<p>
</p>
<p>So when you’re under investigation, your lift is over? You’re not supposed to be able to do anything? For simply being under investigation???</p>
<p>Remind us how many of the charges he’s been found guilty of by now?</p>
<p>The president’s box story is untrue. PennLive is incorrect both in substance and in detail. Sandusky was not invited to the president’s box, nor was he given tickets, and there is substantial doubt about whether he was even physically present “in” the box, which is more like a mezzanine level in size. </p>
<p>I have many many friends whose children go to PSU, and so do my own. These admins – who have done terrible sins of omission and commission — have almost nothing to do with student life. They have almost nothing to do with fundraising or grantwriting, or government contracts or any of the other things that fund the university apart from tuition and the paltry contribution of the state of PA. We do not believe we are misguided in having faith in the awesome professors and staff who are on the ground, teaching and leading. They are our friends, our neighbors, our partners in grief and our partners in a promise to do better. THAT is why we send our children there.</p>
<p>If true, it is Curley who demonstrated awful judgment to give S tickets because PSU had allegedly restricted S from the campus. This is sickening but I do not agree with the “logic” that all of PSU is therefore tainted. The students should not feel any shame nor should they have any consequences moving forward in their professional ventures.</p>
<p>Cross posted with greenbutton…excellent post, I agree with you completely</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is sad to see him so diminished. In addition to the chemo and radiation he is in a wheelchair with a broken pelvis. The bad wig doesn’t help.</p>
<p>The crushing burden of the Sandusky mess doesn’t help either.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to imply that Penn State, as a whole, is tainted or that the students bear any responsibility, at all. I apologize if my post seemed to infer that. I was referring to those people at Penn State who knew about Sandusky and chose to do nothing or very little. When I say that I am glad that my D chose another school, it is because she had nothing invested in Penn State at the time. If she was already a student there when this hit the fan, I would not want her to leave, of course, but the fact that she never started there is, for me, a relief. I think it is because one of the reasons that she loved the campus when she visited was the sense of pride and fellowship that permeated the place. In the face of this scandal, I can’t help think that would be tainted for her. It would certainly be for me.</p>
<p>Those are my feelings about it but I respect the feelings of the other posters and acknowledge that many of you have a close and personal tie to PSU that is hard to understand from a distance.</p>
<p><<those are="" my="" feelings="" about="" it="" but="" i="" respect="" the="" of="" other="" posters="" and="" acknowledge="" that="" many="" you="" have="" a="" close="" personal="" tie="" to="" psu="" is="" hard="" understand="" from="" distance.="">></those></p>
<p>I appreciate that, EPTR.</p>
<p>The pride and fellowship at PSU is not all about the fooiball program. Afterall its only 7 home football games a year. It is about the entire university. Happy Valley is a great place to go to school because it is a relatively secluded college town with all sorts of great programs and activities on and around campus. It is a living, moving entity of Blue and white pride. WE ARE…PENN STATE is not a football cheer per say. It is a SCHOOL cheer.</p>
<p>If you watch a few videos of THON you will see the pride and fellowship of the students who come together every year in the worlds largest student run philanthropy group. The students are able to raise millions of dollars every year ($8 mil. last year I think) to fight childrens cancer and for the support of families of children with cancer. </p>
<p>[THON</a> Videos - Archives 2011 | THON.org - Conquering Childhood Cancer](<a href=“http://thon.org/Gallery/videos/archives/2011]THON”>http://thon.org/Gallery/videos/archives/2011)</p>
<p>please watch their videos if you have any doubt about PSU Pride</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State trustees: No dissent over Joe Paterno’s firing](<a href=“http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/01/penn-state-trustees-speak-out-on-joe-paternos-firing/1]Penn”>Penn State trustees: No dissent over Joe Paterno's firing)</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>The trustees also told the Times there were three central factors in Paterno’s firing:</p>
<p>First, that he had failed to do more after being told of an alleged sexual assault which was said to have been committed by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky on a boy in a Penn State locker room.</p>
<p>Also, trustees were unhappy that Paterno led students and others in a chant of “We Are Penn State” outside his home after Sandusky was arrested on child molestation charges.</p>
<p>The board also came to the conclusion that Paterno couldn’t continue to be an effective face of the Penn State football question with the Sandusky scandal raising so many issues.</p>
<p>Trustee Kenneth C. Frazier, the chief executive at Merck, gave this reaction to the Times about Paterno’s failure to tell police about the alleged sexual assault:</p>
<p>“To me, it wasn’t about guilt or innocence in a legal sense. It was about these norms of society that I’m talking about: that every adult has a responsibility for every other child in our community. And that we have a responsibility not to do the minimum, the legal requirement. We have a responsibility for ensuring that we can take every effort that’s within our power not only to prevent further harm to that child, but to every other child.”</p>
<p>^Yes, it does come down to MORAL RESPONSIBILTY to make sure that the investigation happened, and to track down the victim to offer support, and to prevent further possible abuse by imposing rather obvious and often normal restrictions on the accused.</p>
<p>"Trustee Kenneth C. Frazier, the chief executive at Merck, gave this reaction to the Times about Paterno’s failure to tell police about the alleged sexual assault:
‘To me, it wasn’t about guilt or innocence in a legal sense. It was about these norms of society that I’m talking about: that every adult has a responsibility for every other child in our community. And that we have a responsibility not to do the minimum, the legal requirement. We have a responsibility for ensuring that we can take every effort that’s within our power not only to prevent further harm to that child, but to every other child.’</p>
<p>Sure, JoPa may have been a bit confused about what exactly was described/ how to deal with it due to his generational experience, but the concerns about PSU are more of less based on fear that he was also confused about the importance of PSU and the need to protect its reputation vs the potential victims of such a crime. This is one man, but a man who really dominated the culture of the school, and that is presented above by a leader, as well:
“The board also came to the conclusion that Paterno couldn’t continue to be an effective face of the Penn State football question with the Sandusky scandal raising so many issues.”
To me, however, that statement also comes off as an expression of the need to protect PSU more than the desire to prevent future abuse, and to find a scapegoat.</p>
<p>PSU was run a certain way. Maybe that will change.</p>
<p>I am sure that quite of few students and employees are exempt from this taint; however, the leaders of the school have shown that, for whatever reason, the right things was not done in this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. I’d guess all but a very few, at most.</p>
<p>What about the many students who protested when Paterno was fired? Much more than a few. There were many blind followers willing to ignore/downplay what happened to preserve football.</p>
<p>well and the alumni who are currently expressing their disdain that Paterno was fired.</p>
<p>The New York Times, whose reporters actually spoke to the Trustees, has a different version of their three main reasons for firing Paterno:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The second reason, Paterno’s “questioning of of the board’s authority in the days after Sandusky’s arrest,” is the one that stands out to me, and is downplayed in (actually, completely written out of) the USA Today account. Paterno came out publicly and flatly told the Trustees that they “didn’t need to worry” about him because he had already taken care of his role in the whole affair by announcing that he’d retire at the end of the season. That was a direct challenge to the Trustees’ authority, in effect Mr. Big Shot on campus announcing to the world that he’s bigger than the Board of Trustees and he gets to write his own rules and call his own shots. I really thought he signed his own pink slip with that incredible and untimely display of arrogance and insubordination. They had no choice but to fire him after that.</p>
<p>The NY Times also has some revealing details about Spanier’s firing. The Trustees told the Times they felt completely blindsided by the Sandusky scandal because Spanier had kept them completely in the dark about it until the indictments were announced. Then, when the Trustees met and decided they were going to take an aggressive stance by announcing an independent internal investigation, Spanier unilaterally rewrote their press release, making it a softer joint Spanier-Trustees statement downplaying the independent investigation–essentially turning the Trustee’s bold action plan into a cover-Spanier’s-a** type statement. The Trustees were outraged and felt betrayed and undercut by Spanier; he completely lost their confidence with that self-serving move, and that played a big role in his firing.</p>
<p>Of course, the Trustees’ after-the-fact account can also be construed as self-serving, but it all sounds pretty plausible to me.</p>
<p>No version looks good for these leaders of PSU, sorry.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^ agree “performersmom” and from Deadspin today, comes a report that the "completely independent report that Louis Freeh is preparing will be reviewed and edited by PSU’s Board of Trustees before it’s made public. Boy- they really are trying to get to the truth of the matter - NOT. </p>
<p>[Before</a> It’s Made Public, Louis Freeh’s Independent Investigation Of Penn State Will Be Reviewed By Penn State](<a href=“Before It's Made Public, Louis Freeh's Independent Investigation Of Penn State Will Be Reviewed By Penn State”>Before It's Made Public, Louis Freeh's Independent Investigation Of Penn State Will Be Reviewed By Penn State)</p>
<p>My mind is BOGGLED when it comes to parents who send their children to PSU and have confidence in any of these yahoos. President Erickson was ON the Board when all of this mess was taking place, so it’s not even like there’s an outside entity running the place at the moment.</p>
<p>^ It was pretty clear to me from the beginning that the investigation could never be independent. PSU is in a legal predicament and it is inconceivable that they would just dig up evidences for the plaintives to use to get lots and lots of money from them.</p>
<p><<my mind="" is="" boggled="" when="" it="" comes="" to="" parents="" who="" send="" their="" children="" psu="" and="" have="" confidence="" in="" any="" of="" these="" yahoos.="">></my></p>
<p>Don’t need your approval for our family’s decision. We are happy with it and have no plans on changing anything. </p>
<p>Really? What difference does it make to you? </p>
<p>There is SOOO much more to Penn State than football. Some of us know that.</p>
<p>One thing that is stressed by ethics/compliance officers is “the tone at the top”. This is what has failed at Penn State. Unfortunately, that goes beyond football and DOES taint the entire institution to some degree. It certainly doesn’t mean a student can not get a good education and have a good college experience, but it is naive to say that it is limited to football.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Let’s not get carried away here. I’ve been one of the Penn State critics on this thread, and I definitely think reform is needed, both with the football program and the school administration. But it’s quite a leap from needing reform to saying parents shouldn’t send their kids there at all. I mean nobody considered the Watergate scandal grounds for giving up their US citizen and transferring to another country. Reform - yes; abandon ship - no.</p>
<p>The departments and professors are as good as they ever were. The vast majority of Penn State people had nothing to do with the crimes or their cover-up. Provided the mess appears to be getting cleaned up there is no reason to think that Penn State can’t recover from this.</p>