If Curley and Schultz got the impression that investigating this was very important to Paterno, they would have moved heaven and earth to do it. It appears it was not.Originally Posted by Sea Ray
If Curley and Schultz got the impression that investigating this was very important to Paterno, they would have moved heaven and earth to do it. It appears it was not.
They need not rely on the football coach for inspiration to investigate. That's not Paterno's job. It is the job of the chief of campus police
If you can't understand why the most powerful man on the Penn State campus had a moral responsibility to see these accusations fully investigated once they were reported to him then I really don't know what else to tell you.
I do think that what Curley and Schultz did is far worse than what Paterno did. If Sandusky had never or rarely shown up on campus again after that, and had the university stopped supporting his charity than I think Paterno would be basically clear. However as we well know that wasn't the case and that is where some blame falls to Paterno.
This statement is true. They should not rely on Paterno to tell them what their job is. And, in most cases, its not the head football coach's job to do this.
But in a way, Paterno's reputation is working against him. If it were just some schlub coach from a mid-major school and something like this happened, he would catch heat for it, it would headline ESPN for a day or so, and maybe get canned, but there would be nowhere near the firestorm that happened with Penn State.
Paterno is supposed to be the moral compass of the Penn State football program (if not the whole Big 10 or major college football). He's the grandpa that has coached since forever and if there was one program that was clean in all the mess of college football, it is (or was) Penn State.
And its that reputation and that power that was his downfall. If there was anyone I'd pick to expose a tawdry mess like this, it would be Paterno. There are many schools and many coaches that I wouldn't put it past them to sweep something like this under the rug. But Paterno would have been about the last guy I'd expect it of. Fair or not, that's the expectation.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
I don't think Paterno swept anything under the rug. The cases of Schultz and Curley will bring a lot of facts to light such as how seriously did McQueary make it sound. He's already testified that he toned down his language in describing it to JoePa
I think it's interesting that all of the cautionary notes to avoid rushes to judgment that could end careers do not apparently extend to the allegations made Messrs. Schulz and Curley.
As for the contention that McQueary's testimony will somehow exonerate Paterno because he said he "toned down his language," I really don't know what to say:
Then there is Paterno's own grand jury testimony:McQueary described the meeting with Paterno, saying "I went to his house and sat at his kitchen table and told him I saw Jerry with a young boy in the shower. That it was way over the lines and extremely sexual in nature. The rough positioning I described but not in much detail." He said Paterno told him, "Sorry you had to see that. You did the right thing." Paterno followed up with him several times in the months following the incident, McQueary testified.
If you really think that Paterno has less moral culpability because, maybe, McQueary didn't use the words "anal rape," then, as I said before, I don't know what to say. I absolutely cannot understand the continued defense of Paterno, who has not been indicted of any crime and who has not really suffered any negative consequences of this whole scandal that were not fully deserved even if we completely believe his version of events (which, incidentally, I absolutely do not, nor can I see how any intelligent person who is even passingly familiar with the facts here can believe his story).Here is what he said: McQueary called him on a Saturday morning, he couldn't remember what year.
McQueary told him he'd seen Sandusky who was "fondling a young boy" in the showers of the Lasch Building.
"It was of sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't push Mike ... because he was obviously very upset," according to his testimony.
Last edited by top6; 12-27-2011 at 06:16 PM.
True. In an ideal world you would be correct. Paterno was the most powerful mam on campus. More powerful than the athletic director and more powerful than the school president. If Paterno wanted something done, it would have been done. If he didn't want something done, it wouldn't have been done. Sandusky was Paterno's friend. It stands to reason he didn't want his friend investigated.
It's a matter of how much you think Paterno should pay for his not having done enough which he himself admits. We all agree he should have done more. Is this mistake enough to trash his legacy?
Just for context the issue concerns the rape of children in Penn State showers that were directly under Joe Pa's supervision.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
My best friends mother is a retired middle school teacher and she told me that teachers are told they are considered "mandatory reporters". To which she said if they see it they are to stop it, go up the chain of command, and call the cops. If someone says something is wrong they are to go up the chain of command and not anyone else.
Paterno's getting beat up pretty bad in the middle of this but are university personnel held to the same standard as secondary teachers?
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change, the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
It was enough to force him to be fired in disgrace. Hard to see how that doesn't "trash his legacy" to some degree.
Also, if he cared about his legacy at all, or PSU anymore, he should have retired before the season, or as soon as he realized what was being investigated. Short of that, he should have resigned in November, and shouldn't have forced the university to do what it did. He's basically handled all of this wrong, all the way back to the moment he first found out that there were credible allegations that Sandusky molested children (which according to him was in 2002--although again that is completely unbelievable to anyone who is actually following this case).
Last edited by top6; 12-28-2011 at 12:40 AM.
Paterno was not, as far as I understand, a mandatory reporter, and that's why he was not indicted or charged with any crimes. I don't think anyone on here has suggested he should be. The argument is that he should have done more to prevent child rape than the bare minimum required by the law, especially when that child rape was being committed by a huge figure in PSU football history, at PSU facilities, and was connected to a charity that had many connections to PSU football.
That is true yet it is not true. Paterno may have had iconic stature but he still had his bosses who he had to report to and who had the ability to terminate him. While it may not exactly be comparable at OSU Jim Tressel was considered an icon. It didn't mean that he could operate anyway he wanted and it also didn't mean that his bosses couldn't terminate him. When you break it down Paterno was a football coach, a legendary football coach, who still had his superiors to report to.
I guess I'm just more understanding and forgiving than most
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
