<p>annasdad- doesn’t the statement show that he felt Curley and Schultz did not lie to the grand jury. I will google the statement to see the exact quote.</p>
<p>tom, of course, you’re correct that no one is perfect, not even close. But so many, many people failed to do what was necessary to stop Sandusky. That’s not a mistake. That’s a decision.</p>
<p>Here is Spanier’s statement- </p>
<p>The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance. </p>
<pre><code>With regard to the other presentments, I wish to say that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately.
</code></pre>
<p>What was so awful about it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Triponey quote was from an email that she wrote to Spanier when she was still employed by Penn State with intention to change the system and to get better cooperation from the school and the football team many years ago when she was the dean at the school. It was written after a student was hospitalized after being assaulted by a number of players on the football team. It is not a statement that was written recently with an axe to grind or after she sees a weakness like you unfairly stated. I guess it is ok to jump to conclusion as long as it is not against the PSU establishment.</p>
<p>If you can’t see what is “so awful” about it, I’m afraid I can’t help you. You are the one who endlessly criticizes people here for what you consider a rush to judgment, yet when there’s a rush to judgment in the other direction, that’s A-OK with you.</p>
<p>When was the e-mail released to the media and why?</p>
<p>annasdad- what rush to judgment he showed support for people he worked with. He said he thought the facts would show they would be exonerated. </p>
<p>You think that is a rush to judgment?</p>
<p>For those of you critical - do you feel that statement was so out of line. Now I happen to think annasdad is grasping at straws here. Do you feel Spaniers statement is equivalent to what those critical of him and Paterno have been saying on this thread. I have to be honest I do not see that.</p>
<p>“The program has always had that squeaky-clean image. Now I have to wonder whether that was really due to honor and integrity – or to a systematic policy of sweeping crimes and infractions under the rug?”</p>
<p>There are other possibilities you perhaps haven’t considered.</p>
<p>“If a man admitted to me he horse around with naked boys in a shower, and it was reported to me a sexual event very likely was happening with a child just down the hall, then, gee, I might have gone, dudes, we to make sure Sandusky stops.”</p>
<p>I battle between images of Joe as a control freak who knows absolutely everything, and has a massive amount of power that he’s quite willing to wield when needed, or Joe as suffering from incipient Alzheimers for a long time, a figurehead who really doesn’t think straight but can still manage to inspire.</p>
<p>And even there, there are other possibilities.</p>
<p>Jerry I get. He’s sick, and does sick things, and feels compelled to do sick things, and doesn’t entirely internalize the fact that they are wrong. Or maybe he once did, but by the end, that was beyond him. But Joe? He’s very difficult to square given the little we know. (I think there’s lots more that might…or might not…eventually come out.)</p>
<p>How could she be taking shot at PSU several years ago when none of this ever came out? You made a very unfair statement against her, please listen to your own plea about jumping to conclusion.</p>
<p>My point and I should have clarified it is that she may be correct in her analysis but she is one voice, one opinion. Her opinion should be considered but it is not the be all and end all of the analysis. She is one voice. It is not gospel.
It does seem strange that she took this time to release the e-mail now. Perhaps she was not trying to damage Paterno.</p>
<p>By the way tt I did use “Or maybe”</p>
<p>Her opinion? You mean a student was not beaten up so bad that he had to be hospitalized? And the players involved were properly disciplined? Do you dispute those facts?</p>
<p>I never disputed any facts. I said she had an opinion about how Paterno wanted things handled. What Lasma quoted does not discuss the incident. If I recall it involved Paterno not believing he could or should have football players testify against each other and there was no way for her to compel them to come in and talk to her. She felt he was wrong and should have forced them to testify. He felt it would damage the players relationship with each other.
If that is an accurate assessment I would have agreed with her. Paterno should have required they meet with her.</p>
<p>Now why did she find it necessary to release the e-mail now?</p>
<p>You have to ask her that but I see nothing that she did that was wrong or overstepped by her authority. And I find what Paterno and the rest of PSU administrators’ behavior very disturbing. I just can’t help but wonder what other terrible things were ignored and swept under the rug. I don’t think that is unreasonable given what was reported to have happened here.</p>
<p>I was correct, Tom - I’m afraid I can’t help you.</p>
<p>tt- I see a great divide between I will not force teammates to testify against each other and I will cover for an ex-coach who is molesting kids.</p>
<p>I can not square the two even if I think he was wrong not to force the kids to meet with Tipponey I do not square that with covering for a pedophile. That is to far a leap for me.</p>
<p>annasdad- that is okay I do not need your help.</p>
<p>I am not even projecting it to Sandusky case yet, I am just thinking a student was assaulted and in the hospital and there is no consequences at all? Cleaning the stadium is sweeping it under the rugs. Those students should be reported to the authority. The football team should not even be in the equation.</p>
<p>^^ Exactly. Decisions were made based on what was best for the football program, not what was best for the community or the victim. Why on earth shouldn’t teammates testify against each other, if that’s what the case calls for? Unless of course, football is more important than justice, as it clearly was at Penn State.</p>
<p>tom~ appreciate you recognizing you jumped to your own somewhat cynical conclusion. now you ask why did she release the email now? really? you don’t think it’s appropriate to demonstrate evidence of dismissing significant issues? I do. She may have had her own axe to grind as you believe, but as you point out, noone is all evil, or all good. I agree. I suspect even if she had an axe to grind she may also have wanted to show some truths about PSU. and that would be an honorable thing imho.</p>
<p>Every time I see a picture of Sandusky, he’s wearing a Penn State jacket, hat, or hoodie, whatever - something with the PSU lion or tiger logo, whatever it is. Man, that must drive the administration crazy!!</p>