Paterno

[Phil]

:(

 

It seems to me that we will be a better society when one is judged on the whole of his career instead of on a single lapse of judgement.

[wyman]

Two thoughts:

 

1) In discussing what started this firestorm -- seeing as the events in question are a decade old -- it was brought up that Paterno had just become the winningest coach in CFB.

 

Coincidence?

 

2) Someone tangentially related to your business (you are a middle manager, and we'll say this guy is a vendor you've only met once) comes in and tells you that one of your subordinates -- whom you've overseen for years, and who you consider a family friend -- was diddling some kid behind the office. What's your play? What kind of odds do you set on the story being true? What kind of odds do you set on the guy's career, life, etc. being ruined if you immediately call the cops? Do you think advising the actual eyewitness to call the cops and reporting the story to your boss should suffice?

 

Re 1) I think this is fishy.

Re 2) I think "passing the buck" -- which is what the media has been killing Paterno for -- is totally fine when you're not an eyewitness, and when the story sounds implausible.

 

edit: and I agree with Phil, depending on the lapse of judgment of course.

[blackshoe]

:(

 

It seems to me that we will be a better society when one is judged on the whole of his career instead of on a single lapse of judgement.

 

When I was in the Navy, the relevant saying was "one 'aw, sh*t' wipes out a thousand 'atta boys'.

[bd71]

Two thoughts:

 

1) In discussing what started this firestorm -- seeing as the events in question are a decade old -- it was brought up that Paterno had just become the winningest coach in CFB.

 

Coincidence?

 

Yes. If you read the grand jury report on the charges against the accused molester, the first-listed charges are much more recent (2008/2009 I believe). Reading between the lines, those more recent complaints likely instigated an investigation, through which older charges came to light. The 2-3 years since the most recent charges allegedly occurred seems like a plausible timetable for a full-scale police investigation, deliberation by prosecutors on whether to bring charges, and then following through and bringing those charges up through a grand jury.

 

 

 

2) Someone tangentially related to your business (you are a middle manager, and we'll say this guy is a vendor you've only met once) comes in and tells you that one of your subordinates -- whom you've overseen for years, and who you consider a family friend -- was diddling some kid behind the office. What's your play?

 

I think this analogy can be improved. I would start it like this: "Someone you work with closely in your business (you are the chief executive of the most powerful and visible division of your large corporation) tells you that one of your former subordinates who is still tangentially related to your business was..."

 

 

What kind of odds do you set on the story being true? What kind of odds do you set on the guy's career, life, etc. being ruined if you immediately call the cops?

 

Police can conduct these investigations quietly; so reporting this is NOT the same as destroying someone's career. Indeed, the accused in this case had been investigated in 1998 (or so) on child molestation suspicions by the Penn St. police department without it being publicized at all as far as I can tell. Also, Joe Paterno had significant influence over whether the guys career/life might be ruined by a mere investigation...if Paterno had referred this directly to the cops and they came up with nothing, he would be in a prime situation to help address any leaks or backlash from that.

 

 

Do you think advising the actual eyewitness to call the cops and reporting the story to your boss should suffice?

 

No. Ethically and legally, you must look out for children where there is a chance they are being abused and report it to the authorities. This is so much more true when you personally have the power to help manage any unwarranted backlash against the accused that may emerge.

[mike777]

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

 

 

Grand Jury Report

[wyman]

At the very least, can someone tell me how McQueary's coaching this weekend?

[bd71]

At the very least, can someone tell me how McQueary's coaching this weekend?

 

Here I'm with you 100%. This guy actually saw a kid getting molested and basically ran away. Forget who should have or did report this all to the cops, he could have stopped it from happening at the time but didn't...

[hrothgar]

:(

 

It seems to me that we will be a better society when one is judged on the whole of his career instead of on a single lapse of judgement.

 

Let's be clear: That "single lapse of judgement" involved the rape of 10 year old boy and a subsequent cover-up.

 

Celebrate Paterno all you want for his achievements as a football coach, but don't pretend for a minute that he should be allowed to hold any kind of supervisory position. Moreover, given the series of lawsuits that are about to hit Penn State, its ridiculous to suggest that the organization should do anything but running him out of town on a rail.

 

FWIW, I think that we'll be a better society when the dismissal of a football coach doesn't eclipse the firing of the president of the university.

(Don't get me started on the fact that students are rioting in favor of an accessory to child rape)

[kenberg]

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

 

 

Grand Jury Report

 

 

Having read as much of this as I can without throwing up, I would say that "lapse of judgment" is an extremely generous way of describing the actions, or lack of actions, of any of the people who were in a position of responsibility.

[mikeh]

Phil, I am very disappointed in your post.

 

Paterno, by virtue of his position and his previously promoted, and probably justified, reputation held an almost god-like position at Penn State.

 

He learned, from a direct source, that his second-in-command was physically raping a young child! Not 'acting inappropriately'. Not 'displaying questionable judgement'. Not, say, smoking dope.

 

There is little difference, in terms of moral culpability, imo, between child rape (and this wasn't a 'child' close to the age of consent) and murder. Would you forgive Paterno if the allegation was that the witness has seen this guy murder someone?

 

This was, remember, Paterno's second-in-command...a man with whom Paterno worked very closely every day.....and for year after year he continued to do so, knowing or at least surely suspecting that NOTHING had been done to investigate this crime.

 

And, we now know, throughout this period, Sandusky was allegedly abusing more and more innocent victims. Some 'lapse of judgements' carry graver consequences than others.

 

Also....don't the protests in support of him say something very sad about the position of sports in US culture?

[mike777]

Just to clear up a couple of things.

 

This was an ex employee not his current second in command.

 

It is in dispute what Paterno was told but he did not follow up with the child or his parents.

 

He does admit he was told that a grown man was doing something sexually to what appears to be a ten year old boy in the shower area of the football locker room.

 

To be fair the AD after a few weeks of reflection basically told this guy to stop bringing young boys onto campus and taking naked showers with them in the football locker room and it appears Paterno agreed with this restriction.

[blackshoe]

I wonder how many kids this guy molested between the time Paterno became aware of the early case and the time he (not Paterno, the other guy) was finally caught. Is Paterno legally culpable in any such cases? Should he be?

[mike777]

I wonder how many kids this guy molested between the time Paterno became aware of the early case and the time he (not Paterno, the other guy) was finally caught. Is Paterno legally culpable in any such cases? Should he be?

 

 

 

civil legally probably, otherwise I would guess no. He did not witness the crime and I doubt he could go to jail for failing to call the police. Since then the law has changed a bit and at some point a boss has to call in the police but it is a bit murky how high up a boss you must be even under current law.

[hrothgar]

 

 

1) In discussing what started this firestorm -- seeing as the events in question are a decade old -- it was brought up that Paterno had just become the winningest coach in CFB.

 

Coincidence?

 

 

Few comments:

 

1. The following web site has a good timeline of the events in question: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

 

2. Paterno broke Eddie Robinson's record on October 8th. The grand jury investigation against Sandusky was initially reported on back in March. It seems far fetched to suggest any kind of relationship between the record and the arrest.

 

3. Sandusky resigned as an assistant coach back in 1999, however, he was granted a position as a Professor emeritus and the university gave him full use of the sport facilities. This continued for close to 10 years after Sandusky (alledgedly) raped a 10 year old boy in the university showers.

[PassedOut]

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

 

Grand Jury Report

Absolutely disgusting that this went on for years and years. And it's hard to imagine that no one at The Second Mile had any inkling of this, especially considering that molesters often try to get involved in such organizations.

[wyman]

Paterno broke Eddie Robinson's record on October 8th. The grand jury investigation against Sandusky was initially reported on back in March. It seems far fetched to suggest any kind of relationship between the record and the arrest.

 

I thought he broke the record when they beat the Illini on Oct 29, only a week before the arrest.

[billw55]

The thread title is misleading.

 

This situation is not about one man who could, and should, have done more than he did. It is about many adults who could, and should, have done more. Focusing predominantly on one individual due to his fame relative to the others is misguided.

 

Worst of all (if I have read everything in the news correctly), Penn State banned Sandusky from bringing youth on to the campus following the reported incident. This is an inherent admission that one or more individuals in authority found the information reported to be credible. This is far beyond offensive.

 

Legally, nobody involved was a mandatory reporter, as far as I know. Morally .. it is hard to find words.

[Phil]

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".

 

Legally' date=' nobody involved was a mandatory reporter, as far as I know. Morally .. it is hard to find words. [/quote']

 

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

[mike777]

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.

 

I expect this guy will end up talking to the cops and he may not have been a lone actor preying on young boys in Happy Valley.

[hrothgar]

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.

 

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.

 

If I'm feeling a little less cynical, I'd hope that the trustees also fired these individuals because its the right thing to do.

 

You don't sweep rapes under the rug, especially when you know that the individual involved is running a children's charity...

And telling the ex coach that he is no longer allow to shower with prepubescent boys on university property hardly seems like sufficient action.

 

How many are there that knew that didn't lose their jobs today?

 

Probably a fair number. However, firing a random janitor or three doesn't have the same deterrent effect, nor is it as effective at sending a message to the media.

On the other hand, firing a beloved coach and removing the President is a powerful mea culpa.

 

There is a spectrum of possible responses between "do nothing" and "put Paterno in jail as an accessory to a crime"

 

Some of these responses are outside the control of the trustees. For example, they can't put Paterno in jail.

On the other hand, they probably have the ability to dismiss him with cause and potentially rescind retirement benefits, ban him from the campus, and a wide variety of other such actions.

 

I, personally, would find these sorts of actions entirely appropriate...

[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]

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]

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

Many.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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?