The Sex Abuse Scandal at PSU

[A-Tex Devil]

The "he's Joe Paterno so he can do whatever he wants" argument rings hollow and would suggest Joe Paterno had some obligation to investigate and punish any individual doing something wrong within PSU athletics.

While I do think the way many people portray the extent of Paterno's "power" at Penn State is overblown, I don't believe for a picosecond that if Paterno wanted Sandusky gone, he couldn't have done it unilaterally. And I think that's why he is being grouped with the AD as an enabler here. And I'm fine with it.

What I find ringing hollow (and I'm not saying you are in this group SMO) is that the people saying Paterno is "just a coach" and "couldn't have done anything" are the same people that cheered when the PSU AD basically asked Paterno to retire in 2004 (thinking it would be more politically correct than firing him -- which would have been justifiable at the time) and Paterno said "nope."

[A-Tex Devil]

This is my main issue with Mcqueary:

He walked in on a boy (ten years old) getting raped by a grown man in a shower and did nothing. He left and went home to talk to his dad.


He witnessed the crime happening and did not act on it. I understand that this is not technically illegal but I find that even worse than anything Paterno did/didn't do.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you here based on the facts we are aware of.

*** and to add, I am not trying to defend McQueary, just positing why he hasn't been fired as well.

[SMO]

3. You're failing to distinguish some things here. I WAS THE ONE WHO POSTED THE LIST OF HONORARY BOARD MEMBERS! So OF COURSE I have seen the list of people! As far as I know, McQueary didn't go to THEM to tell them what he saw; so why would I think of them as complicit? He went to JoePa. And someone here pointed out that they determined through internet caches (the wayback machine or something like that) that JoePa was on the board at least through 2008. Was that inappropriate? Well, if I had heard what JoePa did, I think I'd find another charity to support. And I hope as heck I'd make that call to authorities right away. At the very least I'd sit there and have McQueary make it.

So Paterno's responsibility was to ban Sandusky from PSU football, disassociate with his charity, and call police? Shouldn't he also have told Sandusky's family and everyone on the board of Second Mile?

What was required of McQueary?

[SMO]

What I find ringing hollow (and I'm not saying you are in this group SMO) is that the people saying Paterno is "just a coach" and "couldn't have done anything" are the same people that cheered when the PSU AD basically asked Paterno to retire in 2004 (thinking it would be more politically correct than firing him -- which would have been justifiable at the time) and Paterno said "nope."

While I certainly agree Paterno was more than a coach, I don't think any coach in D1 could unilaterally dismiss a tenured professor, which, based on my understanding, is what Sandusky was. I also suspect his influence has been diminishing for quite some time. His age and refusal to hang it up made him much less influential in practical matters.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Bill Plaschke of the LA Times has a column up today whose main point seems to be that Paterno's iconic status at Penn State was a major on why this happened as it did.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...5860417.column

If you can't get the link here are the two paragraphs that capture his main thoughts:

"It is no coincidence, because for 46 years it was not really Penn State University, it was Paterno State University. It was a school that sold its soul to football coach Joe Paterno for the sake of riches and recognition, a school that found its identity in his plain uniforms and lived its life by his corny pep talks.

Paterno was allowed to play God, and so his longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was allowed to do whatever he wanted, wherever he wanted, even if it included alleged sexual abuse of eight boys over a 15-year period."

I think Plaschke is completely off base. I don't see what Paterno's status had to do with the GA not calling the police. Maybe Paterno's status led the GA's father to think that Paterno would take care of it, but I think its more likely that the father did not want his son to be involved so he told him to pass the buck to Paterno. I think that the Penn State officials were trying to protect Penn State and not Paterno when they essentially did nothing.

I think college sports has grown too big and too powerful in many areas. But I think the GA, his father, and the university officials would have acted the same way regardless of the coach.

SoCal

[cspan37421]

So Paterno's responsibility was to ban Sandusky from PSU football, disassociate with his charity, and call police? Shouldn't he also have told Sandusky's family and everyone on the board of Second Mile?

What was required of McQueary?

Goodness gracious, when did I ever promise to list everyone's responsibilities in this matter?

I challenged a specific point you made, and rather than concede my point, now you expect of me good answers on the rest of the case. I will politely decline.

[SMO]

Goodness gracious, when did I ever promise to list everyone's responsibilities in this matter?

I challenged a specific point you made, and rather than concede my point, now you expect of me good answers on the rest of the case. I will politely decline.

You seemed an expert on this subject on several occasions! I thought you might enlighten me further.

[BD80]

Getting back on the McQueary/retaliation question. McQueary, technically, reported the incident correctly back in 2002 to both the coach and the AD, etc. Setting aside his moral duty to see justice through if he saw what he says he saw, if Penn State fires him now because he "didn't do enough" back in 2002, it just seems "weird" to me from a technical standpoint, and seems retaliatory as well.

I believe McQueary should resign, but the more and more I think about it, I kinda get why PSU hasn't canned him yet. As an employee, he did what he was supposed to, even as a person he did not.

Replace "McQueary" with "Paterno" in that post - why the difference?

This is my main issue with Mcqueary:

He walked in on a boy (ten years old) getting raped by a grown man in a shower and did nothing. He left and went home to talk to his dad.


He witnessed the crime happening and did not act on it. I understand that this is not technically illegal but I find that even worse than anything Paterno did/didn't do.

This is one reason that I don't believe that McQueary was explicit in reporting to Paterno. How do you admit you saw something that heinous and did nothing, or worse ran away? It would be human nature for McQueary to equivocate as a way to justify his failure to take immediate action. Any equivocation would give Paterno room to give his colleague and notorious advocate for disadvantaged children the benefit of the doubt.

There is also the potential that the Grand Jury report is a bit more definitive than McQueary's testimony it is summarizing, remember, this is a prosecution document drafted to support the conclusion.

[tendev]

Bill Plaschke of the LA Times has a column up today whose main point seems to be that Paterno's iconic status at Penn State was a major on why this happened as it did.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...5860417.column

If you can't get the link here are the two paragraphs that capture his main thoughts:

"It is no coincidence, because for 46 years it was not really Penn State University, it was Paterno State University. It was a school that sold its soul to football coach Joe Paterno for the sake of riches and recognition, a school that found its identity in his plain uniforms and lived its life by his corny pep talks.

Paterno was allowed to play God, and so his longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was allowed to do whatever he wanted, wherever he wanted, even if it included alleged sexual abuse of eight boys over a 15-year period."

I think Plaschke is completely off base. I don't see what Paterno's status had to do with the GA not calling the police. Maybe Paterno's status led the GA's father to think that Paterno would take care of it, but I think its more likely that the father did not want his son to be involved so he told him to pass the buck to Paterno. I think that the Penn State officials were trying to protect Penn State and not Paterno when they essentially did nothing.

I think college sports has grown too big and too powerful in many areas. But I think the GA, his father, and the university officials would have acted the same way regardless of the coach.

SoCal

Football at PSU and, like B-Ball at Duke and UNC, is a family very much like the Mafia, close-knit; you don't rat on a family member unless the head of the family (Paterno) gives approval. The GA really thought those were the rules - not excusing it, but that is the only explanation for such an otherwise inexplicable reaction by a 28 year old man who was just as big, much younger and stronger then Sandusky.

That makes Paterno more morally culpable than the GA.

[A-Tex Devil]

Replace "McQueary" with "Paterno" in that post - why the difference?

That was my first reaction as well, but the more I thought about it, the more I think it can be distinguished since you can count me in the group believes Paterno was in a position to actually do something about it unilaterally. But I agree that is simply my opinion.

There is something floating out there that Paterno's press release yesterday morning breached his contract (i.e. it was not run through the university first), which may be a fireable offense on its own.

[Des Esseintes]

Bill Plaschke of the LA Times has a column up today whose main point seems to be that Paterno's iconic status at Penn State was a major on why this happened as it did.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...5860417.column

If you can't get the link here are the two paragraphs that capture his main thoughts:

"It is no coincidence, because for 46 years it was not really Penn State University, it was Paterno State University. It was a school that sold its soul to football coach Joe Paterno for the sake of riches and recognition, a school that found its identity in his plain uniforms and lived its life by his corny pep talks.

Paterno was allowed to play God, and so his longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was allowed to do whatever he wanted, wherever he wanted, even if it included alleged sexual abuse of eight boys over a 15-year period."

I think Plaschke is completely off base. I don't see what Paterno's status had to do with the GA not calling the police. Maybe Paterno's status led the GA's father to think that Paterno would take care of it, but I think its more likely that the father did not want his son to be involved so he told him to pass the buck to Paterno. I think that the Penn State officials were trying to protect Penn State and not Paterno when they essentially did nothing.

I think college sports has grown too big and too powerful in many areas. But I think the GA, his father, and the university officials would have acted the same way regardless of the coach.

SoCal

I agree with most of what you say here, and Plaschke's reasoning is indeed lazy. However, as A-Tex Devil reference above, Paterno wielded immense power and was basically able to say "no" to the administration about his own employment. In such an atmosphere, I suspect that there was far less oversight than there should have been. I feel confident that Paterno is a good man, but the best person will have blind spots. In the absence of proper institutional controls, a huge storm of chaos can come to inhabit those blind spots. Sandusky was always going to be a monster, but the position to which he rose and was not questioned in for so long very likely allowed him to commit more evil than he otherwise might have. That the athletic department was Paterno's private fiefdom had to have contributed to the dearth of questions directed Sandusky's way. Call it loyalty, call it arrogance, call it a lack of concern--a flaw in a great man's character was allowed to become something that contributed to a disaster that has ruined many lives and will ruin still more before all is done.

[A-Tex Devil]

I agree with most of what you say here, and Plaschke's reasoning is indeed lazy. However, as A-Tex Devil reference above, Paterno wielded immense power and was basically able to say "no" to the administration about his own employment. In such an atmosphere, I suspect that there was far less oversight than there should have been. I feel confident that Paterno is a good man, but the best person will have blind spots. In the absence of proper institutional controls, a huge storm of chaos can come to inhabit those blind spots. Sandusky was always going to be a monster, but the position to which he rose and was not questioned in for so long very likely allowed him to commit more evil than he otherwise might have. That the athletic department was Paterno's private fiefdom had to have contributed to the dearth of questions directed Sandusky's way. Call it loyalty, call it arrogance, call it a lack of concern--a flaw in a great man's character was allowed to become something that contributed to a disaster that has ruined many lives and will ruin still more before all is done.

I think the bolded portion is one of the best, most levelheaded summaries of what will be JoePa's ultimate legacy that I've seen anywhere. Unless something more dastardly comes out about him (and I hope it doesn't), JoePa's past good deeds should not go unforgotten. No need to take his name off the library, etc. But if the grand jury's findings are true, I believe that he is significantly (although clearly not wholly) responsible for enabling an environment that allowed this nightmarish behavior to last as long as it did.

[JasonEvans]

I am of the belief that is McQueary wants to ever coach football again, he needs to step aside on his own right now. I am stunned he has not realized this himself. He needs to quit and give a tearful news conference talking about how upset he is that he trusted these folks to handle this and how he cannot believe he did not beat the @^@!% out of Sandusky when he saw the rape in the shower.

I am no legal expert, but I think McQueary may be one of the few folks with no legal worries in all this. It seems unlikely he will be prosecuted and I have a hard time seeing why someone would come after him in a law suit (he has no deep pockets and did the somewhat reasonable thing of taking the incident to several people of authority). This gives him the freedom to actually show major contrition and beg for forgiveness from the public.

He has to change his story to make himself employable again. Earlier in the day, I did not think that was necessary, but now that Paterno is gone the media and public opinion are turning on him. The series of questions about him at the head coach news conference today told me that he needs to ACT NOW or he will simply get lumped in with all the folks in the Penn State hierarchy who covered this up. They all have the means and the age to simply retire. He does not.

He needs to change the story about him... fast! Stepping aside voluntarily is the best way to begin to do that.

-Jason "is no one giving him advice? Quit now!! Why on Earth is he sticking around in this job?" Evans

[dcdevil2009]

Football at PSU and, like B-Ball at Duke and UNC, is a family very much like the Mafia, close-knit; you don't rat on a family member unless the head of the family (Paterno) gives approval. The GA really thought those were the rules - not excusing it, but that is the only explanation for such an otherwise inexplicable reaction by a 28 year old man who was just as big, much younger and stronger then Sandusky.

That makes Paterno more morally culpable than the GA.

That is a possible explanation, but far from the only explanation. The GA might have thought those were the rules, but maybe he saw something happening and panicked. Hypothesizing about what you'd do if you were in his shoes is infinitely different than being there. When he left, he called his father. Is it that unreasonable for a single, 28 yo guy to call his dad for advice about something as serious as what he saw? I'm sure if he could do it over, he would have done something differently, but it doesn't make him a villain for not doing it in the first place.

I'm not excusing anything anyone did if the facts turn out differently, but what he would or should have done is obviously blurred by hindsight. Now that we know (or the grand jury has told us) that Schultz and Curley covered it up it's easy to say Paterno or McQueary should have gone straight to police. However, how do we know Paterno wasn't told by Schultz that it was a misunderstanding and McQueary didn't see what he thought he saw? It might be weird, but a 10 year old and an adult both showering at the same time in a group shower doesn't necessarily mean there was rape/abuse. If you heard second hand that there was a sexual assault and reported it to someone in a position to investigate and they told you it was a misunderstanding, would you automatically assume they were lying and take it somewhere else? What if the witness was someone you saw daily and that person didn't feel strongly enough about the results of the investigation to pursue it further?

And even if it was a misunderstanding, asking (aka issuing a formal, but unenforceable ban) Sandusky not to bring children to PSU facilities anymore is still the responsible thing to do. It's obviously not the same as the Duke lacrosse case, but banning children is still consistent with an investigation that finds no wrongdoing. Penn State: "Even though we think you are innocent, we can't have you bringing kids to the facilities because it has the potential to give the wrong impression." Duke: "Even though you didn't do anything illegal, we're not going to allow strippers at parties because we don't want you in the position where you'll be accused of something you didn't do."

[A-Tex Devil]

I am no legal expert, but I think McQueary may be one of the few folks with no legal worries in all this. It seems unlikely he will be prosecuted and I have a hard time seeing why someone would come after him in a law suit (he has no deep pockets and did the somewhat reasonable thing of taking the incident to several people of authority). This gives him the freedom to actually show major contrition and beg for forgiveness from the public.

I wonder if, as others have guessed, if he's a key prosecution witness, and he needs to stay out of the press. His testimony alone could potentially put Sandusky in jail, especially if they can identify the victim in that instance.

[sagegrouse]

I am coming to the opinion that Curley, Schulz and Paterno knew what was going on with Sandusky in general outline. And they knew of the specific events of 1998 and 2002. They were interested primarily in protecting Penn State, so they kept it under wraps and tried to keep anything more from happening on campus. The only real action they took was to force his retirement in 1999 and then to instruct him not to bring kids on campus for any reason after 2002. Anything involving law enforcement in 2002, 1999 or earlier would have been all over the media for months and months, at great costs to Penn State athletics. Yes, I know, that bringing Sandusky to justice years and years ago would have saved a bunch of kids.

They got something much worse. What would have been an atomic bomb in 2002 or 1998 has become a hydrogen bomb in 2011. Now it will be all over the media for years and years. Those involved are disgraced, including McQueary, who certainly was not engineering a coverup, whatever his suspicions, but is gonna be lumped with everyone else. And, if my suspicions in the first paragraph are proven (remember that Sandusky now has an incentive to cooperate with prosecutors), it will be the worst thing ever to happen in American sports.

Surely President Spanier was not as stupid as the others and was fed only a spoonful of information. I say this because he should have been willing to throw Sandusky and the athletic department overboard to protect the University. But maybe he's just as stupid and twice as guilty.

Ugh and double-ugh!

I hope I am wrong --

sagegrouse

[roywhite]

I am coming to the opinion that Curley, Schulz and Paterno knew what was going on with Sandusky in general outline. And they knew of the specific events of 1998 and 2002. They were interested primarily in protecting Penn State, so they kept it under wraps and tried to keep anything more from happening on campus. The only real action they took was to force his retirement in 1999 and then to instruct him not to bring kids on campus for any reason after 2002. Anything involving law enforcement in 2002, 1999 or earlier would have been all over the media for months and months, at great costs to Penn State athletics. Yes, I know, that bringing Sandusky to justice years and years ago would have saved a bunch of kids.They got something much worse. What would have been an atomic bomb in 2002 or 1998 has become a hydrogen bomb in 2011. Now it will be all over the media for years and years. Those involved are disgraced, including McQueary, who certainly was not engineering a coverup, whatever his suspicions, but is gonna be lumped with everyone else. And, if my suspicions in the first paragraph are proven (remember that Sandusky now has an incentive to cooperate with prosecutors), it will be the worst thing ever to happen in American sports.

Surely President Spanier was not as stupid as the others and was fed only a spoonful of information. I say this because he should have been willing to throw Sandusky and the athletic department overboard to protect the University. But maybe he's just as stupid and twice as guilty.

Ugh and double-ugh!

I hope I am wrong --

sagegrouse

okay, sage...what on earth leads you to that?

do you have something, anything of a factual nature to substantiate that??

sorry, this appears to be a real instance of unsubstantiated speculation.

everything I have read is that the 1998 investigation was conducted under wraps, and that Joe Paterno knew nothing about it.

[Rogue]

Could McQueary still be employed ( as a coach ) because the prosecution needs him..he's THE eye witness .. don't want him upset so to speak ?

From what I've always heard from PSU fans,, is JoPa is like the godfather in Happy Valley.. I mean they tried to get him to retire before and he said no.. and guess what,, he still was the coach. Were they myths, lies, or did Paterno have that kind of power to surpress information ?

I personaly think PSU and Paterno didn't want it's name(s) tarnished and made bad choices and tried to sweep this under the carpet for years. With what was known amoung the coaching staff since 2002 ( McQueary going to Paterno ) , and knowing what coaching fraternties are like.. this is not a surprise to many in that community. And now,, it's all coming out..

What is so sad,,is all the children that were abused,, since it's been known by some, that Sandusky was a child molester.

[MCFinARL]

I wonder if, as others have guessed, if he's a key prosecution witness, and he needs to stay out of the press. His testimony alone could potentially put Sandusky in jail, especially if they can identify the victim in that instance.

This seems plausible, but it doesn't really explain why the press wouldn't go after him--although it would explain why the prosecutors who cast a pretty negative light on Paterno while acknowedging that he had met his legal obligation by reporting up the chain didn't focus similarly on McQueary.

[roywhite]

Joe Paterno Fired, Others Not: Attorney General's Office Has 'Concern'

Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general's office, noted that the two officials charged with perjury and failure to report the abuse are being defended by the university, while Paterno was fired.

"We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony," Hagen-Frederiksen told ABCNews.com, "but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development."

"It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet," he said. "Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."