<p>Monsignor Lynn, 61, a former Cardinal’s aide, was found guilty on June 22 of one count of endangering a child, after a trial lasting more than two months that revealed an effort lasting decades by the Philadelphia archdiocese to play down accusations of child sexual abuse and avoid scandal.</p>
<p>But the prosecutors, in their sentencing recommendation last week, said that Monsignor Lynn’s handling of Father Avery “was no aberration,” but rather “part of a continuous, systematic practice of retaining abusive priests in ministry, with continued access to minors, while taking pains to avoid scandal or liability for the archdiocese.”</p>
<p>Coureur, I wrote that I believe many students have come to understand the gravity of what happened. The next step might be to speak up, and start balancing the views that are currently being shown on the air. It is obvious that a stance that supports the penalties imposed on PSU will be unpopular on campus. But again, not every PSU student has sold his or her sould to King Football. </p>
<p>This is not different from the spectacles that were on display in the glory days of OWS. You could easily see reports and images of morons assembling on the pavement; plenty of supporting voices in the vicinity of the protests. However, this was not necessarily the view shared by all or a majority of the students, including many who simply could shrug it off without feeling the need to be vocal about it.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s fair to expect innocent students at Penn State to have to come forward and “balance” what other students may be expressing. They are students, there for an education and imho, they have no responsibility to express anything publicly. On the other hand the professors could certainly use this as one of many teachable moments and help the students who may need some leadership…</p>
<p>I agree. Like I said, the janitors should have reported it. But in any organization ultimate duty, responsibility, and accountability lies at the top, not at the bottom. So when someone criticizes Paterno, Spanier, and the other top guys, it’s a very lame cheap shot to reply “But what about the janitors?”</p>
<p>A does something awful. B decides that it’s not enough to punish A; C must also be punished, even though C didn’t do anything wrong. Who do you think C will be angry at? </p>
<p>From the outside, it may be pretty clear that B is doing the right thing. But it may be a bit harder to understand if you’re C.</p>
<p>McQueary knew that what he saw was “extremely sexual” in nature, and told JoePa so. And we know that JoePa understood that, because he did what was required (and no more) in such cases – he reported it to his supervisor. And we know that the message made it all the way up to Spanier, who worried about the university’s legal “vulnerability.” It’s specious to argue that the higher-ups weren’t really quite clear about what was going on. Everyone knew that Sandusky was sexually involved with children.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, the local public radio station had some soundbites this morning from Penn State students who supported the sanctions.</p>
<p>I have been really ambivalent about the NCAA action here. As a lawyer, I am inherently suspicious of the NCAA deciding that it has authority to take punitive action to enforce moral standards that aren’t included in its rules. That’s exactly the kind of thing we associate with fascism as a system of governance. As a citizen, I note the same hypocrisy that others are pointing out – the NCAA chiding Penn State for overvaluing football is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. (Hmmm . . . are we allowed to say that anymore? I’m not sure.)</p>
<p>But . . . I think it will do the soul of Penn State good to have an extended period of mediocre football beefing up the records of the rest of the Big 10. I think people will look for other anchors for their pride, and they will find plenty of them. Penn State will be a stronger institution in 2020. That’s a good thing.</p>
<p>And I believe the Powers That Be at the NCAA are actually trying to transform college athletics with this action. OK, so they are not turning down the TV money for the national championship playoff series, but this penalty is more directed at the rest of the world than at Penn State (which, Lord knows, has been punished and will continue to be punished for this regardless of anything the NCAA does or did). This is a big signal to college ADs and administrators that the old ways are not going to be tolerated anymore, and that there had better be signs that athletes are subject to university control, not vice versa. Maybe it will all fizzle, but maybe not. And if it works, then that, too, will be a good thing for the world.</p>
<p>(As people, I believe, said many times about the initiatives of fascists before “fascist” became a term of opprobrium.)</p>
<p>JHS, you are being far more generous to the NCAA than I would be, but I think they were also caught in the middle…because of the circumstances. Had it been the swim team, I don’t know if they would have been so quick to jump in although ultimately they did pretty much what I expected and administration did pretty much what I expected by negotiating the deal outside the spotlight. I am, I guess, reserving my judgement about how “good” the outcome of the punishment is until we get some understanding of how if impacts the educational mission of the Penn State system financially and in academic standing. I’m also reserving judgement and hoping that the the administration didn’t grasp at the NCAA decision as a way to deflect from their inadequacies and turn the attention again to “football.” Administration has not yet turned the spotlight on themselves.</p>
<p>I posted weeks ago that I didn’t fully understand why we accepted the excuse of fear of losing their job for anyone not reporting, janitors included. seriously, if one lost their job for reporting, for one thing, the wrongful termination could be fought, but one would at least know they did the right thing.</p>
<p>I think NCAA basically had to act. If for no other reason than to protect its status as the ruler and regulator of big time college sports. They would have looked incredibly feeble indeed if they had shrugged and said “Sorry, but children being repeatedly raped for years by a coach in the context of a football program, and all that being enabled and covered up by the head coach and the AD, is not specifically mentioned in our rules, so we’re powerless to act.”</p>
<p>"The lack of action by McQueary and the janitor is unexcuseable.</p>
<p>Oh they were afraid of losing their jobs?</p>
<p>Well, isn’t that what Spanier and company are being accused of. Not telling to protect their jobs?"</p>
<p>None of those men, Spanier, Paterno, Curley or Schultz, were protecting their jobs. Where did that notion come from? They were protecting a squeaky clean football program and a very large revenue stream from that football program.</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>Paterno was not protecting his job, his legacy, maybe. These men, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz, were perpetrators. They enabled and harbored a pedophile and engaged in an active cover up.</p>
<p>Regarding the janitors vs. Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley:</p>
<p>" To whom much has been given, much is expected in return."</p>
<p>I’m not saying the janitors should not have reported, but to compare their obligation to the leaders of the University is ridiculous.</p>
<p>The NCAA had indeed to act, and act quickly. However, the NCAA should have sought to impose immediate sanctions but also make it clear that the sanctions were not final. It is one thing to go along with the “proposal” of PSU that served to avoid the death penalty, and another to avoid negotiating. </p>
<p>I also believe that the NCAA did not go far enough and, perhaps out of self-interest, made a mistake of allowing football at PSU in the upcoming seasons. </p>
<p>If there was a message for PSU, it will be quickly forgotten. The fine sounds like a fortune, but it will amount to a rounding error. The loss of scholarships will be easily survived, and amount to a meaningless penalty when considering the alternative, namely a life without football.</p>
<p>If those students do not know who Sandusky is after the events of the last few months, they are mind-boggling examples of willful ignorance, and a sad reflection on PSU. I don’t buy it. </p>
<p>Re the janitors: they were wrong not to report what they knew up the ladder, at least. The fact that they were at the bottom of said ladder does not excuse their ethical failure, although it does explain it to some degree. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that one janitor did report something to his supervisor, who discouraged him from taking it further? The janitor whose health prevented him from testifying, and who is now deceased?</p>
<p>This is another example of degrees of badness: yes, it was bad for the janitors not to report what they knew, but it is less bad than for well-compemsated, powerful men whose livelihood was not at risk to knowingly protect and enable a pedophile.</p>
<p>BTW, I may well have missed something in these pages, but have any of the PSU apologists or those who feel that the penalty imposed to mostly hurting innocent people indicated what penalty they DO think would be fair? As far as I can see, nothing.</p>
<p>Call me a cynic but I think the Freesh report and the NCAA and Penn State response were all about protecting the golden goose- FBS Football and the University’s reputation. Think about the outcomes that the Freesh report could have concluded. One, Penn State is not responsible. While the individuals could have done more, they did what they were legally required to do. No one would believe this even if it was true and the scandal would go on and on. Two, not enough evidence to reach a conclusion or contradictory evidence. Ever wonder why they never spoke with Paterno. He was still alive. The report would have had to explain Joe’s side of the story. It would not be a conclusive report. Again, the scandal goes on and on. Or they could reach a definitive report that throws 4 men under the bus without exactly saying which man was responsible for what and faulting the University with a lack of oversight. This hopefully brings a swift “conclusion” to this scandal because even though there may be subsequent trials, the public will lose interest in this story because the University and the football program has been dealt with.
Now look at the sanctions. NCAA gets to take moral high ground by sending a swift message. College football season gets started without this ugly mess. University gets to say this should never have happened and we will make sure it doesn’t happen again. University pays the fine and gets to begin “healing” process ( fund raising process) now and puts this baggage behind them. Alumni, they get Saturday afternoon football both at the Stadium and on TV. They get to believe the Paterno legacy because the administration denied due process. No effect or reduction on Big 10 TV revenues because Penn State does not receive death penalty. Athletes, the ones good enough to turn pro transfer and the rest keep their scholarship. They don’t even have to continue playing. Paterno family they keep the $5 million buy out. This whole response seems more of a white wash than a sanction</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty fair. The fines will go to a good place, the scholarship levels at all schools should be trimmed, the probation isn’t forever and the bowl games are just --bowl games. Student athletes can transfer, the local economy will take a hit but there will still be PSU fans here for the games to eat at restaurants and church fundraisers, and fill hotel rooms. </p>
<p>I do find it incredibly hypocritical for the NCAA to be all virtuous about the balance of academics and athletics, but do nothing to curb that imbalance across all colleges. While they stripped PSU of many things, in the name of correction, they are negotiating a multi million dollar bowl series and seasonal TV contracts. PSU also didn’t get the death penalty because other schools did not want to lose THEIR share of tv revenue when playing PSU.</p>
<p>If the janitors were covered by a union, they were probably about as protected from wrongful termination as a person can get in this situation. As a grad assistant in Paterno’s program, McQueary certainly had his butt and career on the line. Both were wrong not to have reported what they saw to law enforcement authorities, but given that they did report it to higher-ups, one can understand if they thought law enforcement authorities may have been involved in the cover-up, too. I can also see (and psychology experiments have demonstrated) how easy it is to make people second guess what they have seen when everyone else is second guessing and trying teo explain away your account.</p>
<p>What I can’t believe – or stomach – is that these powerful men WHO HAVE CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN were willing to ignore the danger and menace Sandusky posed to other people’s kids in order to protect the reputation of a football program. How did they not think about their own kids when confronted by this situation?!</p>
<p>Hunt-sometimes the law and its principles in the USA has nothing to offer in some situations. It is FAR from a perfect system IMHO. For one the basic purpose is not to find truth. As practiced in the US it is to raise doubts.</p>