Incredible ugliness at Penn State

[Larkin Fan]

Are you suggesting, somehow, that Joe Paterno has been unfairly treated here? Because if you are, that's pretty laughable. He was given a direct, first-hand, eyewitness account of a child being raped inside his locker room by a person who he knew very well. He knew this person had unrestricted access to the University (including an office on campus). More damning -- he KNEW that this man ran a charitable organization that put him in direct contact with young children every single day.

He did not contact the police.

Let that sink in for a second. Joe Paterno knew that a man who brought kids with him on road trips, brought kids with him onto campus, and let kids stay at his house. And he said NOTHING to any police agency. He said NOTHING to child protective services. He said NOTHING to the other people who attach their names to this charitable organization. He sat silently and allowed this predator to continue associating with kids every, single day.

Or, you can choose to be a Joe Paterno enabler and believe that he did his due diligence and assumed that the allegations where unfounded. OK. Fine. Then why in the hell did he let McQueary remain on staff? If you're to assume that Paterno believed that the police cleared Sandusky of wrongdoing, then that means you believe he allowed a member of his staff to remain who falsely accused someone of being a pedophile -- and not just anyone, a trusted member of Paterno's inner circle for 30 years.

If someone called you, shaken up, and told you that he just saw one of your close associates raping a child and you later found out that he was lying, would you ever associate with that person again? Would you employ that person? Would you trust part of YOUR livelihood (football success) to that person?

B.S.

Joe Paterno got EXACTLY what he deserved in this case. How many more victims did Sandusky have after this incident? Their blood is on the hands of Joe Paterno and Penn State University. How many past victims had to live with the shame these extra 10 years because Joe Paterno never brought this scumbag to justice? Their pain is on Joe Paterno's hands.

Sandusky is a monster. There is no question about that. He deserves the death penalty in my mind, and it's a shame that he can never know the horror he inflicted on these innocent victims. Paterno isn't a monster -- he's something far more insidious: a man who was willing to look the other way. He may never see the inside of a courtroom or a jail cell, but I hope his life from this point forward is a personal hell tormented by the thoughts of all the children he could have helped but failed.

I couldn't have said it better.

[redsfandan]

The interim coach is giving his 1st news conference now (on espn and who knows where else).

The interim coach just said that McQueary WILL be coaching Saturday but they haven't decided if he'll be on the sidelines or in a box.

[Larkin Fan]

http://www.businessinsider.com/jerry...donors-2011-11

That makes me sick. I hope that proves to be nothing more than a rumor.

[medford]

This is where I disagree with you. Paterno failed no doubt. But in my mind attaching any improper motives to his failure is simply too much. His failure is/was a big enough deal without being malicious. I think he was given multiple opportunities to do the brave thing and shed light on a problem that he didn't really know enough about. For whatever reason he didn't take those opportunities. He has said as much.

A couple of things to consider.
1) We're all speaking with the clarity of hindsight. We all are speaking as if Joe was indifferent to the suffering as it was going, but there's nothing which leads us to believe he knew the scope of what was going on. Essentially, Joe knew of rumors of "something inappropriate" and knew that the Grad Asst was traumatized by what he saw. But he also did what he believed was right at the time, and nothing else came of it.
Further, there's nothing which leads us to believe he helped cover up anything. He reported what he had heard to the higher ups. No doubt he should have followed up more closely, but I think its unfair to say that he tried to cover it up.

2) I think his fault was in trusting his friend and not recognizing that this wasn't something you could "fix". In the same way that a drug addict's friends trusted them, and an alcoholics friends and family trust them. Sandusky exploited that trust to continue his actions unabated.
I think part of the problem was that Paterno failed to see the true sick nature of Sandusky. That the allegations weren't something that was simply inappropriate, but were abusive. And this wasn't something that a man could "correct" but rather was a sickness that would never get better and would only be enabled when people didn't see it for what it was.

Let's assume for a minute that Joe is telling the truth, that the grad assistant told him only a rough outline of what he saw.
Would you cast a friend aside because some people had alleged he had done terrible things? Terrible allegations which were never followed up to your knowledge and which the person would undoubtedly deny?

Paterno's failure was in not stepping up when someone had to step up. In not putting his personal feelings aside and seeing the bigger picture. But I have no doubt that he did what he thought was the right thing at the time. It just turns out that he's human. And he failed. And quite honestly that's enough for me. He failed. He'd tell you as much.

Question, would you have fired him for what you say above?

I'll agree that my opinion of why things happened may be over the top a bit, though it should be looked into legally; why did he choose the look the other way? It may have been as simple as he was too scared of what the truth might be to do anything but look the other way. For that, I'm not sure that there is anything the legal system can/should do to him.

However, as a football coach, for what you said above, I'd fire him every time. Its his program, he's the head man in charge, it was his job to look into this and make sure its forwarded to the proper authorities (and no the AD, whom Joe holds more power than, and the schools VP of finance are not the final authorities, in my mind anyways, just perhaps the first step up the ladder). "I didn't know it was that bad" is absolutely a fireable offense in a case like this.

For the same reason, Mike McQueary needs to be let go. He knows what he saw, and he knows that Sandusky was allowed to remain around the program as well as the 2nd mile program. He may not be legally responsible to do have done more than he has done, but he was morally responsible to push this matter. For a program that like to claim "victory with honor" this wasn't very honorable and for that alone is worthy of dismissal. Perhaps he did push the issue, perhaps that is why it eventually found its way to a grand jury, I'd like to hear him speak about this. So far, nothing has come from the mouth of McQueary nor anything substantive from JoePa, nor anyone invovled. If I was McQueary, and I had done everything possible, including pushing this on to police and "forcing" the issue, you can bet your sweat hind end I'd to give my side of the story and clear my name. The fact that he hasn't come forward leads me to believe he was willing to look the other way as well for the good of the program as well as his own good will and coaching position.

And I'll say this, I've said they should be fired, perhaps fired is the wrong word at the moment, they both should be relieved of their duties for the time being so a full investigation can be ran. If either of their names are cleared beyond burying their heads in the sand, then I'd allow them to return to the program. So far all I've seen is silence and dodging the topic by all parties involved.

[Chip R]

And I'll say this, I've said they should be fired, perhaps fired is the wrong word at the moment, they both should be relieved of their duties for the time being so a full investigation can be ran. If either of their names are cleared beyond burying their heads in the sand, then I'd allow them to return to the program. So far all I've seen is silence and dodging the topic by all parties involved.

Legally, they would be better off if they kept their mouths shut - especially Paterno and McQuerry.

[bucksfan2]

Well said Hoosier and this pretty much matches my feelings on this matter. And I also agree with KoryMac5 when he said

I'm not so perfect myself to where I feel that I can judge another man on his actions or inactions. Seems like a lot of judgements are being rendered in this thread in regards to Paterno.

This is where I disagree with you. Paterno failed no doubt. But in my mind attaching any improper motives to his failure is simply too much. His failure is/was a big enough deal without being malicious. I think he was given multiple opportunities to do the brave thing and shed light on a problem that he didn't really know enough about. For whatever reason he didn't take those opportunities. He has said as much.

A couple of things to consider.
1) We're all speaking with the clarity of hindsight. We all are speaking as if Joe was indifferent to the suffering as it was going, but there's nothing which leads us to believe he knew the scope of what was going on. Essentially, Joe knew of rumors of "something inappropriate" and knew that the Grad Asst was traumatized by what he saw. But he also did what he believed was right at the time, and nothing else came of it.
Further, there's nothing which leads us to believe he helped cover up anything. He reported what he had heard to the higher ups. No doubt he should have followed up more closely, but I think its unfair to say that he tried to cover it up.

Most of the media coverage has been attacking with the clarity of hindsight. To be fair they have no idea what was reported or discussed between Joe Pa and his superiors. Now while you can say that Joe Pa was "Penn State" that didn't mean he didn't have superiors. The face of your business could be the top salesman, but he still has superiors.

I guess what clouds this up for me is there were already allegations in 1998 in which no action was taken by the authorities. The DA decided not to press charges then and you could say that maybe Joe thought it was another baseless allegation made upon his friend. What we do know is that Joe reported it to his bosses. We don't know if he ever followed up, we don't know if it was ever talked about again. In the end that will come out and we will be able to revisit out opinion on this matter.

I don't know what Joe did or did not do. I know that he reported this to his superiors and went upon his daily business. Something that I think many of us would have done had we been told of a colleague doing something illegal. Maybe Joe thought that his AD or the VP of PSU were going to investigate it further. Maybe he thought it had been reported to the proper authorities.

2) I think his fault was in trusting his friend and not recognizing that this wasn't something you could "fix". In the same way that a drug addict's friends trusted them, and an alcoholics friends and family trust them. Sandusky exploited that trust to continue his actions unabated.
I think part of the problem was that Paterno failed to see the true sick nature of Sandusky. That the allegations weren't something that was simply inappropriate, but were abusive. And this wasn't something that a man could "correct" but rather was a sickness that would never get better and would only be enabled when people didn't see it for what it was.

Let's assume for a minute that Joe is telling the truth, that the grad assistant told him only a rough outline of what he saw.
Would you cast a friend aside because some people had alleged he had done terrible things? Terrible allegations which were never followed up to your knowledge and which the person would undoubtedly deny?

Paterno's failure was in not stepping up when someone had to step up. In not putting his personal feelings aside and seeing the bigger picture. But I have no doubt that he did what he thought was the right thing at the time. It just turns out that he's human. And he failed. And quite honestly that's enough for me. He failed. He'd tell you as much.

I pretty much agree with all of this. Joe failed and has admitted to doing so. But in the scope of failure I put Joe down pretty low. As of right now he failed to follow up.

[medford]

Legally, they would be better off if they kept their mouths shut - especially Paterno and McQuerry.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't know that I agree with that, if they actually did everything that they could. If the only reason that the grand jury injuction came down was because JoePa and/or McQueary pushed the issue with law enforcement, then I see no harm that can come from a brief press conference, no questions, looking into the camera expressing your sadness for the victims and saying I went to XYZ on however many days, and this is why the grand jury injuction was issued on saturday evening. If that was indeed the case, and either one did that exact thing, I don't see how that hurts them.

If they buried their heads in the sand or looked the other way, then I think you're right, legally they're better off saying nothing in public. giving no reasonable answer in public is what is largely driving the public opininon that they did nothing more than the bear minimum and why PSU should release them of their duties.

[blumj]

That makes me sick. I hope that proves to be nothing more than a rumor.

Honestly just walked into this whole story, I probably know as little about college football as anyone who's aware of this at all now. My first thought when seeing the 2nd item on the timeline linked to earlier: great, a phony charity created to supply a pedophile with access to victims. A moment later, I'm wondering, just the one pedophile? Not likely. And zero reason to give them the benefit of the doubt about it.

[redsfandan]

I'm just amazed at how poorly the university handled this from the first allegations to now. (McQueary is still going to coach. Why??) Apparently this is supposed to be quick and decisive action by the board of trustees. But, all they're doing is playing catch up and damage control when they could have, and should have, acted sooner. The challenge for them now will be to minimize how much damage this does to the school. And they're going to have their work cut out for them cuz this could be really costly.

[Yachtzee]

The most damning part of this sordid affair is that Joe Paterno was tipped off about this kind of thing and not only didn't do enough about the incidents he knew of, but didn't seem to have bothered to do anything about Second Mile. If true that he is even an honorary board member, that makes it worse. I liken it to a Catholic Bishop telling a pedophile priest he has to retire from his post at the local parish, but then, knowing the priest also runs a daycare center, not only turns a blind eye, but allows that priest to use his name to bring in kids and donors, well that's an enabler of the worst kind. Its one thing to know and not do anything. Its another to know someone has a problem like that and, even passively, allow your name and reputation to be attached to the instrument used by this man to lure his victims. I wonder how much money, if any, Paterno and others at Penn State have donated to Second Mile with knowledge of Sandusky's predilictions. If its even one red cent, then they're complicit beyond just passive assistance.

Paterno leading a "We are Penn State" cheer is a slap in the face of the good students and alumni of that institution. Not all students there are knuckleheads rioting to keep this guy around and they now have to deal with the black mark this fiasco has brought on the institution.

[Sea Ray]

The interim coach just said that McQueary WILL be coaching Saturday but they haven't decided if he'll be on the sidelines or in a box.

I don't get that. He's more culpable than anyone here because no one could go to the police without him. It's his testimony that the police needed to hear. Plus the fact that he could have saved the boy from the abuse to begin with. As I recall he was 28 yrs old at the time, not a kid.

[Hoosier Red]

Question, would you have fired him for what you say above?

In a perfect world? Yeah I'd fire him, along with the Athletic Director, President and pretty much the entire administration and football staff. I'd then hire the best investigator to come in and see who knew how much and when. I'd set up a fund independent from university control to pay him. I'd do whatever possible to make sure that any fired individual,as part of the severence package, agreed to cooperate with the investigator(s.)
Finally, I would resign my seat on the Board of Trustees and encourage the rest of the board members to do the same. I said yesterday that I'd forfeit the rest of the season. As was pointed out to me, probably not fair to the student athletes, but if we're in the business of making a statement, I'd go ahead and do all of that, and more. I would set up a fund that could be used to compensate victims of the tragedy. I'd donate any "profit" from the athletic activities to this fund.

In my mind, the Penn State BOT firing Paterno and Spanier and appointing an investigative team(with nothing guaranteeing their independence) is the equivalent in my mind of taking Sandusky's keys from him.
Inadequate doesn't even begin to cover it.

[MWM]

Hoosier, I'm usually in agreement with on most things, but I couldn't disagree with you more here. What motives could he possible have had to stand idly by and not do anything other than inform the AD? If it weren't to protect the image of the program than it was simply that he didn't care much about it. I don't see any other explanation.

You brought up that he wasn't told all the specifics by McQueary. To that I wonder how much more he needed to know to know that it was an awful thing that went on. Fondling or some kind of sexual act with a 10 year old boy is more than enough. So let's say that's all it was. Does that change how Paterno should have reacted? I don't think so.

On top of that, why the hell wouldn't he press for more details. If Joe wasn't clear on what went on, and didn't bother to probe McQueary for more details, then that by itself is a huge indictment on Paterno. How can someone come and tell you he saw your right hand man for 30 years doing something sexual with a 10 year old boy and you not try to figure out what the hell happened? The whole "he didn't know specifics" is about as paper thin a defense as can be. If he didn't, he should have and shame on him for not trying to find out of boys were being sodomized in his showers.

And perhaps most damning, was that Paterno's own son said that Paterno never even asked Sandusky about the incident. DIDN'T EVEN ASK THE GUY WHO CONTINUED TO SHOW UP AND USE THE FACILITIES. No, instead Joe sent his players TO Sandusky to help him with his charity.

Look at the timeline of events posted earlier and then tell me Joe Paterno didn't know exactly what Sandusky was doing. Joe testified to the grand jury, so he knew there were serious allegations, and yet Sandusky continued to use the facilities as recently as last week!!

These allegations started as far back as 1998 and there multiple incidents that I don't how Joe Paterno didn't know about them. If Paterno didn't go to the police because he turned it over the AD, but demanded the guy be completely banished from his facilities and his program because he didn't want that scumbag around his university, then I may have a little more understanding for him. To me, that's the thing that's most telling. I may be able to wrap my mind around him not going himself to the police, but I can't begin to understand how, knowing what he knew, he allowed Sandusky to continue to be a part of the program and use his facilities.

[Razor Shines]

Hoosier, I'm usually in agreement with on most things, but I couldn't disagree with you more here. What motives could he possible have had to stand idly by and not do anything other than inform the AD? If it weren't to protect the image of the program than it was simply that he didn't care much about it. I don't see any other explanation.

You brought up that he wasn't told all the specifics by McQueary. To that I wonder how much more he needed to know to know that it was an awful thing that went on. Fondling or some kind of sexual act with a 10 year old boy is more than enough. So let's say that's all it was. Does that change how Paterno should have reacted? I don't think so.

On top of that, why the hell wouldn't he press for more details. If Joe wasn't clear on what went on, and didn't bother to probe McQueary for more details, then that by itself is a huge indictment on Paterno. How can someone come and tell you he saw your right hand man for 30 years doing something sexual with a 10 year old boy and you not try to figure out what the hell happened? The whole "he didn't know specifics" is about as paper thin a defense as can be. If he didn't, he should have and shame on him for not trying to find out of boys were being sodomized in his showers.

And perhaps most damning, was that Paterno's own son said that Paterno never even asked Sandusky about the incident. DIDN'T EVEN ASK THE GUY WHO CONTINUED TO SHOW UP AND USE THE FACILITIES. No, instead Joe sent his players TO Sandusky to help him with his charity.

Look at the timeline of events posted earlier and then tell me Joe Paterno didn't know exactly what Sandusky was doing. Joe testified to the grand jury, so he knew there were serious allegations, and yet Sandusky continued to use the facilities as recently as last week!!

These allegations started as far back as 1998 and there multiple incidents that I don't how Joe Paterno didn't know about them. If Paterno didn't go to the police because he turned it over the AD, but demanded the guy be completely banished from his facilities and his program because he didn't want that scumbag around his university, then I may have a little more understanding for him. To me, that's the thing that's most telling. I may be able to wrap my mind around him not going himself to the police, but I can't begin to understand how, knowing what he knew, he allowed Sandusky to continue to be a part of the program and use his facilities.

Very much this.

Whether or not Mcquery used the words "rape" or "sodomy", Paterno testified to the grand jury that there was something of a sexual nature going on. Like Jay Bilas said "once you hear '60 year old man' '10 year old boy' 'showers' and 'sexual nature' you don't need much else."

A Penn State player said on the radio this morning that Sandusky was very much around and a part of things after 2002. Players were encouraged to help out with the Second Mile.....After 2002!!! Paterno deserves everything he gets and worse. There are times when you can say for certain "yes, I would have acted differently if I was in that situation" and this is one of them.

"I wish I had done more" is pretty damning and makes me even more angry.

[Hoosier Red]

Hoosier, I'm usually in agreement with on most things, but I couldn't disagree with you more here. What motives could he possible have had to stand idly by and not do anything other than inform the AD? If it weren't to protect the image of the program than it was simply that he didn't care much about it. I don't see any other explanation.

You brought up that he wasn't told all the specifics by McQueary. To that I wonder how much more he needed to know to know that it was an awful thing that went on. Fondling or some kind of sexual act with a 10 year old boy is more than enough. So let's say that's all it was. Does that change how Paterno should have reacted? I don't think so.

On top of that, why the hell wouldn't he press for more details. If Joe wasn't clear on what went on, and didn't bother to probe McQueary for more details, then that by itself is a huge indictment on Paterno. How can someone come and tell you he saw your right hand man for 30 years doing something sexual with a 10 year old boy and you not try to figure out what the hell happened? The whole "he didn't know specifics" is about as paper thin a defense as can be. If he didn't, he should have and shame on him for not trying to find out of boys were being sodomized in his showers.

And perhaps most damning, was that Paterno's own son said that Paterno never even asked Sandusky about the incident. DIDN'T EVEN ASK THE GUY WHO CONTINUED TO SHOW UP AND USE THE FACILITIES. No, instead Joe sent his players TO Sandusky to help him with his charity.

Look at the timeline of events posted earlier and then tell me Joe Paterno didn't know exactly what Sandusky was doing. Joe testified to the grand jury, so he knew there were serious allegations, and yet Sandusky continued to use the facilities as recently as last week!!

These allegations started as far back as 1998 and there multiple incidents that I don't how Joe Paterno didn't know about them. If Paterno didn't go to the police because he turned it over the AD, but demanded the guy be completely banished from his facilities and his program because he didn't want that scumbag around his university, then I may have a little more understanding for him. To me, that's the thing that's most telling. I may be able to wrap my mind around him not going himself to the police, but I can't begin to understand how, knowing what he knew, he allowed Sandusky to continue to be a part of the program and use his facilities.

Again, it seems so clear through hindsight. I think because the emotional response is so strong when you see the allegations in totality, it's hard to imagine what it would feel like as the scene is unfolding.

Again I try to imagine these allegations are made against a friend I've had for 50 years.

The allegations are there in black and white, but I'll likely remember the very vivid images I have of the individual. When presented with empirical evidence, the first thought I would have had was "How many times was he around Jay and Scott? Or any of the grandkids."
And quite honestly, I'll admit to you that a very large portion of my brain would most likely deny that any of these allegations could possibly be true because I can't imagine the horror that would be involved in admitting to myself that I'd let a pedophile hang around the children I loved. We see this all the time, friends, parishioners, spouses. They all deny to themselves what was going on, no matter how much evidence they are presented.

It's easy to say that he should have thought of the other children, the actual victims. But people's minds will so very often go into a protective shell and block out any harmful information.

Even without the stark self defense filter a brain processes information through; people deny empirical evidence ALL THE TIME. That's what most of the fun baseball related discussions are about. A scout's eye and instinct(The kid's awesome, I've never seen a guy run from home to first that fast) versus the empirical evidence(his .050 OBP shows he couldn't find his way to first base with a map, and when he did get to first he was thrown out stealing two times in three attempts.)

I say this because I don't think he "chose" his friend over the victims. I don't think he "chose" his football program over the truth. At least not in the way that he actively and rationally decided those things were more important. I think he took all the information in through the various filters in his brain and did what he thought was best.

I'm no psychologist, but from what I've read on cognitive functions, it seems very much possible that McQueary could have graphically described what happened, Paterno could have taken that in and without even trying to see his friend in the best possible light processed it as "something inappropriate which I'll talk to the AD about." In other words, as the information is being processed, before a rational mind tries to spin it, it's already become something that will require a small "fix."

If I'm wrong, and Paterno's the only one who could truly know. Than he's as much of a monster as Sandusky. If he decided that his friend's reputation and his football team's reputation were more important than the scores of abused children, than quite honestly his soul is most likely so broken that I don't think he could have lived through the last 20 years.