The Sex Abuse Scandal at PSU

[rthomas]

Penn State Said to Be Planning Paterno’s Exit Amid Scandal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sp...ml?_r=1&src=tp

Paterno should have called the police. Period.

[Duvall]

NYT: Penn State planning Paterno's exit.

[Mike Corey]

Penn State planning Paterno's exit and right soon.

Linky.

[sagegrouse]

"Days or weeks" and "definitely not next season." Link.

sagegrouse

[formerdukeathlete]

Or, called 911 then and there. The institution-must-report-laws seem to fit when folks learn something after the fact (like Paterno and the AD and the administrator). If you stumble on an active crime scene, call 911.

Sandusky retired in '99. It is asserted that he was forced to retire due to complaints about questionable behavior. As a retired coach he continued to hang around the locker room. The reported incident occurred in 2002. An article in rivals had Sandusky working out in the Penn State Football weight room last week.

http://patdollard.com/2011/11/footba...ks-penn-state/

Before and after retiring, Sandusky used his access to Penn State Football and the private foundation for boys he set up to lure in and rape boys ages 10 to 13 at Penn State and even on away game trips.

I had understood that one of the reasons Sandusky was forced out in '99 was due to complaints from players about inappropriate advances from Sandusky.

I suppose Sandusky was still helping out the coaches on a volunteer basis, rationale for allowing him continuing access to the Penn State weight rooms. I imagine this access to the weight rooms might be extended to all former players (Sandusky had played in the '60s). So, to ban Sandusky would have been a bit confrontational. Still, with the history of complaints about inappropriate advances and observation of child molestation, he should have been banned, probably in '99. A lot of this would not have happened.

[roywhite]

"Days or weeks" and "definitely not next season." Link.

sagegrouse

That's the right thing to do.

Actually, he should have left some years ago, and I think he may have retired himself this year, mostly due to health issues.

Very sad that his exit at the time of this scandal will likely always be in the first paragraph of any news account of his career.

[sagegrouse]

Penn State Said to Be Planning Paterno’s Exit Amid Scandal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sp...ml?_r=1&src=tp

Paterno should have called the police. Period.

NYT: Penn State planning Paterno's exit.

Penn State planning Paterno's exit and right soon.

Linky.

"Days or weeks" and "definitely not next season." Link.

sagegrouse

Wow! Four posts within a couple of minutes. We really do have to "get a life." -- sage

[Billy Dat]

Wow! Four posts within a couple of minutes. We really do have to "get a life." -- sage

I think this case has just really hit a nerve, I can't explain my own intense reaction. Obviously, and sadly, this kind of pedophilia happens everyday all over the world. We know it has plagued the catholic church, youth sports organizations and schools of all kinds, the list goes on. On some level, as horrible as it is, you want to divorce the context of Penn State football from the story and say it's just another case of people looking the other way at a rampant pedophile. But, it's hard to emotionally do that. As a Duke fan, I think it hits home because our programs have similar reputations - ESPN recently paired our coaches in a special called, "Difference Makers - Life Lessons with Paterno and Krzyzewski". While I like to try and be a realist and I know that no program is completely clean and perfect, I have always taken great pride in the fact the Duke's overall sports program and especially the basketball team is something I can be proud of, that is it run as clean as it can be. Related to that is admiring programs who also try and do things the right way - that includes the UNC basketball program, and many other programs like Stanford, Georgia Tech, and, yes, Penn State. Seeing one of the "good guys", meaning the Penn State football program and sports administration leadership, embroiled in this fiasco just depresses me - another glass is half empty moment.

[A-Tex Devil]

I think this case has just really hit a nerve, I can't explain my own intense reaction. Obviously, and sadly, this kind of pedophilia happens everyday all over the world. We know it has plagued the catholic church, youth sports organizations and schools of all kinds, the list goes on. On some level, as horrible as it is, you want to divorce the context of Penn State football from the story and say it's just another case of people looking the other way at a rampant pedophile. But, it's hard to emotionally do that. As a Duke fan, I think it hits home because our programs have similar reputations - ESPN recently paired our coaches in a special called, "Difference Makers - Life Lessons with Paterno and Krzyzewski". While I like to try and be a realist and I know that no program is completely clean and perfect, I have always taken great pride in the fact the Duke's overall sports program and especially the basketball team is something I can be proud of, that is it run as clean as it can be. Related to that is admiring programs who also try and do things the right way - that includes the UNC basketball program, and many other programs like Stanford, Georgia Tech, and, yes, Penn State. Seeing one of the "good guys", meaning the Penn State football program and sports administration leadership, embroiled in this fiasco just depresses me - another glass is half empty moment.

Good post. The main page made a good point about how often these guys are community leaders, often focusing on charities/events/activities for children. And it sucks because 99.9% of people in the same leadership roles are genuinely heroic people. When I was growing up, we had an assistant little league coach on our team who was also a vice principal at the intermediate school (5th and 6th grade). He helped increase the schools profile by emphasizing, and pushing, teachers to take a more proactive role in the students' success. He was well regarded and very well liked by the parents - he could charm the moms, and was a "good ole boy" and could relate to the dads as well. He was arrested 2 years later on charges just like the ones Sandusky was charged with. In retrospect, you look at his behavior and say "of course!" He often invited kids from the baseball team and other students (almost universally from fatherless households) to "hang out," often overnight. I remember vividly how each student got to go to his office at the school to meet him when he first became vice principal and play games on his new macintosh (which in 1987, was pretty damn cool) . It's crazy, and all seems so obvious in retrospect. And, again, it sucks that guys like that are out there raising suspicion on the people that are actually doing some good.

[cspan37421]

And it sucks because 99.9% of people in the same leadership roles are genuinely heroic people.

let's be clear: we presume them to be. And none of us knows the true percentage. I hope it's that high; I'm not sure it is.

w/r/t billydat, and his comments on Paterno & Coach K:

Let's just say that Lord Acton had it right: power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's why we have checks and balances in our system of government (obviously it's necessary but not sufficient). Let's hope no one has too much power at Duke.

[roywhite]

Is anyone else concerned that the hyper-speed and attention of modern media coverage of scandals is a bad match with legal due process?

Do we have de facto lynch mobs calling for blood before all facts are heard?

(not that I have any great ideas about how to change that)

[MCFinARL]

Agree. What's worse is that similar Sandusky crimes were reported 4 years earlier, in 1998 after the mother of a boy he molested called the police. The DA, the aforementioned Gricar, had police officers in the home of the accusing mother when Sandusky said to her, ""I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead", yet Gricar never pressed charges. No one will ever know why because Gricar is dead. The system broke down in so many places around Sandusky's crimes over such a long period of time that it is hard to believe.

According to the NYTimes this morning, "Gerald Lauro investigated the 1998 allegation for child protective services. He said he did not find enough evidence of sexual assault to determine that the charge was founded." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/sp...ted=2&src=recg

This could explain why the University did not have a more emphatic response to the earlier incident, and in fact within a year Sandusky was retired from the program. But it doesn't begin to explain the University's response in 2002. Obviously, from a legal point of view, Sandusky was innocent until proven guilty, but frankly, with a crime like this, the fact of multiple accusations over a period of years would seem to add credibility to each individual accusation. One boy might misunderstand an ambiguous action, or even, in a worst case scenario, make up a story; eight boys, probably not.

[MCFinARL]

Is anyone else concerned that the hyper-speed and attention of modern media coverage of scandals is a bad match with legal due process?

Do we have de facto lynch mobs calling for blood before all facts are heard?

(not that I have any great ideas about how to change that)

Yes and yes, whether or not the likely outcome in this particular case is "right" or "deserved."

And me neither.

[g-money]

Guys - This forum is starting to feel like an episode of Nancy Grace around the time of the lax scandal. We of all people should be willing to let the process take its course before joining the lynch mob. This is not a defense of JoePa, who may well have committed a grave sin by his failure to contact the police, but it is a request that we withhold judgment until more is known.

Don't let the modern media fool you: The presumption of innocence is one of the things that makes America great. I know of three Duke lacrosse players that were not afforded that right, and it sucked.

edit: looks like roywhite and MCFinARL beat me to the punch. Glad I'm not the only one who's concerned.

[GDT]

This could explain why the University did not have a more emphatic response to the earlier incident, and in fact within a year Sandusky was retired from the program.

Are you suggesting the two are connected?

One boy might misunderstand an ambiguous action, or even, in a worst case scenario, make up a story; eight boys, probably not.

What about 5 men who knew about a current coach showering in the locker room with young boys in 1998 (that one child claimed was an assault) and then showering again in 2002 with a 10 year old that a 28 year-old GA reported as a sexual assault. Is that ambiguous?

[brevity]

I can't think of anything to say that can keep up with how fast this scandal has moved in the past few days. Any defense of Coach Paterno, however well-meaning or even well-informed, just feels so outdated right now.

So, some less obsolete talking points a little further away from the heated central discussion (aka the mild tangent):

1. To what extent does it matter that this happened at a state university? I hear the terms "public" and "state" bandied about, and I wonder if the sources feel that this situation is somehow worse if it's framed as a betrayal of taxpayer trust. I understand that many of the principals involved are state employees, but right now the collective sentiment (namely, justifiable outrage) seems to hold contempt of any aspect of this story that appears internal or private. This aspect of the story, to me, feels misplaced. A private college that carried itself with this level of ineptitude is deserving of identical outrage.

2. Is it fair to assign emotional guilt to people who gloss over the crime-against-children part of this situation in order to focus on the university's reactions and inactions? "Think of the children," goes the cliché, but I think it's pretty obvious from most opinions, and the volume and speed in which we voice those opinions, that we are all doing just that. The sexual abuse forms the baseline for the intensity of this discussion, but it's also pretty much a discussion killer. I think human nature leads us to focus on the parts of the scandal we can more readily handle.

3. Before this week, I've never heard of on-campus outreach programs for children set up by a university athletic department. Maybe ticket programs for sporting events, but nothing more elaborate. Is this program something that is commonly found in colleges? If so, how closely are they monitored to maintain propriety? You can imagine. As soon as a similar incident is uncovered at a second school, people will skip right over the words "unfortunate coincidence" and land right on "epidemic."

Thoughts are welcome, especially on the third point, because I feel ill-informed (in addition to ill). I hope that I've successfully skated a fine line here for moderator purposes, even though the ice already looks cracked in a few places.

[throatybeard]

I agree with whoever said, upthread, that the thread title "Penn State scandal" runs the risk of trivializing the severity of the crimes alleged. ('Scandal' sounds like it could be anything from Miami coaches buying recruits lap-dances, to someone breaking into the Watergate hotel, to Ashton Kutcher running around on Demi Moore, to about anything else).

I've retitled the thread "Sexual Abuse Case at Penn State." I've deliberately put Penn State in a prepositional phrase because, as bad as this situation is, I don't think it's fair to characterize the entire institution by this case, which is more or less what would be implied by the noun adjunct "Penn State Sexual Abuse Case." There are plenty of people in the History Department or Food Services or a bunch of other units, and they could not have done anything about this.

[cspan37421]

Is anyone else concerned that the hyper-speed and attention of modern media coverage of scandals is a bad match with legal due process?

Do we have de facto lynch mobs calling for blood before all facts are heard?

(not that I have any great ideas about how to change that)

Yes; no.

As one who very early on in the Duke Lacrosse case was queried by friends of my family who knew I went there, I was careful to reserve judgment then. I said, "IF they did it, they do not have my sympathy at all, just because I went to the same school." (more like that). Then I said, "BUT, I've heard there may be problems with her story. I'm not saying she's lying, I'm just not sure, so I think we have to reserve judgment." My point is that my loyalty was to the truth - and not a blind loyalty to my school and fellow Dukies.

I think in this thread we've largely discussed matters that are not under dispute. We haven't generally talked about Sandusky's guilt or innocence. We have talked about what we expected should have been done if someone reports (to the head coach) witnessing a child rape on campus. As far as I know, what was done after this is not much in dispute ... though there may be other things that were done of which we are unaware, and I think many on this thread have explicitly recognized that and held out hope, for instance, that people like JoePa did more than we know, and perhaps that's why the GJ report seemed, at first glance, favorable towards him. As time went on, I think we are not as confident there's anything else he did but report it to his AD. Perhaps the BOT at PSU felt that way too. True for GA by the way, too.

[gus]

What about 5 men who knew about a current coach showering in the locker room with young boys in 1998 (that one child claimed was an assault) and then showering again in 2002 with a 10 year old that a 28 year-old GA reported as a sexual assault. Is that ambiguous?

Because of the shock and disgust associated with abuse of children, people are often willing to suspend disbelief and are far more willing to prejudge guilt. There is a long and sordid history of false allegations of paedophilia that have ruined peoples' lives (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-car...abuse_hysteria).

While I don't suggest that Sandusky is innocent, I do feel that caution is always warranted in these kinds of cases. Let's let the criminal justice system, now that it's finally been involved, do its work.

[MCFinARL]

Are you suggesting the two are connected?


What about 5 men who knew about a current coach showering in the locker room with young boys in 1998 (that one child claimed was an assault) and then showering again in 2002 with a 10 year old that a 28 year-old GA reported as a sexual assault. Is that ambiguous?

I don't know whether they are connected; in retrospect my post may have sounded like I thought they were--poorly phrased. I meant more that, given the state officials' decision not to pursue charges over the 1998 incident, university officials may have concluded that they were done with the matter when Sandusky retired (granted they did continue to permit Sandusky to use university facilities--but, again, state officials had decided not to pursue the matter).

Re your second question, I wonder if you misunderstood my post--my very point was that one incident might have been considered "ambiguous," especially if the state child protective services representative determined there was not adequate evidence to pursue it, where more than one incident would probably seem a lot less ambiguous, and university officials' response is harder to understand.

At the risk of irritating you further, though, I'm not sure it's been established that there are five men who knew about both incidents, at least if they are supposed to include the GA (no evidence he was aware of 1998) and Joe Paterno (whose son says that he did not know about the 1998 incident).

At this point I think I am going to bow to the wisdom of other posts on this thread about not rushing to judgment and stop speculating about any aspect of this matter beyond the reported and/or confirmed facts.