<p>Still, the number of total undergraduate applications to all Penn State campuses is up more than 2 percent, according to figures provided by the university. Applications are up at the main University Park campus by 5 percent, as well as among transfers, by 7 percent, and international undergraduates, by 24 percent. At branch campuses, applications are down 5 percent.</p>
<p>Is that the case? When the '98 showering incident happened, there was a formal authorities investigation that ended with the DA deciding that he couldn’t pursue criminal charges. But that decision appears to have been correctly made, since there was no evidence of sexual contact in that instance. After that, Sandusky resigned the following year. </p>
<p>I’m not aware of other complaints to Penn State from victims or parents. There is the one complaint about Sandusky, but it was made to the high school administration at Central Valley. Sandusky was gone from Penn State at that point. As far as we know from published reports, no parents or victims complained to Penn State…right? The fact was, I believe, that the parents were unaware that the kids were being abused.</p>
<p>Right. There was one complaint, in 1998, which was investigated by law enforcement authorities and ditched by the DA. And Sandusky – who up until then had been seen as Paterno’s likely successor – was replaced as defensive coordinator over the following off-season. </p>
<p>In 2001, there was the McQueary incident. As far as I know, the kid involved in that has never come forward, and has never been identified.</p>
<p>And the complaint that brought the whole thing to a head was to high school officials, who acted quickly on it.</p>
<p>Obviously, the AG’s investigation turned up several more cases of abuse, and a couple more victims willing to come forward. And the whole deal looks just terrible. But in terms of actual complaints, there was one complaint of inappropriate conduct that may or may not have been prosecutable, and one other report of something, but exactly what is pretty much the central issue of the case against Schultz, Curley, and maybe Spanier.</p>
<p>Everyone in the Penn State administration has a lot to answer for to their consciences for turning a blind eye to all the signs Sandusky was an abuser, and for failing to take more decisive action at the earliest possible moment. (However I bet they thought firing him and ending his career in high-level football was pretty decisive action at the time, even though in retrospect it was grossly inadequate.) But it’s a complete misrepresentation of the facts to say “victims and parents complained to the school for years and nothing was done.”</p>
<p>I have no doubt that he’s guilty and he’ll be in jail.</p>
<p>I do think that most of the discussion about the case seems to disregard the grand jury summary, and other published reports. My comment referred to the instance of victim 6 in the grand jury report, which is the earliest incident reported. While inappropriate, it doesn’t read as though it was prosecutable, which is what the DA decided. This was the one where the two policeman hid in the back room while the mom confronted Sandusky. The boy was 24 when he was subsequently interviewed by the grand jury, so presumably he would have testified accurately if sexual contact had occurred. And apparently he didn’t.</p>
<p>And until McQuery observed what he saw, no independent adult ever saw anything directly.</p>
<p>Once the kid from Central Mountain complained to his mother, and she complained to the Central Mountain staff, things finally got going to put a stop to it.</p>
<p>“And until McQuery observed what he saw, no independent adult ever saw anything directly.”</p>
<p>I’d have to look at the GJ report again, but a janitor witnessed something and reported it to his immediate supervisor who advised him to report it up the chain. The janitor did not, but told other employees what he witnessed. The supervisor as well did not follow up. They must have been afraid of repercussions with the atmosphere that existed at PSU. Look at the cover up that went on. Still, it’s too bad McQueary, the janitor and/or supervisor did not report the incidents to the police at the time.</p>
<p>You are right about the janitor, but by the time of the investigation he had Alzheimer’s, so all that is left is people remembering what he told them back then. And that is not even admissible evidence. That is another example of a situation where things would look very different if the victim had come forward, but as far as I know he hasn’t. I have a lot of trouble with including that in the grand jury report, since unless they have the victim I don’t know what evidence they could possibly present to prove it. And it’s not as though they need that charge to put Sandusky away, either.</p>
<p>The school let a man they knew had been accused continue to work with an office on school property. Joe Paterno remained connected to Sandusky’s organization’s. There is no way to whitewash the moral failures. Whether there is legal culpability is a separate issue. That this has nothing to do with Penn State as a whole is obvious, other than the disgusting inability of many students to accept that their beloved JoePa had a tremendous moral failure.</p>
<p>There was a credible victim and cooperative officials in 2009. The case was turned over to Attorney General Corbett for investigation and prosecution. Corbett assigned one part-time investigator to the case. Sandusky was not criminally charged until almost TWO YEARS after the case was sent to Corbett. Meanwhile, Sandusky continued to live right next to an elementary school, without any of the locals knowing that he was a risk.</p>
<p>Exactly - the reputation is tarnished forever, ask around to anyone who didn’t go to school there. The school knew, Joe P knew, the cops knew…it’s all a travesty.</p>
<p>According to NBC, those emails not only show McQueary was clear in his reporting of the incident (the Penn State officials originally insinuated he wasn’t) but that the officials made the potentially criminal decision to not turn the information over to social services or law enforcement in an effort to be “humane” to Sandusky.
That’s what McQueary was unknowingly dealing with: a bankrupt culture he should’ve never trusted.</p>
<p>this is exactly what I was saying in my earlier post…what was Spanier thinking? that the emails wouldn’t come out? this speaks volumes imho of the arrogance and frankly the foolishness of Spanier’s leadership.</p>
<p>Just wait - when those emails and letters hit, the end won’t be far behind. Heard some rumors about possible pictures, videos and more. The same people who think the moon landing was faked also believe Sandusky was just playing tag in the shower and PSU knew nothing.</p>
<p>^^^^^ Good story about McQueary (post #4231). Did he do enough? No. Did he do more than anyone else at Penn State, or in law enforcement, to stop the abuse? Yes. And for it, he gets vilified by both sides, by Penn State boosters as a traitor and by advocates for the victims as lacking the courage to do the right thing. Yet he followed the Penn State code and reported it through channels rather than taking it outside, as he had been taught, and he (naively perhaps) trusted his superiors to do the right thing, and they utterly failed him. And it destroyed his chances at the career he dreamed of, as a Penn State coach. A classic tragic hero.</p>
<p>Yes, there are many victims here. Regarding applicants, it is possible that the total number of applications could have risen simply because students who previously thought they had no chance of acceptance came to think that there was a chance now. (This could happen if they thought that there would be fewer strong applicants than usual. We will never know without detailed data.) In fact, the yield dropped and the class size rose so the number of acceptances offered must have risen, which also would make it more attractive to apply to a reach school. According to the Choice blog, PSU had a yield of “nearly 29 percent” this year as opposed to the 30 percent yield from the previous year. [More</a> on 2012 College Admission Yields and Wait-List Offers - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/more-on-2012-college-admission-yields-and-wait-list-offers/]More”>More on 2012 College Admission Yields and Wait-List Offers - The New York Times)</p>
<p>I think it’s absurd to think the whole school is corrupt and somehow less worthy as an academic institution because of the actions and inactions of a handful of people. It’s a great university. It’s a wonderful college town to live in. It’s a great place to be educated and to make the transition to adulthood. None of that has changed.</p>
<p>It is a great school. I have no problems about my son applying there. Who knows if the same thing has not happened or is happening at other places. </p>
<p>It is impossible to tell if this impacted admissions. My SIL’s nephew was accepted there with stats hardly what I would have thought main campus worthy. He is elated and going there. Had he not gotten in there, the app would have covered ancillary campuses. I don’t know how that state system counts apps. THat he got into his first choice, may have stopped the process right there. But he is not even a B student, and his family freely admits that it was a reach school. Pitt turned him down as did a number of schools in that selectivity range and lower. They thank the scandal for his acceptance and the high school has said as much. A bunch of them were unexpectedly expected from that high school. So those with more choice may have chosen to apply or go elsewhere. I’m sure it affected some football prospects.</p>