<p>myturn- I agree he was brazen. I would agree if I saw him holding hands with a young boy I would find it strange- and my posts are not about Sandusky but about the others- what should someone have done about his hand holding?
The hand on the thigh stuff only the Second mile kids knew- what adult was told- what Penn St rep.
This thread to me at least is not about Sandusky it is about many other people and finding out what they did or did not do and why.</p>
<p>tom~ you asked, what should someone have done about his hand holding? I don’t want to assume I understand your own thinking, but are you implying you would ignore it?</p>
<p>I made the point that if the janitor saw that, others most likely did as well. and by ignoring those softer, yet still inappropriate behaviors Sandusky was enabled to continue. I know what I would do about that kind of behavior if I saw it.</p>
<p>in that position, what would you do about his hand holding?</p>
<p>to me this thread, which is titled Penn State Sandusky scandal is about Sandusky primarily as well as whatever may have contributed to the scandal.</p>
<p>
Isn’t it pretty likely that this happened in 1998?And again in 2002? To me, the biggest question is why they didn’t totally ban him from the facility in 2002.</p>
<p>Who knew, what did they know and when did they know it? That question will be continued to be investigated and speculated about. Clearly, Shultz knew about more than one case - we know this from witnesses and his own testimony. He was, in effect, the head of a Police Dept (PSU). He had the power to take the events of 2002 further and failed to do so - I hope they find charges to press against him.</p>
<p>From Sara Ganim today:
[Focus</a> of public argument about moral responsibility turns to former Penn State official Gary Schultz | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/focus_of_public_argument_about.html]Focus”>Focus of public argument about moral responsibility turns to former Penn State official Gary Schultz - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>
Right. And Shultz had the power to do this.</p>
<p>Spanier was told and did not act and that’s why he was fired. He was in charge and did not see to it that police and/or Child Protective Services were informed. All those who knew and were in authority should have seen to it this was done and have to answer for their inaction.</p>
<p>There have been no scapegoats here, not Spanier, Paterno, Curley or Schultz.</p>
<p>okay, this question will sound kind of funny given we’re on page 252, but…</p>
<p>how does Schultz know what he knew and actually believe that not reporting will protect PSU? I mean it defies logic that someone in his position, as well as Spanier, do not think through how this could likely play out. Clearly his actions were morally bankrupt, but if we just look at it from a perspective of running an organization, and mitigating risk, what was he thinking?</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Whatever they were thinking, it was not the interest of the victims. That’s a FACT.</p>
<p>mtn,
My point has always been that being discovered after ignoring or covering up is usually WORSE, for the people and the institution.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, as we now are seeing, the passage of time works to support the avoidant/irresponsible decision, as it certainly does muddy things a bit. Yet, the dragged out nature of such a belated is not to anyone’s advantage, and the muddiness does allow for trials in the media, so to speak.
Also supporting the decision not to report are the personal, almost suicidal risks that have to be taken by a reporter, especially if there is a culture of institutional power.</p>
<p>So it is really about assessing risk of getting caught, while there SHOULD be more weight placed on the risk of future abuse to kids and their need for protection and healing.</p>
<p>LAST, one other type of thinking, again weighing institutional reputation over the plight of the helpless victims, is to ask how much of a risk TO the institution someone like S is.
Here, he was removed from the institution, but not from potential victims… Who knows at this point if this was the thought process, but this is what the results were.</p>
<p>He was kinda removed from the institution. He still had access to almost everything, games, trips, practices, facilities for his camps. So to the world it all looked peachy. </p>
<p>Second mile is getting some scrutiny and apparently all is well.</p>
<p>
Was that intended to be facetious?
[Second</a> Mile board members say they were kept in the dark | Penn State Scandal | CentreDaily.com](<a href=“http://www.centredaily.com/2011/12/20/3025990/charity-officials-kept-in-the.html]Second”>http://www.centredaily.com/2011/12/20/3025990/charity-officials-kept-in-the.html)</p>
<p>I meant all is not well</p>
<p>Reading the reports of the testimony, seems like these so called men knew and ignored, knew did the minimum, knew and are know blaming each other</p>
<p>Interesting to how long the loyalty to Penn state and paterno will last</p>
<p>Paterno said he delayed telling his “bosses” because he didn’t want to ruin their weekend.</p>
<p>To the mom of a future penn state student i say that this type of unacceptable behavior can happen at any university. How it is dealt with is what should determine your comfort level with regards to school choice. I believe sandusky to be an ill, sick and in desperate need of proffesinal help individual. My problem is with the cover up by supposed normal non sick people.Yeah, it was reported by paterno to the atheletic director who supposedly informed campus police etc etc. What about the followup inquiry when you see this guy still around? nobody says to themselves or others whatever happened with that situation??? In my mind it speaks volumes about what is or was truly important there and that being Athletics, money and reputation. A damn shame for all the innocent hard working faculity and student body who attend or work at this world renound university not forgetting the victums who will continue to suffer. Hopefully lessons have been learned by all involved.</p>
<p>Ohiomom- Can you point me to a link that details what Spanier was told and by who. I do not recall seeing anything. I would like to read it,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What they were all thinking was, this has been going on for years and nothing bad seems to be happening; there’s no reason to think we can’t keep getting away with it. Also, if we aggressively pursue this, it will make the program look bad. (They evidently didn’t anticipate it coming out like this.) And I think they believed their own self-righteous PR.</p>
<p>Spanier was fired because the Trustees understood that heads had to roll.</p>
<p>"Ohiomom- Can you point me to a link that details what Spanier was told and by who. I do not recall seeing anything. I would like to read it, "</p>
<p>In the hearing last Friday, Shultz and Curley testimonies from the grand jury investigation were reread and in it, both of them were quoted saying that they reported the incident to Spanier but they all did not eventually report it to the police. Google for any news article that reports the detailed blow by blow of the hearing and this info should be in there. Below is one of the articles I found.</p>
<p>[Live</a> updates from courtroom: Curley, Schultz case moving forward - AltoonaMirror.com - Altoona, PA | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - The Altoona Mirror](<a href=“http://altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/556294/Live-updates-from-courtroom--Paterno-transcript-being-read-in-court.html?nav=742]Live”>http://altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/556294/Live-updates-from-courtroom--Paterno-transcript-being-read-in-court.html?nav=742)</p>
<p>yes- but I thought I read they reported “horseplay”. </p>
<p>Is this what Spanier was told-“I don’t remember any reports to me that it was sexual in nature,” he said in his testimony. (Schultz)</p>
<p>“I reported it to my director employer, which was [then University] President [Graham] Spanier,” who made recommendations.</p>
<p>“yes- but I thought I read they reported ‘horseplay’.”</p>
<p>Give me a break. An accusation of “horseplay” is going to go up the chain to Spanier. I can just imagine, “President Spanier, it’s been brought to our attention that Mr. Sandusky has been engaging in horseplay with minors on campus.” That is no news. And if that is true, Spanier should have asked why they were coming to him with nothing. It would have been his responsibility to get to the bottom of it. And if he wasn’t getting answers from Curley and Shultz, then he should have talked to Paterno and McQueary. He dropped the ball. He should have investigated, as President, unless he also did not want to know, which is the most likely scenario.</p>
<p>PSU’s modus operandi: “What we don’t know, can’t hurt us.”</p>
<p>Spanier, Shultz, Curley, Paterno: Hear no evil speak no evil see no evil …</p>
<p>It is unclear what was reported to Spanier or how much he actually knew. Shultz and Curley testimonies on what was reported to Spanier should be reviewed with the recognition that the very information is the crux of the case. The details of what they report to Spanier could be the evidence that send them to jail and what is being prosecuted for perjury so I would keep that in mind of the potential problem of their testimonies.</p>
<p>I would say Spanier is getting off pretty lightly given all the meetings he had with all parties including Second Mile and eventually they collectively issued an order for Sandusky never to come on campus with children again but seemingly did not care to carry out and enforce their own directives. He would be lucky that losing his job is the only consequence that he met.</p>
<p>It is unclear what was reported to Spanier or how much he actually knew</p>
<p>I can not reconcile that sentence with your last paragraph. Isn’t the determination of that sentence important to the punishment?</p>
<p>Also didn’t Spanier want Paterno out of coaching- so why would he cover up for the football team? Could he have used this incident to push Paterno out?</p>