<p>^I agree SansSerif—this horrific episode should not tarnish the school. Professors, students etc should not be perceived any differently, it has NOTHING to do with them.</p>
<p>Those who were responsible for enabling the abuse need to be charged. I do wonder how Penn will deal with them, no matter what occurs legally.</p>
<p>bcclintock–I found that article poignant in that it showed how thus far, he has been the lightning rod for so much anger, yet it is likely going to be his testimony, (coupled with Spanier’s emails) that may tip the scale toward a conviction. Obviously these young men’s testimony is powerful, and imho the truth, but I think McQueary will end up being the key to the case.</p>
<p>But that “handful” of people were top ranking officials and the ipso facto face of the university. This shows there was/is institutional-level rot at PSU’s core, and while your average faculty member, grad student and undergrad student are blameless, I think it’s overly optimistic to think the university as a whole won’t be affected by these latest pieces of evidence of institutional ethical failings.</p>
<p>Spanier, Schultz, and Curley are (so far) the ones who have been shown to actively cover up Sandusky’s crimes. They were fired. Schultz and Curley have been charged, and I bet Spanier won’t be far behind. </p>
<p>I think any large institution - academic, governmental, corporate - will have people who are corrupt or think they are above the law. From now on, Penn State will probably be way more transparent than a lot of other institutions out there. They have to be. They have no choice. </p>
<p>And heck, my daughter would benefit if their average GPA/SATs went down for the next few years. Because PSU is a huge reach for her and it’s her dream school. But I doubt their admission standards will decrease signficantly, or for long. I don’t know how the “not B student” got in, but I still know lots of solid B students who didn’t make it. The one thing I can see being affected is football recruiting. And how that will do long-term will depend on the new coach and how he does. Even if Paterno had a normal retirement, recruiting would have been hurt once he was gone.</p>
<p>What shocks me is McQueary just going away like he was embarrassed he walked into a private moment between two consenting adults. This was clearly rape of a child by an older adult. Would he have gone to the rescue if it had been a young girl instead of a boy? I would hope so, but why the difference?</p>
<p>This case is being tried in the public arena which is the way it should be in our system, but the big problem is that it is being judged as well, which is increasingly occurring in these kinds of cases. There is a process for all of this, and I hope justice is done. But I feel like we have become a Frankenstein crowd with torches and pitchforks in these cases. Until the evidence is laid out, we really should not be panning someone so completely. Look what happened with the Michael Jackson case. Yes, people will like about things like this, particularly with money involved. But there is also a trail of concerns that were not addressed, and if they should have been, the university is on the hook.</p>
<p>What should be done when an accusation or suspicion of child abuse/molestation occurs? How should the “innocent until proven guilty” edict be maintained while still protecting future victims? There are people out there ruined by accusations that may not have been true, and even proven not to be true. Have we not progressed 18th century Salem? </p>
<p>My kids went to Catholic schools at various times of their lives. Apparently the group that taught their school (I don’t think they had more than 1 clergy teacher the entire times they were there) is one that has been found to have abused kids in this situation The mailings I, and the kids get are just begging for us to come and collect our money by joining in the suit against this group. If we were desperately short of funds, and/or of lower morals, the temptation the group is there, believe me. THis has become a cash cow for certain legal groups and a windfall to some who don’t deserve it.</p>
<p>Seems to me that Mcqueary’s recollection has suddenly become absolute and matter of fact with the passage of time. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain from stating matter of factly exactly what he witnessed rather than what he stated previously which was much more uncertain of exactly words he used to describe events. Pretty amazing he is now so sure of minutia considering he had the year of the event wrong.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. Lots of guilt to go around here.</p>
<p>I am interested in hearing the exact timing and content of the emails of the top guys. Remember WHEN people found out information is huge in this case.</p>
<p>cpt. I agree with your statemant that many are benefiting from this case. For me the worst offenders are the media who are no longer concerned with facts in general…just soundbites.</p>
<p>NRdsb, the quote you highlighted is exactly what is bothering me. Yes, too many people want someone who is accused and looks like they did something terrible to be locked up without getting what justice is due to them. As it is, if you are accused, it is a nightmare. I would truly consider killing myself, rather than putting myself and family through such a gauntlet. So much for the presumption of innocence. </p>
<p>Some way of handling these types of things has to be laid out, and it has to be in accordance to the tenets or our legal system, not mob justice. But children have to be protected, and the system is not working when one sees how much damage has been occurring in the past years.</p>
<p>Nothing unusuals about how McQueary is acting. And yes, it does shed doubt on what he said he reported. I have a very hard time believing that ANYONE would have let things go, had he very clearly stated what he saw, as he is doing now. From what I read, and from what someone I know who has read all of the original documents has told me, Joe Paterno did exactly as he should have done with the information he was given, and a bit more as well. That he was fired the way he was, was an offering to the lynch mobs, so that they might see that the university was taking all of this seriously.</p>
<p>What do you do when someone says what McQUeary has stated that he said to Paterno? He was not specific to Paterno. Paterno called those who are responsible for things like that on campus and made sure they were told. He then went about his own business, putting bans and restrictions on Sandusky’s activities. I have zero love or special respect for Paterno, and feel that he was shafted in this whole thing. Those at the university who were apprised of the situation…well, that’s a whole other story that will hopefully become public, and the jury can make their decision from those facts. </p>
<p>If you are told by someone that there is a child predator in your area where you are in charge, you cannot be the one passing the judgment. You have to report the report to the proper authorities, and what your responsibility is, is to prevent and minimize opportunity of further such happenings in your area, without stepping on the rights of the accused. That is a horrible accusation, and yes, it could be false. But because the consequences are so terrible if it is true, you have to take some action to protect others. It is truly a balancing act. It is NOT right to bellow the accusations to all, ruining the accused, who may well be innocent. I don’t think that there is any procedure in place that specifically addresses this sort of situation, and in light of all that is coming public, something needs to be done.</p>
<p>I’m especially interested to see the exact content, given that it is NBC news doing the reporting. We’ve already seen one example of their “interpretation” of facts. Most of the rest of the media is referring to this aspect with the phrase “NBC has reported”.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with the quote about stopping the trial. Its not meant literally. It means that, given what is reported, there is a 99% chance that Sandusky committed these acts.</p>
<p>I don’t know the law well enough, but one of the problems with this Sandusky trial is going to be that the real trial that the prosecutors and certain others are most concerned about is the perjury trial(s) that are upcoming, and possibly other criminal and civil actions against Penn State and the president. The Sandusky conviction is going to be a “layup”. I suspect that some of the witnesses and possibly the prosecutor are more concerned with those followup trials than they are with Sandusky. His conviction is not what’s in play here. He’s going to jail…probably for the remainder of his life.</p>
It should be obvious I was speaking to the embarrassment of the victims’ having to recount their stories on the stand. Let me rephrase so that all can understand my meaning. Someone should be advising Sandusky to plead guilty. Amendola should be ashamed to be defending him. No one should be making Sandusky feel he has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting away with this.</p>
<p>“My SIL’s nephew was accepted there with stats hardly what I would have thought main campus worthy…But he is not even a B student…”</p>
<p>That is what I suspected would happen with admissions this year.</p>
<p>There were posters on this forum asking whether the scandal would increase their chances of admission. Many were betting on it and it paid off for many this year.</p>
<p>Well, everyone is entitled to legal representation, so I suppose it is good that someone stepped up. But I agree Amendola should definitely be ashamed of how he has handled this client. He probably should have encouraged him to take a plea of some sort. Why he not only allowed, but apparently encouraged his client to do interviews is beyond me. </p>
<p>Jon Stewart had the best take on Sandusky and his lawyer. I know it’s been linked before, but here it is again if anyone cares.</p>
<p>COme on gang: Lets not let 1 hearsay report about one student getting into PSU main with supposedly subpar stats detract from the published facts. </p>
<p>PSU main campus applications UP 5%. Biggest class since 2006. When the CDS comes out for this year we will be able to determine the answers about whether admission standards were dropped. </p>
<p>My guess is that academic standards are the same and they just accepted more kids of similiar stats not knowing what to expect for yield.</p>
<p>If no one will give those accused of the most heinous crimes representation, and the best that can be mustered, our system goes down the drain. I give Amendola and all such attorneys a lot of credit and respect. The crap these lawyers and families get when they defend an unpopular cause is the problem. It is ignorance to blame an attorney who is making the justice system work. What do you want, to just throw anyone accused in jail or lynch him by popular opinion? SHeesh.</p>
<p>I am just reporting on one case and who knows what the situation will be. They may well have overaccepted, fearing yield issues at PSU, maybe not. Unless you are in on the decisions, no way to tell for sure. BUt I can tell you that the parents, counselors at the school, the kid, and from what I knew in terms of stats, getting in would have been a long shot a few years ago at the main campus for that kid and the family is exhuberant. He does have to do summer school as a condition of acceptance as does a number of kids from his school. THe family is in PA and they have another kid in college and say this is a big break for them. They also say that the high school said that it is rare that so many kids got the summer school conditional, and this is a very big high school. I remember a number of friends’ kids going to Ohio, WV and other state schools because they did not get into Penn State and it was a Holy Grail of sorts a few years ago, and I would have thought that it is more difficult, not less so, to get into the state flagships.I am not xaggerating when I say the kid is not what I would say is Penn State main campus material. He even says so.</p>
<p>As for pleading guilty, who knows what Sandusky’s attorneys are telling him? Also in a case of such high profile, with everyone insisting on a lynching, pleading guilty might well be suicide. Public opinion can affect outcome and consequence. The case has not been completed yet. When it comes time to separate out real evidence and circustantial/hearsay and assumptions, it may be a whole other story. I hope Sandusky is guilty, guilty,guilty, and for a reason that is because if he truly is not, this sort of thing to endure is too much, IMO. It would kill me.</p>
<p>At my son’s high school here in the suburbs of Philly, applications to PSU were up 30% with nearly 1/3 of the entire class applying there ( actually 40% of those going to 4 year colleges) with those going, up nearly 100% from past years. So , no the scandal didn’t affect those applying, at least from this highly ranked HS.</p>
<p>Not to pile on the dead, but I disagree with this.</p>
<p>Joe Paterno maybe “did exactly as he should have done” if you believe that he was a university employee who reported to the Athletic Director. In the real org chart of Penn State, however, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley all reported to him, and he had absolute power over everything connected to the football program. The decision to fire Sandusky in 1999 had to have been his, but so was the decision to continue to give Sandusky special access to the football program and athletic facilities, including bowl tickets for his victims, and to support Sandusky’s foundation.</p>
<p>I don’t think Paterno was fired for that, though. I think Paterno was fired for doing something he did all the time, not understanding that the context had changed – using the press to tell the Board of Trustees what he thought they should do. It was so ridiculously insubordinate at the time, and so reflective of a football-first attitude, that I can’t imagine the trustees doing anything but firing him.</p>
<p>Also, remember that Paterno and Spanier had known for months, years possibly, that this situation was going to blow up, and as far as I can tell they had done nothing to inform the trustees about it, develop contingency plans to protect the university, or distance themselves from Sandusky more than they already had. That was also inexcusable from an organizational standpoint. There should have been an inch-thick manual in place detailing exactly what should happen when indictments were announced, and instead it was all scrambling and improvisation.</p>
<p>Finally, remember that the recently elected Governor of the state was an ex officio trustee. This one, as the former AG (and as someone who had probably slowed down the process so it didn’t interfere with his campaign for governor), was completely familiar with everyone’s secret grand jury testimony. He came to the critical board meeting – something no governor had done in decades – and apparently strongly agreed that Paterno should be fired. The Governor is a pretty important constituency of Penn State all by himself, and he was there in the room and pretty angry. So if Paterno was sacrificed, it wasn’t to appease some hypothetical mob, it was to appease an angry man in the room, with power over the university’s budget, and more complete knowledge than anyone else had of what Paterno, McQueary, and everyone else had told the grand jury.</p>
<p>The fact is that you do not know. Yet, you continue to trumpet one statistic that does not refute the hypothesis that the scandal hurt recruiting.</p>