saturday is senior day.
Sheesh there is only losers & idiots in this matter. The man I grew up looking up to as a hero has removed my rose colored glasses about humanity as a whole.
Penn State Univeristy you royally messed-up! I will forever be part of the Penn State family but I think I need to take some time away from my "family". It is going to take a very long time for me to be able to wear my Penn State apparel again.

[SCMatt33]

The AP is reporting that Paterno will retire, but will still coach the rest of the season.

[Reilly]

A bit on the law:

http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticle...=1202530045139

[cspan37421]

McQuery NOW recalls he was specific and detailed in what he reported to Paterno - but Paterno recalls differently. ...

If Paterno had been specifically told that Sandusky was having sex with a young boy in the shower - he would have remembered that detail, and would have pursued the matter more vigorously.

Have you read the Grand Jury Presentment, especially page 7 ? Paterno himself testified* that "... the graduate student had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

Do you really need more specific than that? Is that really too vague, ambiguous, and subject to interpretation?

* - the paragraph has 3 sentences. The first starts with "Joseph V. Paterno testified ..." and the second begins "Paterno testified ..." - but the third does not. I strongly think it is implied. If the GA was as vague as you appear to think he was, why did Paterno call his AD the next day? Why didn't it just end there, maybe with JoePa saying, "well, I'll look into it, don't worry." Why did the AD meet with the GA? Why was the president of the university notified? All these subsequent events seem very implausible - very unlikely to have occurred at all - if the GA was as vague as you imply. I don't find that perspective credible at all.

[zack2014]

What I'm saying isn't in dispute, to my knowledge, is that an eyewitness account of child sexual abuse on PSU's campus was reported to a few, if not several, other adults - including some high-ups at PSU, and none of them alerted the authorities. Unless that's in dispute, I think it's fair to stake out an opinion on that.

According to ESPN, Schultz was in charge of the campus police department on campus and was alerted. I have heard from friends at Penn State that if they had called 911 it would actually route to the campus police. So at least on campus there is still the feeling that the authorities were notified but they did nothing.

[cspan37421]

According to ESPN, Schultz was in charge of the campus police department on campus and was alerted. I have heard from friends at Penn State that if they had called 911 it would actually route to the campus police. So at least on campus there is still the feeling that the authorities were notified but they did nothing.

the GJ Presentment specifically rules that out in several places w/r/t the 2002 incident involving the GA who found Sandusky in the shower with a boy. (p. 8, 10)

It does acknowledge CP involvement and a lengthy report for an incident back in 1998. That's not the main one being discussed here, however. That's not the one involving Paterno, Curley, and Schultz.

[BD80]

Have you read the Grand Jury Presentment, especially page 7 ? Paterno himself testified* that "... the graduate student had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

Do you really need more specific than that? Is that really too vague, ambiguous, and subject to interpretation?

* - the paragraph has 3 sentences. The first starts with "Joseph V. Paterno testified ..." and the second begins "Paterno testified ..." - but the third does not. I strongly think it is implied. If the GA was as vague as you appear to think he was, why did Paterno call his AD the next day? Why didn't it just end there, maybe with JoePa saying, "well, I'll look into it, don't worry." Why did the AD meet with the GA? Why was the president of the university notified? All these subsequent events seem very implausible - very unlikely to have occurred at all - if the GA was as vague as you imply. I don't find that perspective credible at all.

Your response pretty well proves my point. As clear as I thought I was - in a written remark - you took a different interpretation.

I didn't say the GA was "vague." I said he may not have told Paterno he saw Sandusky having sex with a boy in the shower. Paterno did report the incident to his superior - so he understood there was something that needed investigated.

Frankly, there is a world of difference between a student telling Paterno he saw Sandusky having sex with a boy in the shower and him telling Paterno he saw "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy," particularly since Paterno reported the incident to his superior and assumed the matter had been investigated. Sandusky was a long-time colleague who had devoted years of service to children. I just believe a bit of perspective is needed in judging Paterno, particularly at this early stage in the exposition of facts.

[Reilly]

... As far as I knew, that was Sandusky's real son. He also has another son, Jon. Again, as far as I knew, they were his offspring ... I also read that he had some adopted children, but I do not know how many. If any one else has any info on whether or not EJ and Jon are his real children, I'd appreciate it! ....

According to this article, all six Sandusky children were adopted (three as infants, three after being in foster care):

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...7979/index.htm

[Billy Dat]

Out of interest, for fans of top-of-the-heap sportswriter, Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated and Kansas City Star fame...

Posnanski moved to State College this summer as part of his next big book project...the definitive biography of Joe Paterno. The cliche that timing is everything holds true here.

Aside from an immediate blog post (link below), JoePos has decided to wait this out and let his eventual book speak his feelings/findings. As one of his recent tweets says, people are asking him whether he considers himself the luckiest writer in the world or the unluckiest. He says he feels more like the latter, but that he intends to do right by the subject, warts and all.

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/11/06/darkness/