<p>Tom-the message I got from whats happened at Syracuse is that the DA was not persuing or was dragging his feet on Fine, the Police Chief recognized that and leaked information the police had on Fine in order to force the DA’s hand.</p>
<p>But how did you get that message besides your preconceived opinion- the article gives no reason to think that. Why do you think politics has greater impact on a DA than it does on a Police Chief? They are both political positions.</p>
<p>Well, correct me if I’m wrong but a police chief is not an ELECTED position but a DA is.</p>
<p>“You already posted your belief that the motivation for these crimes was racism. You’re saying that there was something even worse that you won’t post?”</p>
<h1>1 - I NEVER said that the motivation for the crimes was racism. I said that we probably can’t understand the whole series of events without taking race into account. And by racism I do NOT mean personal prejudice. I mean a system of assumptions and privileges that benefits one group and denigrates another based on skin color.</h1>
<p>And to be precise, so I am misunderstood again:</p>
<p>Racism is more than prejudice, and more than bigotry. People in groups defined any way one chooses can hold and even express hateful attitudes toward members of other groups. But the difference between prejudice and racism lies in the fact that in the latter, power to control institutional policies is bound up with prejudice to produce benefits for some, deficits for others. This power confers advantages whether or not those who receive the benefits had any part in creating or ensuring them. Racism is a system of advantage, not simply a set of personal attitudes. Differences in power and status between people of different color do not flow from personal animosity between them, and do not disappear even when personal animosity does. They are not a matter of individual feelings or private emotions, sympathy or the lack thereof. As a person with lighter skin-tones, I have substantial advantages. I didn’t ask for them, and they exist whether I hold prejudicial attitudes or not. It would take a monumental effort on my part to reject these advantages, especially as in the context of contemporary culture, most of the time I don’t even notice that I possess them!"</p>
<p>Secondly, yes, I fear something far worse.</p>
<p>Bullswax, mini. You put links to articles suggesting the victims were black, you questioned how differently things might have turned out if the abuser were black and the victims white…you were deliberately trying to turn this whole thing into a race issue, for no good reason, but rather some silly reason of your own. I understood you perfectly.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>At least one report said that Sandusky preferred white boys. I guess sometimes it could be an advantage when someone is prejudiced.</p>
<p>EPTR- the police chief is put in the job by someone who is elected. It is a political job.</p>
<p>I don’t have the stamina to go through this entire thread or the volumes of material this has generated elsewhere. Has this thought surfaced anywhere - JoePa hit the significant “winningest coach” milestone just prior to all of this erupting. Were there powers to be who kept this low till be made #1?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mini - We have entirely different world views; I’m struggling to understand your framework. So, a question, in order to level-set: Do you believe that all human activities are understandable only when viewed through a racial perspective? Are there any aspects of day to day living that can be viewed nonracially?</p>
<p>If I understand mini he’s saying something like this</p>
<p>A white and a non white prperson go for a job. The white person dioesnt have a racist bone in their body. However the hiring person does. White person gets the job. Doesn’t know new boss hired them cause they were white. </p>
<p>It’s like saying tacking about the sexes and world viw. It is there always in how they are treated differently is always part of the equation.</p>
<p>P</p>
<p>From the Sports Illustrated vault, a Dec. 20, 1999 article:</p>
<p>[Jerry</a> Sandusky, the dean of Linebacker U, is leaving Penn - 12.20.99 - SI Vault](<a href=“http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017979/1/index.htm]Jerry”>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017979/1/index.htm)</p>
<p>Or, a white and non-white person apply for a job. In this example, the white is somewhat more qualified. Neither applicant is racist. The new(white) boss hires the nonwhite guy out of fear of being called racist, and the possible troubles if he hires the white guy. Real life example from my life.
That example shows the power a minority can sometimes hold merely by falsely threatening what we now call “the race card”.
That example does not address racism, prejudice or bigotry in the past. Does not show they don’t exist now, either. But it does show the leverage that Sometimes can be played by a minority to gain an unfair advantage.</p>
<p>mini, I don’t see how anything changes if Sandusky did indeed choose his victims based on race. Black or white or Hispanic or Asian, what he did is still a crime of dramatic proportions. The horrible story still exists, the cover-up continued, etc. Now if the victim was a young girl instead of a young boy, the story changes significantly. For one thing, McQ would have been more direct to stop the crime he witnessed. And there may not have been a huge cover-up that continued for years.</p>
<p>So thanks for raising this angle into the discussion, but (to me anyway) it doesn’t add anything.</p>
<p>mini may be making the point that if the children were white there would not have been a cover up.</p>
<p>goingmyway- the article you linked seems to indicate that Paterno and Sandusky did not have a personal relationship. In fact it seems to indicate even their working relationship was strained.</p>
<p>tom, there are many theories why there was a cover up… race, gender, age, the persons involved, etc. etc.</p>
<p>I’m confused, several posts are alluding to seeming to know the race of the victims, how do you know this? there were several victims, probably many we haven’t yet heard from, how are you making statements regarding race at this point?</p>
<p>from the SI article above, frightening to read how Jerry had them all fooled;
“My life changed when I came to live here,” says Matt. “There were rules, there was discipline, there was caring. Dad put me on a workout program. He gave me someone to talk to, a father figure I never had. I have no idea where I’d be without him and Mom. I don’t even want to think about it. And they’ve helped so many kids besides me.”</p>
<p>Who knows how countless others would’ve ended up had Sandusky’s organization not gotten involved. Partly because of his Second Mile responsibilities, Sandusky turned down a prime head coaching opportunity, at Maryland in 1991, and his decision to retire at the end of this season (his last game will be the Dec. 28 Alamo Bowl against Texas A&M) was partly based on his wanting to get more involved in fund-raising and program development for the organization. “Jerry has always been our heart and soul,” says Hank Lesch, Second Mile’s vice president of development.</p>
<p>If Sandusky did not have such a human side, there would be a temptation around Happy Valley to canonize him: Saint Sandusky, leader of linebackers, molder of men.</p>
<p>Says Millen, “A lot of people were surprised when Jerry said he was retiring. Me? I was surprised he stayed that long. Jerry has so many passions and so many gifts besides coaching football—a gift for teaching, a gift for helping, a gift for guiding kids. This is a man with a lot to do.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is pure conjecture, but if Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation (and I find it almost inconceivable to think he didn’t), he would have been disgusted by Sandusky. While he may have looked the other way in terms of the victims, I don’t think Paterno is an evil, soulless man. At the time, since there was an official investigation that ended with no charges, Paterno may have felt that by “retiring” Sandusky, he morally did all he could.</p>
<p>Of course, there’s no easy explanation for Paterno for the 2002 incident.</p>
<p>lima- that should read “may have been a cover up”. There has not been a finding of a cover up at this point. I will wait for the Freeh investigation/review and report before I decide.</p>
<p>goingmyway- every post here blaming Paterno is conjecture. All of a sudden it offends you. By the way why do you think I wrote seems to indicate. I did not take a firm stand. Again neither you or I know the full story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does not offend me. I still think Paterno has a lot to be accountable for, and I don’t blame anyone for putting part of the blame on Paterno. All I said was in 1998, he may have done all he thought he could. MAY have. He also may have been deeply involved in a coverup.</p>
<p>And it’s doubtful he has any excuse in 2002. So there. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>tom, I doubt that there was a cover-up in the sense of, say, the Watergate cover-up. There probably weren’t meetings and discussions where people made explicit plans about what to say to law enforcement or media; there probably wasn’t willful misinformation put out, destruction of evidence, or outright fabrication of storylines.</p>
<p>I think it was much more subtle than that. No one at PSU needed to say the words, “Let’s cover this up.” People understand the culture of their workplace without having it spelled out for them. In this case, the Penn State football brand had to be protected at all costs. Everyone knew without being told that “We don’t do anything to damage the program. We handle it quietly, internally.”</p>