Penn State Sandusky scandal

<p>[Paterno’s</a> Payback? Penn State Football No. 1 in Academics | TIME Ideas | TIME.com](<a href=“Sally Kohn | TIME.com”>Paterno's Payback? Penn State Football No. 1 in Academics | TIME.com)</p>

<p>Not at ALL to say that PSU doesn’t have sins galore to be ashamed of, and NCAA sanctions were deserved. However, for the Emmert to make a huge stink about how academics have been sacrificed on the altar of sports at Penn State would seem to be less than accurate. Where’s the push for the NCAA sanctioning LSU for having a lousy graduation rate? For Bball teams to be sanctioned for offering scholarships to 8th graders? This is where the rubber meets the road – is pitchfork crowd going to encourage the NCAA to start roaming campuses, looking for evildoers and programs to whack, or not? (Personally? I think it’s long overdue)</p>

<p>greenbutton: Just relax. The NCAA already penalizes schools for low graduation rates. You may feel that the standards are too low, but the penalties are real.
[NCAA</a> committee approves increase in APR cutline - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6853878/ncaa-committee-approves-increase-apr-cutline]NCAA”>NCAA committee approves increase in APR cutline - ESPN)</p>

<p>I applaud the Penn State Faculty Senate - it’s about time, and it is odd that the first peep out of them is a response to the NCAA sanctions, and there is more about athletics than anything else, but good going! (I could also cavil further about the statement itself…but I won’t.)</p>

<p>Kayf, it’s not that someone is your superior, when you report something. You report it to the party who is supposed to be taking care of that sort of situation. What I thought happened was the Paterno turned it over to Schultz and Curley and then just went along his way in his job turning a blind eye to the investigation. What was shocking was that he did NOT do that, but instead remained involved with his whole interest being protecting the man, when it was clear he already knew that something was terribly wrong with Sandusky and his interest in young men. He knew about the earlier incident. He knew that there were other showers in the athletic facilities. </p>

<p>I did not think it was surprising that he did not take any further action with McQ’s report, because I know a lot of “Paternos” in that they are people who have very narrow focus on what they feel their job is and do it very well in that narrow corridor, leaving everything else in life up to other. A number of “greats” in a number of disciplines are that way. </p>

<p>Also, do put yourself in a situation where you get a report that someone is doing something untoward with a kid in your facility, someone who is heavily involved in children’s welfare foundations, has adopted a lot of children and who has won a number of awards for good works in that field. If the report were truly direct–he was raping, assaulting a child, a person, it would be one thing. McQ’s testimony to the Grand Jury made them think (and McQ has given different versions on what he said,and wavered in how specific he was to Paterno) that he was vague in what he saw as he reported it to to Paterno. Not so to the other two men. He straight out told them, he said. </p>

<p>I mean what is a police officer in terms of hierarchy? When he is questioning you, he is top dog. You cannot be on top of everything, so that he turned it over to those who are supposed to deal with this was not surprising to me.</p>

<p>What’s scary is that no one, no one, no one was a bit interested in the child, the other children. I absolutely would have wanted some investigation of as many children as possible and how a person is operating around children when a flag of this sort is raised, even if I believe that I know the person, and truly cannot believe the person is a molester. </p>

<p>The other thing is that people were not doing their jobs. They did not bother to read any of the laws regarding these sort of things like the Clery Act, much less have the procedures in the act in place. No one seemed to even know what it was, or have read it. They did not care. They did not seem to even know of its existance as they did not go to it when they clearly had a case that fell under it. I know that organizations often do not pay due dligence to many of the federal ,state and even university regulation that are many pages and a pain to read, but someone, a number of people are required to know that info and at least know when a case falls under those rules. These jerks did not and it was an important part of their jobs. I hope the Act and other regs pertaining these regs are scrutinzed at schools and other places that are subject to them. And even if you are not technically required to go by them, if you are in human resources, you should read and be aware of the provisions.</p>

<p>Well I was wrong thinking it would be hard to have already gotten a statement from faculty as a group. Now I understand what other posters ( more than one) were waiting for. I don’t know how this works. I suppose the senate is allowed to speak for all without a vote… </p>

<p>So just a day after the NCAA sanctions the faculty senate put out their letter. </p>

<p>The part that I am most happy with is that they have already started with their initiatives with the athletic department.</p>

<p>Another behind the scenes group of people working hard to make things better.</p>

<p>I guess I must have missed it on TV or in my newspaper or on the sports talk radio or ANYWHERE in the media.</p>

<p>Maybe the Washington post could have ran that with the franco article…</p>

<p>Crosspost captn</p>

<p>I think the fact that over the years many people observed Sandusky in “compromising positions” in the shower, on the mat, “wrestling”, etc. and didn’t report their concern, or suspicion, is because Sandusky’s love of boys WAS a known thing, and they all were operating under this aw, that’s Jer, see no evil mindset. After all, who was going to be the one to dare to say the emperor has no clothes on. I believe McQueary ran to his father, rather than scream at Sandusky and rescue the child, for this same reason. McQueary was violating the terms of service at Penn State, which were we don’t talk about Sandusky.</p>

<p>CPT - while I appreciate your post, as regards JoePa, I believer that when/if the truth comes out, that’s not what was happening at all. I think he had very good reasons (from his twisted point of view) to continue to enable the former Professor Emeritus, providing him with opportunity, location, contacts, reputation, access to children, and money. It wasn’t simply a matter of “not reporting” or “not caring”. He cared very much - that’s what the problem was.</p>

<p>Are you saying that the people knew his behavior was wrong and just kept it to themselves?</p>

<p>I would be tempted to think that it was just horseplay in general from a guy that was trying to be a good influence on the boys in his program.</p>

<p>However some people, like the school teacher in the wrestling room, had an immediate gut reaction that something was not right. I bet he wishes more than anything he had acted on that moment of unease but I don’t fault him for letting it go either at the time with what he knew.</p>

<p>I also think the culture has changed in these last 20 or so years.
It was a pretty common practice for men and boys to shower in gang showers at public facilities at the same time. I am thinking ymca as an example. No one thought anything of it.</p>

<p>I have little thought about the others - but I think when/if the truth comes out, we will find out that JoePa knew about the former Professor Emeritus’ activities at least as early as the early 1980s.</p>

<p>He did what was necessary, or so he thought in his twisted way, to save his own reputation and that of his beloved football team, and almost pulled it off. He “compartmentalized” in his mind, having resolved that protecting and enabling the former Professor Emeritus, his closest associate for some 30 years, served “a higher good”. And the guy was a fine football coach, and great recruiter. (!) Sick in its own way. </p>

<p>I think some of the other people also thought it was wrong, but seeing as the higher-ups who saw the same thing weren’t moved to action, didn’t feel it was their place to do so either.</p>

<p>Showering in a group, urinating in a group, are all things that are common practice. For a man to make it a practice of showering with a single boy is not.</p>

<p>I still find it hard to believe as you do, Mini, that Joe Paterno or ANY of those men truly knew that Jerry Sandusky was a serial child molester, was running that foundation to feed his appetite, and those men were funding all of this knowingly because …and that’s where it gets vague…Sandusky was that instrumental in getting THEM money? It would have been that disasterous to have just Sandusky down and lock him out of the university? Sandusky was THAT powerful? Makes no sense to me.</p>

<p>That they had no interest in investigating or turning in one of their own because they could not believe it was that serious of a problem, but in reporting it could make it into an uproar, I can see. THat they did not even think to make sure children were not being harmed, and have that investigated is still unbelievable but the fact here. </p>

<p>Mini, how were you so sure at the onset of all of this, and remain so, that Paterno is so complicit to be deliberately feeding the monster?</p>

<p>Completely agree with mini on the faculty statement.
May the healing begin.</p>

<p>“I still find it hard to believe as you do, Mini, that Joe Paterno or ANY of those men truly knew that Jerry Sandusky was a serial child molester, was running that foundation to feed his appetite, and those men were funding all of this knowingly because …and that’s where it gets vague…Sandusky was that instrumental in getting THEM money? It would have been that disasterous to have just Sandusky down and lock him out of the university? Sandusky was THAT powerful? Makes no sense to me”</p>

<p>I think part of the reason Paterno convinced Schultz, Curley and Spanier not to report is because he did know about abuse, possibly as early as the 70s or 80s and did not want that coming out, which would have been very likely if they had reported through an investigation. But, most importantly I think he wanted to protect his squeaky-clean program and thought they could keep it under wraps. Those emails prove those men knew they should report and knew they were “vulnerable” for not reporting. It is an admission they knew they were protecting an abuser.</p>

<p>"Mini, how were you so sure at the onset of all of this, and remain so, that Paterno is so complicit to be deliberately feeding the monster? "</p>

<p>CPT - there is an old saying that “we lose ourselves by inches”. I don’t think JoePa began by thinking that he was going to protect and facilitate his closest associate in his extracurricular activities at all costs. No, I think he let it slide the first time (he may have been confused by it himself, and then perhaps a second time, and then folks came to him (1994-1997 or earlier) and said they were ‘disconcerted’ by seeing the former Professor Emeritus in the shower. But by that time, JoePa was in too deep. When the 1998 incident happened, I think JoePa managed to quash the investigation (and arranged for handsome campaign contributions to Gricar, likely none of them direct). </p>

<p>But he knew he had a problem, and had to get rid of his closest associate. He was about to do so in 1999, when the former Professor Emeritus turned the tables, and threatened to bring down the whole program. That’s when the fix went in. The rest I’ve already written about - the business dealings, the child sex trafficking (did JoePa sign the checks?), the 2001 incident, the Second Mile facilitation, the slow investigation by Corbett (again, follow the campaign contributions through Second Mile), etc. And he almost pulled it off.</p>

<p>JoePa would go to great length to protect his reputation and that of Penn State, even going so far as to refuse to speak out when his Black players were at risk of their lives. </p>

<p>If you want to read a great case study of how folks “lose themselves by inches”, I’d recommend the recent autobiography of Jack Abramoff - a very twisted narcissist who condoned his own behavior because he gave so much of his money to charity - <a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Capitol-Punishment-Washington-Corruption-Notorious/dp/1936488442/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343487829&sr=8-1&keywords=jack+abramoff[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Capitol-Punishment-Washington-Corruption-Notorious/dp/1936488442/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343487829&sr=8-1&keywords=jack+abramoff&lt;/a&gt; (Chuck Colson wrote one like it some 35 years ago, but I’d have to go look at it again.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The letter makes very clear that it is from the University Faculty Senate. (It uses that phrase eight times.) In no way are they claiming to speak for all faculty.</p>

<p>

I agree with you, Ohiomom</p>

<p>Coarse. I assume that the senate is voted in to Be the official voice of the faculty.</p>

<p>Ohiomom and flyme: I am just not convinced of that yet …but you do have me rethinking it.</p>

<p>Sandusky was “hiding in plain sight” for so many years, it contributed to others’ inability to see, to question, to reality test. And Sandusky knew by being physically on PSU football property, he was in a safe place, noone questioned anything…wrestling with a single boy on a mat at strange hours, showering with individual boys, remember 10 year old boys,not teens, not football players, in a shower. I honestly cannot for the life of me understand anyone thinking this is acceptable behavior.</p>

<p>I agree with this, myturnnow.</p>

<p>Yes there are group showers at the YMCA, school gyms, etc. We know that.</p>

<p>However, an adult male showering with a little boy, as pointed out, alone, at odd hours, with no one else around is odd, to the least.</p>

<p>It’s very different when it say a coupleof coaches and ten boys all taking quick showers as compared to a single adult horse playing around with just one boy, when there wasn’t a training, or whatever. Even encouraging horseplay is wrong and dangerous.</p>

<p>But because sAnduaky had approval of the powers of psu, he felt invisible.</p>

<p>I will read the book, Mini. I agree that he lost himself by inches. Also, like many who are very good at what they do, he was on a singular mission and simply tried not involve himself in anything else. I am not a bit surprised at his lack of gettting involved in anything that did not directly help him in his ventures. I know many “greats” who are that way, in music, academics, business, sports, research. The best man at our wedding, an old friend, brilliant researcher, sees and involved himself in very little outside of his research, and his own family has to forcibly wrench him away from his passion, as do we or he would do even less. That does not excuse any of them from the required things in life however. I don’t give Paterno and inch in this whole sordid mess for his over focus on what he viewed his thing in life.</p>

<p>But how could Sandusky have brought the whole thing down, if Paterno just kicked him out? People are fired all of the time for no good reason. Just didn’t fit with the program. No place for him. ENd of the matter. I truly don’t get this part of it.</p>