And with the exception of a couple of very specific men, all of that (save the cover up) was appropriate based on the information everyone else had. A great defensive coordinator was awarded with position, money, status, and reputation (not sure what location means, but sure), and a big-time philanthropist helping in-need children was given access to in-need children - I don’t think of any of this was unusual or out of line, and certainly consistent with nearly every university, corporation, church, or governmental organization out there. We enabled him? No, we treated him according to what we knew about him, a couple of very specific people enabled him, because they knew what he was.</p>
<p>You don’t think it was unusual for an assistant coach to receive emeritus professor status upon retirement, with benefits beyond that, including a $150,000 lump sum payment?</p>
<p>I think this case almost defines the word unusual.</p>
<p>^So if the school had recruiting violation secretly done and known by a few individuals. Those individuals should be punished and nothing should be done to the team and the school?</p>
<p>I think you are taking the “we” much too personally. It was a system that enabled him. A BOT that did not have full control over and knowledge of activities, and thought all was good in happy valley. There were mistakes made. No one thinks that you personally let these activities go on. Or that the students were cheering on a man that they KNEW was using young boys that way. Of course not. But the cover up that was allowed happened because the BOT signed on the dotted line to keep Sandusky there, and did not question why it was so necessary to keep him on board at the last minute. </p>
<p>Just so many missteps in this whole thing. You can’t pinpoint one person, or just a handful of people to lay the blame on. There are MANY instances of Penn State ignoring the Clery act, all over the institution. Not just on the main campus. So yes, as an institution, Penn State-as a whole entity, made many mistakes, or turned a blind eye, or did not keep tabs on situations that may have prevented ongoing abuse. </p>
<p>What other situations may be going on that they do not have a handle on, or control of? </p>
<p>Unfortunately, in situations like this, there are other casualties. It stinks, but that is what happens. When a business is going out of business because of poor management and they go bankrupt, it is not the fault of the employees. But they are casualties of the outcome. That stinks too…but it happens.</p>
<p>I think you haven’t been following the Freeh Report. He received all of these things AFTER it was already known he was a pedophile (and, I think, likely because of it.) It was extremely, extremely unusual - or I should say unique - to provide position, money, opportunity, location, status, reputation, and coverup - after the reality was already known. And not once, but at least twice (1998 and 2001). Maybe before - there’s still much to come out.</p>
<p>We still need to follow the money. I think it will be found that Penn State - not the football program, but Penn State - engaged in a criminal conspiracy to traffic in child sex across state lines. No - it wasn’t the system - it was the institution, up to the very highest levels of the university (and perhaps, we’ll see, including the current Governor as well.)</p>
<p>Since they knew what he was, why didn’t they do what any other organization would have done with a dangerous criminal-- turn him in? Why did they keep him around?</p>
You said that Harvard didn’t create Kaczynski as a contrast, implying that PSU created Sandusky. I don’t consider that a tangent, I consider it a response. </p>
<p>
And I don’t think that PSU had any part in enabling any of Sandusky’s behavior. Outside of a few specific individuals, nothing that was done for Sandusky was untoward given his stature and position. None of it was intended to help a predator, nor was it inconsistent with opportunities given to top coaches at other schools or the heads of other such charitable organizations in other parts of the country.</p>
<p>
Of course it is - as is everything everyone else is saying. Until the trials, until we see the actual evidence and hear the testimony, no one can authoritatively say why these men did what they did. But it sure as heck was not at the behest of the PSU community.</p>
<p>
Thre Freeh report includes so much speculation that it is astonishing they could give conclusions with a straight face. Among other things admitted by the report, without interviewing the indicated parties and with no ability to subpoena or force testimony under oath, all they had was a fraction of the conversation to go on. Regardless, any conversations they had would have been highly unlikely to wander into the realm of personal motivations.</p>
<p>"Since they knew what he was, why didn’t they do what any other organization would have done with a dangerous criminal-- turn him in? Why did they keep him around? "</p>
<p>cosmicfish, it is obvious that you love your school, and will defend them to the end. I believe that it is that exact attitude that allowed this to get to this point. </p>
<p>I am sorry, but you are in denial. And if you were on the BOT at Penn State, would have been part of the problem that got them to this point. The bottom line: the whole admin screwed this up. Just some of them made bigger mistakes than others. </p>
<p>The Freeh report does not have specualtion. The copy I downloaded has the apendicies attached with the origional hand writing. There is a difference between speculation and drawing conclusions from factual information.</p>
<p>“Thre Freeh report includes so much speculation that it is astonishing they could give conclusions with a straight face.”</p>
<p>Emails are not speculation. They tell the story. </p>
<p>“We still need to follow the money. I think it will be found that Penn State - not the football program, but Penn State - engaged in a criminal conspiracy to traffic in child sex across state lines. No - it wasn’t the system - it was the institution, up to the very highest levels of the university (and perhaps, we’ll see, including the current Governor as well.)”</p>
Emeritus - yes, that was unusual, but in and of itself not alarming, and seemingly minor at the time. If the President of the university wanted to give him that title, who really cared?</p>
<p>Benefits, money, etc - I don’t recall any notification of the rest of this until very, very recently. All this was between Spanier and Sandusky. Not the rest of us.</p>
<p>
I think that the school and the team should be sanctioned in accordance with the benefits they received by the action of the offending individuals. A crooked coach attracts a top prospect with hookers and blow, the team (otherwise innocent) still receives the benefits of that player and need to have those benefits negated or else the abuse becomes a calculable benefit. Show me how PSU benefited from enabling Sandusky and I will be more than happy to give up those advantages.</p>
<p>cosmicfish, I could agree with your argument that you and almost all of the people at Penn State had nothing to do with this. But at the same time, you need to realize that something went wrong and you can’t just say a few individuals were wrong and Freeh report is mostly speculation and Penn State should not be punished for anything. It shows greatly your bias. I don’t know what the extent of the punishment should be, let’s hope it is minimal, but there was a great big screw up that I as a person is very shameful with.</p>
He was provided that those benefits either by those ignorant of what he had done, or by the indentified conspirators. The general PSU community did not simultaneously know he was a child molestor and provide him any respect simultaneously.</p>
<p>"Show me how PSU benefited from enabling Sandusky and I will be more than happy to give up those advantages. "</p>
<p>Oh, that one is easy. Even after being made Professor Emeritus, Sandusky, with his young charges with him, staying in hotels (likely paid for by Penn State University) recruited football players. If they had not enabled him, he couldn’t have continued his recruiting. Penn State also benefited greatly in reputation through its ongoing relationship with Second Mile, to which they contributed significant amount of money, enabling Sandusky with a car, contacts with high schoolers (some of whom were future Penn State students and, occasionally, football players) and money and reputation. </p>
<p>So now you’ve given up the football team (from which you’ve benefited) and the reputation of your degree. Your degree comes from an institution that engaged in sex trafficking. Shall we put it on your diploma? </p>
“Any other organization”? PSU is the first organization where members of the leadership have performed a cover up? Unlike, for example, most governments, religions, and corporations, along with many charities?</p>
<p>The answer lies only with those men who actually did so.</p>
<p>“Show me how PSU benefited from enabling Sandusky and I will be more than happy to give up those advantages.”</p>
<p>It cannot be quantified but if Sandusky was turned in. Sandusky being one of the most prominent coach on the team, it would have been a big black mark on the football team, it should have effected recruiting and the reputation of the school. You can say that you are more than happy to give up those advantages but I doubt that you would concede of any advantages that I pointed out given your pattern.</p>
No, I will not defend them to the end, and have been critical of a number of issues with the school. When told that the criminal activities of a few men are going to be used as justification to enact harsh penalties not only on the university but on the business that support it and the people who depend on it to feed their children, yes I am going to be on the “opposing” side of that argument.</p>
<p>
My copy does as well.</p>
<p>In exhibit 2A, Curley mentions that he has “touched base with the coach”. In exhibit 2E Curley says “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”</p>
<p>Those exhibits are fact. Freeh then draws from those two second-hand statements that Paterno was a full and knowing co-conspirator. I consider that speculation. It may well be true, but there is no other evidence of Paterno knowing anything prior to 2001, and all we know is that an indicted perjurer spoke to him in some way about it. If you have evidence of what exactly was said, then please give it to me. Otherwise, it is speculation.</p>
Depending on the punishment, I might be on board with it. The punishments that are being tossed around are, in my opinion, excessive in the damage they inflict on people who were in no way complicit with what occurred and who were (as far as I can tell) uniformly horrified at what had happened.</p>