<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me? Spanier and Paterno were fired because people were yelling and screaming? Who was yelling and screaming? Besides the students overturning a vehicle in support of Paterno, I haven’t heard anything about people yelling and screaming against Paterno or anyone.</p>
<p>And I’m not judging those students…they’re young and idealistic. We’ve all been there.</p>
<p><<excuse me?="" spanier="" and="" paterno="" were="" fired="" because="" people="" yelling="" screaming?="" who="" was="">></excuse></p>
<p>From what I have heard, there was a HUGE push from alumni to fire them both. Maybe not yelling and screaming - but a major email/letter campaign.</p>
<p>what I said was on this board, we are airing our perceptions and opinions, and not harming anyone’s reputation. I believe that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, please. The job of president of a university is a highly political position. People get fired from it all the time for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all. At a minimum, this president of Penn State presided over the worst PR disaster in the school’s history. At worst, he approved a criminal conspiracy to cover up the school’s cozy relationship with a serial child molester who had literally been given the keys to Penn State’s football facilities, the “candy” he allegedly used to lure young boys into situations where he could take advantage of them, and the very place he allegedly consummated his depraved desires. Whether Spanier was merely clueless or complicit in a cover-up is immaterial to his employment situation; this horrible thing happened on his watch, he was the CEO, it was his job to ensure that systems were in place to prevent the university from being so compromised, and he utterly failed. Boom, he’s done. The trustees had no choice. </p>
<p>I really don’t think many people were calling for Spanier’s head in particular. Many people, including PSU alums and supporters, were shocked, angry, confused, and demanding answers about how something like this could be allowed to happen. The allegations–and the grand jury charges–were that two key university officials, Curley and Schultz, both of whom reported directly to Spanier, had lied under oath, apparently in an effort to cover up what top administrators knew and when they knew it about Sandusky’s alleged criminal sexual assaults on young boys on the Penn State campus. Spanier publicly defended them. The public perception was that Penn State had failed to take the allegations of child molestation seriously, had failed to report it to the proper authorities, had covered it up and in so doing effectively allowed the child molester to continue to stalk his victims, and appeared as an institution to be callously indifferent and incapable of taking decisive action to clean up this horrendous situation. Spanier’s stonewalling defense of Schultz and Curley only aggravated that public perception. Under the circumstances, the trustees had no real choice. The only way they could signal to the public that Penn State wasn’t the morally depraved institution that it was beginning to appear to the public was to take some kind of decisive action; and the only action that was symbolically decisive enough was to take down the two most powerful and most central administrators involved in this mess, the president of the university and the head football coach (who was, by reputation at least, the most powerful man on campus). That was a political decision, not a legal one, and not even necessarily a moral judgment on the culpability of the two individuals. The facts will come out later, we all hope. But it was a judgment call that was well within the rights of the trustees, and one that as a political matter was pretty much inevitable. Many a college president, and many a head football coach, has been fired for much less.</p>
<p>As for lives and reputations being “destroyed,” I believe it was Harry S Truman who once said, 'If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." In other words, it comes with the territory. If your university (or your football program) screws up big-time and it happens on your watch, you’re out on your ear. If you don’t like the terms of that deal, look for another line of work. Same as any other CEO, be it the commanding officer of a military unit, CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, or President of the United States.</p>
<p>Well said, bclintonk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sax, Curley and Schultz told their side of the story to the grand jury. They were found to be not credible. They’ll get another shot at it in front of a trial jury.</p>
<p>In the meantime, the standard of “waiting until there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply outside a courtroom. It is very clear that terrible things happened, and it is also very clear that it could have been stopped by these powerful men. We can quibble about the exact word that McQueary used, but these men KNEW that Sandusky was running amok. They had an absolute duty to get to the bottom of it, and to deal with it swiftly and decisively. Instead, their only goal seems to have been to keep it hushed up in the interest of the football program. </p>
<p>As bclintonk says, they were stewards of the university. Not the football program. The university. And they failed utterly in their duty.</p>
<p>Bravo, bclintonk.</p>
<p>So riddle me this: if the perjury and other charges against Schultz and Curley are simply dropped (as I predict they will be), and they both continue to maintain that they told the truth, how many of you will believe that they, in fact, told the truth? What would it take for you to believe that they told the truth to the grand jury? If they are actually tried and acquitted, would you believe them then?</p>
<p>Idk, OJ was tried and acquitted. It didnt make didn’t me believe him though.</p>
<p>as someone said much earlier in this thread, being acquitted is not the same as being found not guilty.</p>
<p>^^ Being acquitted actually does mean being found “not guilty.” It doesn’t mean “didn’t do it.”</p>
<p>Playing devil’s advocate here, doesn’t it mean being found “innocent”? Not guilty is innocent in the eyes of the law, correct? </p>
<p>Your neighbors may think otherwise.</p>
<p>The thing is it will be hard to prove perjury, if it was only McQueary, Curley and Schultz who were there.</p>
<p>But can anyone really believe that Curley and Schultz did not know the details were that Sandusky was sexually abusing that child? I don’t understand how that can make sense to anyone. Paterno has admitted MCQueary told him that; how does it make sense that when it came time to speak to the other two, McQ changed his story. Especially when he is now saying he didn’t change his story.</p>
<p>Yes we can wait and see what happens with Mr. Schultzs legal case. But character and reputation are determined by how one meets their moral responsibilities. In Mr. Schultzs case with knowledge of the 1998 showering incident he waits 10 days before contacting a potential witness. By virtue of Mr. Schultzs VP position he clearly had the power to investigate and bring the information to the proper authorities. Instead he does the legal bare minimum well maybe wait and see.</p>
<p>Being fired is a consequence of making bad moral decisions, and of violating institutional rules.
There are other kinds of consequences for folks found to be in violation of the law,</p>
<p>No it doesn’t. Being found not guilty does not mean innocent. It does, on TV, where we see another suspect break down and confess, but not in real life.
A not guilty verdict in a criminal case means there wasn’t enough evidence to convince the judge beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge might still think it likely the defendant is guilty, but if the evidence doesn’t meet the burden of proof then a not guilty verdict is rendered.</p>
<p>
Joe Paterno can tell his side of the story anytime he wants.</p>
<p>I used to refer (recklessly in retrospect) to Eagles coach Andy Reid as a “fat man”. I now know that my position was without legal authority. The record shows than Andy has never even gone on trial for charges related to chunkiness. </p>
<p>Owing to the wisdom I have gained from reading these 258 pages of pure brilliance, and having gained a fuller and richer understanding of justice and fairness, I now understand that Andy Reid is, in fact, a thin man.</p>
<p>
So, in other words, there is nothing that would persuade you that Curley and Schultz didn’t commit perjury? Several people have apparently just said that if they were acquitted that wouldn’t convince you. What would it take?</p>
<p>It depends on the manner in which they are acquitted. If all the evidences stay the same, all the testimonies including their own and Paterno’s are pretty much the same and it is McQ and his father words against their words and given all the actions that they have committed so far, and they somehow are acquitted on some other unrelated technicality or procedural problems then I am inclined to believe that McQ is telling the truth. If, for example, they have McQ on tape saying that he is lying and trying to frame these people somehow, then that would one way out of many that I would agree that these people are innocent.</p>