Penn State Sandusky scandal

Parent Cafe
2961

<p>We are not the national news, the NCAA, nor law enforcement here; this forum’s effect on Penn State is nil.</p>

<p>When a BOSS “suggests” one retire, that is a neon-light message that one’s future in his work-place is going to be hell if one stays. But Joe hadn’t won enough games to suit himself then, so he refused. IOW, he won the bluff with the President of the University and the BOT. But in so doing, Joe used up all his good-will, so that when he needed some from the BOT this past week, the kitty was empty.</p>

2962

<p>“Mini, whether the race were disclosed earlier or not, I do not think it would change the attitude of those on this board in any way. I had no idea what the race of the children were until you brought it up. </p>

<p>Sadly, you are correct that to some people in the world, it would make a difference. I am just not sure that those on this thread deserve disrespect when race was never part of the discussion for over 2,600 posts. And when it was brought up, not one person voiced that it made a difference in their views.” - Vlines</p>

<p>I agreed with Mini back on Post #2558:</p>

<p>“ ‘I live in America, but I don’t see everything in terms of race. And this topic has nothing to do with race.</p>

<p>Why do you always bring the conversation around to race?’</p>

<p>There is a possibility that race may come into this, depending on the race of the victims.”</p>

2963

<p>I am not sure I saw many or any attacks on PSU or football. I saw more of an attempt to explain how this could have happened:
so much “institutional” power accorded to one man, one program, so much money coming out of it might explain some of why multiple alleged incidents at PSU were not reported to the authorities or properly investigated, other incidents not leading to charges (no outside oversight, fear of not being believed when accuse a beloved figure in a beloved and crucial program, so many dependent on and connected to the program…)
With power comes responsibility, and in this case they did have independent authority very far up the channels to deal with situations like this.</p>

<p>I think another aspect of the whole thing that prompts some criticism of PSU and their football program and Paterno is that they held themselves up as the most honorable program in the country. It is hard not to feel deceived, let down, and shocked, and to think there is some hypocrisy involved. It would have been the moral thing to do to report these incidents, and attempt to find and take care of the victim, and make sure they reports properly investigated. And I mean this should have happened whether or not they believed the reports., or even just one report</p>

<p>I also saw some criticism of the students who protested before understanding the full implications, I assume.</p>

<p>The case may go to courts and it may not. The GJ report was made publicly available so there was a lot to mull over.
Why is it not right for people on CC to do this? To form judgements, to learn more, to come to new conclusions, to listen to others’ takes?</p>

<p>For PSU defenders (tilting against windmills on this thread, for the most part), I have a question:
if the 1998 and janitorial reports (these were on PSU property and/or were seen by PSU insiders) as described in the GJ statement (created after investigation, under oath testimony) had been investigated, can you not understand that future image problems would have been prevented?
Somebody at PSU seems to haven taken the risk that it was better to look away and avoid the publicity, which was a PR gamble that further incidents would not come to light, that they would “not get caught”. PSU dug itself into a deeper hole by NOT making sure these were investigated. The PR nightmare is much bigger now than it would have been if they had gone as far as they could back then. If they had made reports were in good faith, then they could have realized that an impartial and thorough investigation could also have resulted in a complete exoneration of Sandusky, as well.</p>

<p>This really is so similar to the Catholic Church crisis, it is amazing.</p>

<p>When Tylenol bottles were discovered to be tainted, JNJ IMMEDIATELY publicized it, asked consumers to throw away their bottles and drugstores to removes the bottles from their shelves, providing free replacements to all. The brand held up beautifully. Being up-front and honest, facing the situation and protecting the public, and solving a problem thought the proper channels is a GOOD strategy! And it is the moral thing to do.</p>

<p>The much more recent Toyota Prius situation was also interesting. It did reveal that the public channels of info many not be reliable and also have too much power to influence opinions. IMO the Japanese culture of shame is part of what made the problem turn into a scandal: they did not take the complaints seriously, address them publicly at the onset, allowing them to take a life of their own. </p>

<p>Look, the best approach from a PR approach is get out in front of all the information that may come out, control it by putting it out there yourself immediately with remorse, concern, morality, and respect for the rules, and doing everything you can to recompense the victims and prevent further such problems.</p>

2964

<p>performersmom, I don’t think some are saying that the situation that occurred here was not terrible. Of course it was! Can’t argue with those things you just mentioned. But it is still the acts of a few people. But there seems to be a huge bashing by some of ALL of PSU and that doesn’t seem warranted. I think the focus should be on the wrongdoing of those involved, and even then, after all the facts come out, though admittedly it is obvious that wrongdoing and some immoral acts occurred here, the details still to be determined.</p>

2965

<p>

</p>

<p>So true, performersmom, and Tylenol suffered no long-term damage from what could have been a devastating blow to the brand. Imagine if back in 1998, or even 2002, PSU officials had announced that a dangerous predator had been arrested due to their calling in the outside authorities. PSU could have rightfully pointed to their motto “Sucess with Honor” and say, “We lived up to our own high standards.” They would have preserved their image as good guys, and certainly would not be engulfed as they now are. Top executives are smart people, and it amazes me that they never seem to learn the lesson: It’s not the crime that kills you, it’s the cover-up.</p>

2966

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s exactly what it is. It’s a face-saving euphemism. </p>

<p>But even if it weren’t, if you’re “asked to retire” and you’re able to say “No, I don’t think I will,” then YOU hold the power.</p>

2967

<p>In 1998 he was turned in. There was an investigation and the prosecutor decided not to prosecute. How could Penn St have labeled him a dangerous predator- you are looking back in time and holding the people to a standard based on what happened in the future. Without him even being charged you think it was reasonable to label him a dangerous predator back in 1998?</p>

<p>Also you have no proof there was a cover up- lay out your facts that there was a calculated cover up to hide this and not just human error. Who was involved- what proof do you have? If there was a cover up- why is it not being prosecuted. Does it make you feel good to make baseless charges without facts. Is that your standard operating procedure?</p>

<p>SoJoe Paterno held power to hold on to his coaching job that means he was involved in a cover up to protect a pedophile?</p>

2968

<p>Tom1944: you left out 2002. After the accusations of 1998, and the eyewitness accounts reported to paterno in 2002 he did the bare legal minimum, and Sandusky was allowed access to the facilities, and was allowed by PSU to hold his “sleepovers” on satellite campuses as late as 2009. The only alternative to cover up is that they are all (including Paterno) complete idiots. How else to you explain this when even Paterno says he realized something inappropriate happened in 2002?</p>

2969

<p>Any adults man who runs around naked in a shower with little boys and horse plays, snapping towels, hugging so genitals touch, who admitted he did something wrong, even if no criminal charges were filed should have raised at least the eyebrows of those involved. Throw in the 2002 events and red flags should have been all over the place</p>

<p>Criminal charges not being filed doesn’t mean ignore situation. It means, houston we have a problem and we need to be hyper vigilant when it comes to creepy Jerry, and that’s the very least they should have been doing</p>

<p>Some are fixated that just because a legal case was not brought against Sandusky, that he should have been given the benefit of the doubt</p>

<p>If you had a friend over and your gold ring went missing, you couldn’t prove they stole it, but you might wonder, hmmmm.</p>

2970

<p>They are being accused of orchestrating a cover up by several people on this thread. I did not forget about the 2002 incident. I am waiting for the facts to come out about that. The GJ report is not the facts on that. It is the prosecutors questioning of individuals in the method the prosecutor determines to get an indictment. If there is a trial we will have an airing of the facts from both sides and we can make an informed decision. At that point we can see if there was a cover up or human error. We can also determine who of the several participants did what. We may even have a clearer understanding of why some people did not do more. They may deserve the harshest criticism but there also may be a reasonable explanation for their action or inaction at the time.</p>

2971

<p>tom, I think they’ve already produced their “reasonable explanation.” It consists of “Don’t blame me, I followed procedure.” My personal feeling is that where children are concerned, that just isn’t good enough. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about that.</p>

<p>As to the facts coming out – please remember that no one denies that Jerry had inappropriate contact with kids. On TV last week, even Jerry himself admitted to behavior which as Seahorses points out, should have raised all kinds of alarm bells.</p>

2972

<p>I asked this very question many pages ago: what if the victim was a young girl, not a young boy? Well, I found this in today’s NYtimes: called “Secret Dread at Penn State” where the writer speculates homosexuality in sports may have been perceived as ‘worse’ than pedephilia.

<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/secret-dread-at-penn-state.html?scp=1&sq=secret%20dread:%20penn%20state&st=cse[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/secret-dread-at-penn-state.html?scp=1&sq=secret%20dread:%20penn%20state&st=cse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2973

<p>It didn’t have to be this sit down and lay out a plan coverup, it seems it was more like let’s all do nothing and maybe say we did. A whole lot can be implied, let’s not say anything, ill handle this, doing nothing is as bad as a coordinated plan. And not following thru, allowing Jerry to hangout, not being men enough to admit there is a serious issue</p>

<p>Right now it seems they may start turning on each other to protect themselves, mcqweary in think is beginning to see light that his bosses will happily throw him under the bus. </p>

<p>Yes we reported, non there was nothing to report, we kicked him out of the locker rooms, but he was no one to worry about, so many contradictions</p>

<p>One area they need to be clear about is when police report is mentioned,was it in house cops, aka psu, or regular cops</p>

<p>For those who are waiting for legal results, if your child came home and said Jerry showered with him and they naked hugged, you would be okay with that?</p>

2974

<p>

</p>

<p>I always love this. They called the University police, not the “real cops” LOL</p>

2975

<p>The fact that the psu cops would be investigsating on of their own would be relevant and if mcqweary says he reported to the police, its needs to be made clearer that he reported psu police not outside police department</p>

<p>As you pointed out, university cops, paid by psu were the ones mcqweary told and voila they did nothing</p>

<p>Ps I didn’t say real, i said regular, which most people would see as city cops, and reporting to campus security is different from reporting to police not paid for by very people who had such close relationships with the accused, which would seems in this case, had a serious conflict of interest</p>

<p>And hops, for someone interested in facts, please don’t change my words</p>

2976

<p>So please define “regular cops” for us all?</p>

<p>Is a Texas Ranger a “regular cop” for you? Is an NCIS Agent a “regular cop” for you? Is an FBI agent a “regular cop” for you? Is a sheriff’s deputy a “regular cop” for you?</p>

2977

<p>A regualr cop, in this case, would not be a psu staffer who was in charge of the psu cops</p>

<p>The people you refer to have a duty to the public, the psu seemed to have a duty to the university</p>

<p>People aren’t stupid, people understand what I mean, ifnyou don’t, then, that explains your fierce loyalty </p>

<p>Hops, if your son came home and described naked showers and frontal genitall naked contact with an adult male, you would be fine with that?</p>

2978

<p>

</p>

<p>Have I once said that I would?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As do the police officers of the Penn State Police Department…

</p>

2979

<p>You didn’t answer the question. Would you be okay with your son in that situation? And if that happened , would you allow your child around that person? And how would you react if you found out someone knew and didnt do anything? Yu would give the naked man the benefit of the doubt if he said it was horseplay?</p>

2980

<p>

</p>

<p>I can’t speak for Seahorses, but all of those would meet the definition for me. The one thing they all have in common – they are not on the PSU payroll.</p>