<p>
</p>
<p>Its gratifying to see an honest post. I thought the motivation in this thread was about the universal moral obligation to prevent crimes against helpless children/people. Apparently its more narrow than that. </p>
<p>Whats the income cutoff below which people are held harmless?</p>
<p>Edit: and moral action is only required if you’re certain it won’t affect your job. Pardon my thickness, but isn’t that what people are saying is the fault in Paterno, et al?</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone has said Paterno ever feared losing his job.</p>
<p>Lasma, exactly. Paterno could have called up HR, whomever, and said, I don’t want Sandusky around anymore, get rid of him, and he wouldnt even have had to say why.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are a few lists that now place Bowden on top. However, the big celebration for Paterno came when he clung around long enough to eclipse Grambling’s Robinson. It was important to Paterno to reach 409 wins. </p>
<p>While it seems acceptable to overlook the wins of of Div III coach, I am not sure why the list would be led by Bowden and not Robinson.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, I guess you could say so did Spanier, Curley, and Schulz. They too feared that Joe might fire them if they made trouble for the football program.</p>
<p>Actually, I think the janitors should have reported it. And I think McQueary should have done more too. But McQueary was in a very junior position, and the janitors are guys at the very bottom of the Penn State hierarchy. It’s pathetic equate their level of duty, responsibility, and guilt with that of the head coach and the senior university leaders. To do so is another red herring argument - meant to distract attention and deflect the blame from where it properly belongs.</p>
<p>There is something called power. And yes the janitors should have reported it. But those in power knew and did all they could protect Sandusky. To try and deflect the blame as to somehow say, well the janitors didn’t report, so why should we expect the president, the head of police the athletic directed and the head coach to report?</p>
<p>inheard some penn state student crying on the radio this morning. Because she felt bad for Penn state students and football players.</p>
<p>Are the sanctions gong to stop her from going to class? Nope. Is she gonna be homeless? Nope. Are the players unable to get an education? Nope.</p>
<p>And anytime you put one man above and revere to such a degree that is scary. Especiallymof that man is not a nice man. Paterno was an institutional bully.</p>
<p>No worries. A reliable source informs that the janitor statue is coming down Sunday night, under cover of darkness. The National Guard has been alerted.</p>
<p>And their victories and other glories will be vacated, I hope?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The press is obviously looking for students who display an over-the-top attitude. While reporters won’t have many problems locating crying students or some who express critical views of the penalty, I happen to think that many students have come to understand the gravity of what happened at their school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite the opposite. If the most important objective is to minimize child abuse, its far from a red herring. Of course, if the ultimate objective is to rant about football, Joe Paterno, and Penn State, they you are perfectly right. It is a red herring for those posters.</p>
<p>You be the judge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all what was is being said. People who know things should report them. People who are suspicious should do something to follow up on their suspicions.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Where are these students hiding? Not only are reporters not quoting any of them, but they are also exceedingly rare on sports call-in shows and in the comments sections of blogs and on-line news stories about the scandal. A lot of that I suppose can be forgiven as normal youthful thoughtlessness. But I still wish these kids you mention would speak up and restore public faith in the good sense of at least some of the current Penn State students.</p>
<p>With the NCAA sanctions now in place, I’m waiting to see whether the students alter their traditional football cheer: “We WERE…Penn State!”</p>
<p>At what point up the the employment power hierarchy does it become report or be excused for not reporting? How do you write this into the HR policy?</p>
<p>dadx, one thing is crystal clear: Penn State needs to implement strong whistle-blower protections. If they had been in place years ago, the janitors could have reported what they saw without fear of repercussions.</p>
<p>You know, just because one thing is horrendously bad doesn’t mean that some other thing isn’t also bad.</p>
<p>So while what Sandusky did was horrendously bad, and what Paterno and company did was really bad, what the janitors and McQueary did was bad, too.</p>
<p>And in the same vein, it’s horrendously bad to be the victim of sexual abuse, but it’s also bad to have the rug pulled out from under you when you’re a Division I athlete who hasn’t personally done anything wrong.</p>
<p>All these things are bad. Believing that there are degrees of badness doesn’t mean belittling the worst things.</p>
<p>The NCAA case is not about child abuse. The NCAA has sanctioned Penn State because of the actions of Paterno, Curley, Spanier, Schultz; and the university itself for promoting a culture where decisions of the athletic and football departments were above reproach.</p>
<p>Of course, the NCAA fully supports/coddles/markets/profits from other institutions where decisions of the athletic and football departments are above reproach.</p>
<p>I’ve been following this thread but had quit posting. Still just processing it, I guess.</p>
<p>But I did want to correct what I think is an increasing error on here. Isn’t it just one janitor who saw something? He was not able to testify earlier because of declining health. He told other janitors, but, I believe, he was the only one who was an eyewitness.</p>
<p>
That’s right. But Spanier, Curley, and Schultz weren’t eyewitnesses, either.</p>
<p>There is nothing worse than children being abused with adults looking on and doing nothing to protect.</p>
<p>
Thats accurate, based on recorded testimony summaries. Its also true that his observation was the most unequivocal regarding what exactly was going on. None of the janitors indicated doubt about what they thought he saw. This wasn’t the case with the other independent observation by McQueary, which is at the heart of the upcoming criminal trials.</p>
<p>Everyone knew enough that the apparently wanted to cover it up and make it go away by bribing Sandusky and keeping everyone else quiet.</p>