[mikeh]

As a cynic, I'd add that it is possible that the decision to fire Paterno included the following spoken or silent considerations:

1. the guy is 84......doesn't he know when to quit?
2. We haven't actually done much, in football terms, for the past little while....maybe he's past it...see point 1
3. We've got a perfect excuse to do what we've wanted to do for years, but which we couldn't do so long as his halo was untarnished


As for singling him out.....with great rewards come (or should come) great responsibility. When you accept all of the enormous sums of money and tributes that he has received over the years....when you have been afforded the quality of life he has been afforded, you ought to be held to a higher standard.

Indeed, it seems clear that the actual witnesses to the rapes came to Paterno precisely because they preceived him as the best person to be told about what was going on. He HAD to have understood that. And that, imo, imposed upon him a moral duty.

I would argue that he also had a legal duty. He was in a position of authority. I would argue that having that position of authority, even if it didn't include the express power to fire or discipline the rapist, resulted in the imposition of a duty of care by him to those he KNEW were being sexually assualted in the locker room shower....this happened in physical premises where he had god-like powers.

It was, beyond any doubt, foreseeable that in the absence of intervention, the rapes would continue, and merely requiring that the rapes be perpetrated somewhere else doesn't seem to be, shall we say, 'adequate'.

It seems equally clear that Paterno turned a blind eye to whether anyone followed up. And given that he is immersed in the whole 'sports is religion' nonsence that pervades so much US culture, it was forseeable to him that the AD would prefer not to create scandal....and plausible that Paterno himself was at least influenced, in his inactivity, by concern for his 'legacy'.

This is just as much a horror story as are the instances of the RC hierarchy's response to clerical child rape.

The man deserves what has happened and what may happen in the future....compare it to what has happened to the victims whose rape occurred after he knew of the problem....whose life would you rather have?....tho I suspect that the lawsuits will be settled by the university on a non-disclosure basis and without contribution by Paterno...wanna bet that his departure included an indemnity agreement?

[luke warm]

supposedly the perpetrator was a close friend of paterno... also supposedly, paterno reported (the same day) what he was told... the problem is, he seems to have stopped there... i'd at the very least have gone to my "close friend" and found out the truth of the allegations... i'd then, at the very least, have followed up within a day or two with the administration... there's no way in hell i'd have let much time at all pass without some type of action being taken, either by the school or by me

i hate to see paterno's reputation varnished in this manner but, based on what we've heard so far, he deserves it

[kenberg]

Phil, on 2011-November-10, 15:36, said:

I don't doubt the severity of the allegations. Nor the duration.

What I still am struggling with is the response by the trustees. There is a spectrum of possible responses between "do nothing" and "put Paterno in jail as an accessory to a crime" (assuming the State College, PA DA feels this way). From the university's standpoint, there is certainly an abundance of mitigating circumstances related to his long tenure and his good deeds at Penn State. Firing Paterno on the spot seems to be an extreme responses that does not take into any consideration his history.

In the end, this seems to be a criminal matter. If he were to be convicted of a crime, then I think that firing would be justified.

Maybe I'm wrong, but an assistant coach really reports to the AD and the university president in terms of his job. I do not think that a head coach can summarily fire an assistant coach. On NPR this morning, the new coach Tom Bradley would not answer questions about his knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, which is lawyerspeak for "he knew too".



Indeed. This stains anyone that knew about it. How many are there that knew that didn't lose their jobs today?

The trustees asserted that they were doing this in the best interests of the University. I suppose, perhaps, that is how they see it but I would put it differently. Less kindly. This grad assistant came with his father to see Paterno and explain what was going on. Paterno says he was never told the details. Good God!. A grad student comes to a legend to tell a story about another near legendary person, and the legend does not say "Tell me exactly what you witnessed"? We are entitled to draw reasonable conclusions as to why this was not said. A person who does not wish to know can make sure that he does not know.

And of course they did know. If not every detail they knew enough to ban him from campus so that whatever he was doing to little boys he would do it somewhere else.

Paterno had a choice: Protect the program or protect ten year old boys. He made his choice. The trustees have made theirs, and I would have hoped that they would have made it clear that whatever the consequences of firing him will be, whether good or bad for the University, they do not wish to be associated with someone who chose as he did.

I have made enough mistakes in my own life to not be eager to judge others. There are exceptions though, and this is one of them. I simply cannot understand his choice. The perpetrators actions can be explained by the fact that he is a sick twisted nut job. What is Paterno's excuse?

While I am at it, Paterno appeared on his porch and asked that people pray for the child. Coming from Paterno, that is sick.

[billw55]

Phil said:

Indeed. This stains anyone that knew about it. How many are there that knew that didn't lose their jobs today?

Many.

mike777 said:

This is far from over. It would not shock me if there are University trustees who are part of the coverup. What did they know and when did they know it? We are told the Univ. President knew about this stuff. I hope the Press, Police and DA ask them.

The police and DA already knew, back in 1998, but declined to press charges. Because the evidence was insufficient? Or because this was Penn State football?

luke warm, on 2011-November-10, 16:49, said:

supposedly the perpetrator was a close friend of paterno... also supposedly, paterno reported (the same day) what he was told... the problem is, he seems to have stopped there... i'd at the very least have gone to my "close friend" and found out the truth of the allegations...

The obvious inference is that he already knew, or at least strongly suspect.

kenberg, on 2011-November-10, 17:00, said:

The trustees asserted that they were doing this in the best interests of the University. I suppose, perhaps, that is how they see it but I would put it differently. Less kindly. This grad assistant came with his father to see Paterno and explain what was going on. Paterno says he was never told the details. Good God!. A grad student comes to a legend to tell a story about another near legendary person, and the legend does not say "Tell me exactly what you witnessed"?

Ditto.

And ditto for the administrators. And assistants, and janitors, and police, and DA, and ... nobody on the board of trustees? I think not.

[billw55]

hrothgar said:

Cynical old me thinks that Paterno (and for that matter the former President of the University) are being fired for two reasons:

1. Their inaction are going to expose Penn State to massive lawsuits. Paterno may have won a lot of football games and brought in money for the football program. But that's all in the past. The lawsuits are coming up.
2. The trustees probably believe that failure to take aggressive action will increase their exposure. In contrast, ***** canning the coach and the President gives the appearance of action and might play well with a jury.

mikeh said:

As a cynic, I'd add that it is possible that the decision to fire Paterno included the following spoken or silent considerations:

1. the guy is 84......doesn't he know when to quit?
2. We haven't actually done much, in football terms, for the past little while....maybe he's past it...see point 1
3. We've got a perfect excuse to do what we've wanted to do for years, but which we couldn't do so long as his halo was untarnished

Perhaps all of that, but most of all, trying to save their own butts. Which trustees knew?

[wyman]

mikeh, on 2011-November-10, 16:32, said:

As a cynic, I'd add that it is possible that the decision to fire Paterno included the following spoken or silent considerations:

1. the guy is 84......doesn't he know when to quit?
2. We haven't actually done much, in football terms, for the past little while....maybe he's past it...see point 1
3. We've got a perfect excuse to do what we've wanted to do for years, but which we couldn't do so long as his halo was untarnished

The cynic in me feels strongly that this factored in. I would have had no qualms if they just nuked the whole football program and rebuilt from scratch. But handpicking who stays and who goes leads me to think there was more to it.

I understand that the face of PSU (the prez) and the face of PSU football (JoePa) have to go if you're cleaning house. But just picking them, especially when you've got others who were at least as involved (e.g., Curley is on an "administrative leave of absence" and McQueary is coaching for God's sake) just seems wrong.

[aguahombre]

Thanks for the link to the Grand Jury Report, Mike777.

Historically, major scandals involving high-profile individuals have erupted on a pretty much regular basis.

Whether it be the Mi Lai massacre, Abu Graib, police use of force, corruption, Wall Street rip-offs, McMartin pre-school, FullTilt Poker, or whatever ---there are always grey areas of culpability: Who knew what? Did it really happen? Was it bad administration or just evil-doing? UNTIL NOW!

Historically, students have protested things about which they know little or nothing...sometimes violently. INCLUDING NOW!!

[mike777]

http://www.attorneyg...Presentment.pdf



Read what Paterno says on page 7.

He admits he was told that this guy was sexually assulting a ten year old boy in the showers of the football lockerroom at 9:30 at night.

If he needed more details he could have asked.

The lack of action over ten years by all of these actors are reason enough for termination.

Keep in mind what they really did was tell this guy to stop bringing naked young boys into the showers on the campus. So he took them someplace else.

[hrothgar]

The following article provides some interesting perspective on questions like

1. How many people knew about what was going on
2. How widely the blame should be spread

http://www.timesonli...1a4bcf6878.html

Please note the publication date (April)

[y66]

Hey coach, how about taking some responsibility for your monumental lapse in judgment and the consequences of that lapse?

[Bbradley62]

mike777, on 2011-November-10, 22:29, said:

He admits he was told that this guy was sexually assulting a ten year old boy in the showers of the football lockerroom at 9:30 at night.

If he needed more details he could have asked.

Why would the 75-year-old man want or need more details of a sexual assault?

I would really like to see much more separation of the potential lines of action here: you get fired for breaking your employer's policies; you go to jail for breaking the law; you get shunned for being a scuz-bucket.

I'm no JoePa fan, but... in 2002 (when this incident occurred) Sandusky was not Paterno's employee - he was a University retiree. It is almost certainly in accordance with PSU procedures and regulations that Paterno reported the situation to his superiors (the AD and the University's Senior VP), and he knew that the University President was also informed. You (the University) don't fire someone for doing exactly what you told him to do.

Separately, there very well may be a law that says that if you have second-hand knowledge of a sexual assault against a minor you are legally required to report it to the police. If JoePa broke the law, he should be prosecuted by the law. (He should have consulted an attorney about this in 2002, not 2011.) Either way, we can all think he's a scuz-bucket for not being more pro-active.

Of course, the situation with McQueary (who must have cut a deal, since he is not named in the report of the investigating grand jury) is similar but more intense: he had first-hand knowledge, not second-hand, and he had the opportunity to physically intervene at the time of the sexual assault.

Unless McQueary went and told the other assistant coaches (and there's no reason to believe that he did), the rest of them have no better than third-hand knowledge of anything. Basically, they've heard rumors.

Does anyone else think it's odd that the first paragraph of the 23-page report says that the grand jury makes "the following findings of fact and recommendation of charges", but never addresses the latter?

[kenberg]

I'm withdrawing what I said here. I guess I have said all that I want to say on the subject of Mr. Paterno.

[PassedOut]

Penn State, my final loss of faith
By Thomas L. Day

Quote

I’m 31, an Iraq war veteran, a Penn State graduate, a Catholic, a native of State College, acquaintance of Jerry Sandusky’s, and a product of his Second Mile foundation.

And I have fully lost faith in the leadership of my parents’ generation.

Followed by a pretty accurate explanation of why.

[kenberg]

I don't think that I am prepared to accept "guilt by age grouping" for what happened at Penn State. But to the extent we might all ask ourselves questions about for whom the bell tolls, I'm with him.

There was an astonishing piece in the Post today. A young man, apparently as a result of what happened at Penn State, decided to write about his own sexual abuse at the age of 8. I offer the piece not at all as an argument on Paterno, my current view is that I don't give a fiddler's eff what happens to Paterno, but rather as a courageous piece that could lead us all to reflect on our responsibilities to others.


http://www.washingto...1-12&bk=A&pg=17

[cherdano]

Phil, I am really disappointed in your posts.
1. I am pretty sure that Paterno had little doubt that the allegations were true - he probably already suspected something in 1998 when Sandusky "retired".
2. When you are in the position where you are the trusted person of authority in your organization (McQueary came to him, not the the AD or the president or the police), then you also have special responsibility. You can't pass the buck to those that are formally your superiors, but whom you make budge to your clout whenever you need it on any other matter.

I understand that Paterno has done a whole lot for Penn State - but he failed when his character was put to the test of his life. And it shouldn't have been a difficult test - you have pretty direct knowledge of sexual child abuse => you go to the police. And it doesn't matter that it will hurt the reputation of your organization.

[aguahombre]

PassedOut, on 2011-November-12, 08:35, said:

Penn State, my final loss of faith
By Thomas L. Day

kenberg, on 2011-November-12, 09:39, said:

http://www.washingto...1-12&bk=A&pg=17

Quite a contrast. The first one, the writer seizes from this trajedy an opportunity to espouse his political views The second one is an engaging perspective on what happened and its consequences.

Surprising that they both appeared in the Washington Post.

[PassedOut]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-12, 10:11, said:

Quite a contrast. The first one, the writer seizes from this trajedy an opportunity to espouse his political views The second one is an engaging perspective on what happened and its consequences.

Surprising that they both appeared in the Washington Post.

Seems appropriate to me that they both appeared in the Post. The first explains how he came to form those views.

[jdeegan]

I can't imagine cutting slack for a child molester. Even death row inmates feel superior to the "short eyes".

[kenberg]

jdeegan, on 2011-November-13, 15:59, said:

I can't imagine cutting slack for a child molester. Even death row inmates feel superior to the "short eyes".

I think this cuts the heart of it. In cases of child molestation, of course the perp is dead meat. But also adults who knew and did nothing will be held responsible, and adults who did not know, or claimed they did not know, but lacked knowledge only because they made it clear that they did not wish to know, will be held responsible.

Jesse James, Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, all have some glamor to some people. Child molestation falls into a completely different category. Anyone who averted their eyes will be held accountable.

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2011-November-12, 09:45, said:

Phil, I am really disappointed in your posts.
1. I am pretty sure that Paterno had little doubt that the allegations were true - he probably already suspected something in 1998 when Sandusky "retired".
2. When you are in the position where you are the trusted person of authority in your organization (McQueary came to him, not the the AD or the president or the police), then you also have special responsibility. You can't pass the buck to those that are formally your superiors, but whom you make budge to your clout whenever you need it on any other matter.

I understand that Paterno has done a whole lot for Penn State - but he failed when his character was put to the test of his life. And it shouldn't have been a difficult test - you have pretty direct knowledge of sexual child abuse => you go to the police. And it doesn't matter that it will hurt the reputation of your organization.

There is a point to consider here.

Chances are very high that Paterno was aware that the police and DA were involved in the 1998 incident, and passed on prosecuting Sandusky. Perhaps Paterno considered that the legal authorities had already taken their position on the matter.

In fact, we don't really know how many times the police and/or DA were contacted about issues with this guy. I know directly from my own community how the legal authorities can gloss over offenses by individuals related to a big name athletic program. I really believe there are more responsible parties here than a few coaches and administrators (and the perp, of course).