<p>While I get that Paterno had influence over everything at PSU, including Spanier, I do not believe Spanier felt he couldn’t report because of Paterno. In the 2001 incident, where McQueary reported seeing Sandusky abusing a child in the showers, Spanier only had to make a quiet call, tell them all, Paterno included, that based on his professional license he was required to report so a full investigation could ensue. Period. </p>
<p>Tell Paterno to shut up, tell Paterno that this was out of his realm of power. Tell Paterno this was non-negotiable. Sorry, Spanier made a choice to conceal, to collude with Curley, Schultz and Paterno in buying into their twisted notion that they could protect football and protect the university. An epic moral fail and also an utter lack of basic emotional intelligence. The walls came tumbling down.</p>
<p>myturnnow - I agree with you, I do not see any scenario where Paterno somehow pushes Spanier into this decision. I was unsure at one point if Spanier knew or not, but (unlike Paterno) there are emails from him that essentially indict him and make it pretty clear that despite his position and training he chose to conceal all this. I do not hink he did it for footnall per se, but rather to prevent what he felt would be a massive financial impact to the university which might lead to the loss of his job.</p>
<p>There is certainly precedent for taking away naming rights. The Metropolitan Opera in NYC deleted Alberto Vilar’s name from the Grand Tier when he was indicted for fraud. His contributions had dried up by then but he’d given plenty before. </p>
<p>Paterno will never be indicted now. But we could see a scenario in Curley and Schultz’s trial where they throw Paterno under the bus to save their own skins. The Board of Trustees might do something about the library then; I suspect they’ll follow what they think is the prevailing popular sentiment. </p>
<p>Something else to keep in mind is that the failure to press charges in 1998 was not proof of Sandusky’s innocence, and no one should have concluded that it was. It simply meant that there was (apparently) insufficient evidence to press charges, a not uncommon situation in child sexual abuse cases. So when the 2001 assault was reported to Paterno et al., there should not have been a moment’s hesitation in calling CPS.</p>
<p>You think the degree of evidence required for a university to remove a statue on their own property is the same degree required to convict a man of being a “criminal facilitator of child sex trafficking”?"</p>
<p>I don’t see your logic here in the least. I think the degree of evidence required for a university to remove a statue is EXACTLY the same (actually a little more) than that required to remove a name from a library. In the one case, he is being honored for the one thing he did well - coach a football team. In the other case, he is being honored in an academic setting having nothing to do with his own accomplishments. To me, it’s a really easy call - others might feel differently.</p>
Your opinion is abundantly clear, but the legal authorities seem to disagree - while Spanier’s status is still up in the air, it appeared that Paterno had been absolved of legal guilt by all relevant authorities. By both state law and university regulations, he did what he was required to do. He himself admitted that he could have done more, and I am sure we all wish he had done so, but there is no legal requirement to go “above and beyond”.</p>
First of all, I was not directly comparing those, I was comparing the removal of the statue with your unending accusations of actual crimes by Paterno.</p>
<p>Secondly, I think it would be exactly the same if there was no money involved. In the case of the statue, it was donated by an alumni group, and depending on the wording of the documentation they may not have any say in whether or not it is displayed - even if they did, the costs would be relatively minor. In the case of the library, it was money (millions) donated directly by the Paterno family, and since the university has had lists equating the size of a donation to associated recognitions I believe that there is at a minimum an implicit contract (not to mention the possibility of a written contract) that would be violated if they unilaterally removed the name.</p>
<p>Regardless, it is quite likely that the reasons for the name remaining are simply political, and that money has not figured into it at all - The BoT and Erickson (a group of cowardly bastards who are interested only in saving their own asses) are trying to appease both Paterno haters and Paterno supporters.</p>
Indeed it does, but as long as individuals such as yourself and mini want to brand him with hypothetical criminal charges I think it is worthwhile to consider the feasibility of those charges. Unless by “guilty” you mean guilt not in a legal sense but in some other manner that you have not clearly specified.</p>
Precisely and why there is no reasonable explanation for why Curley and Schultz waited 10 days after talking w/ Paterno to finally contact McQ and learn what he saw and hear Sandusky doing in the PSU shower w/ a young child.</p>
<p>“I think it is worthwhile to consider the feasibility of those charges.”</p>
<p>Oh, I think it is quite possible we’ll learn about JoePa’s involvement in at least one episode of child sex trafficking (there is testimony by one of the victim’s trip to the Alamo Bowl with the former Professor Emeritus, where football recruiting occurred), and the victim is likely to sue (including the Paterno estate). But I’ll bet that one will be settled out-of-court. It’s up to the feds as to whether they bring prosecution against the former Professor Emeritus under the Mann Act, in which case we’ll learn much more. But I doubt a case will ever be brought. </p>
<p>The university took down the statue (for which I applaud them), which representied JoePa’s accomplishments as a football coach. No such reasoning exists for the library name.</p>
I think it is quite possible that Sandusky is guilty of sex trafficking, but I do not think any other Penn State officials will be indicted for that, as I do not think it is likely that they will have any real evidence that the people signing the checks knew the full extent of what was going on. I agree that the Paterno estate will likely settle out of court out of a desire to avoid the appearance of fighting abuse victims, but (as I mentioned earlier) they do seem to be spoiling for a fight, and if they cannot find another venue they may choose to contest the lawsuits just to get their day in court. As to Paterno’s actual involvement, what do you think can be proven under the Mann Act that would condemn Paterno? Remember that specific knowledge of the trafficking is required, and that Sandusky interacted with hundreds of kids that he DIDN’T molest, so you seem to think that there is evidence out there that Paterno specifically knew about, approved of, and funded a trip where he knew that Sandusky was taking a child for the purpose of sexual abuse. I would be very interested in seeing that evidence.</p>
<p>
Reasoning for what? Naming the library after him, or removing said name?</p>
<p>posting a non-atty’s view on possible legal actions, on the “what-if” they removed the name from the library scenario.
Some years ago, a family member of mine donated personal property to the city on the condition that a new street created from that property be given a name they designated. The city agreed.
The atty representing the family urged that phrases like “in perpetuity” and “without family’s consent” and similar phrases to be sure the city could not change things after-the-fact.</p>
<p>Based on this experience, it is my guess that PSU could remove the name unless similar promises never to change the name were included. This is known as a conditional gift. A donation is simply a gift, and the recipient can do with it as he pleases, but a conditional gift is a whole 'nother thing.</p>
<p>I agree Tututaxi and Janesmith. I sit on a threat assessment team in a large organization, and we know that anytime there’s an incident/threat a key issue is a rapid and thorough response. There is no reasonable explanation for not asking exactly what it was that McQueary observed, clarifying if necessary what he saw, heard, thought etc. If they did not feel up to the task they needed to involve HR, security etc. to fully investigate the incident. It is outrageous that Spanier thinks he can now get away with stating, I had no idea it was sexual in nature. Does he not recognize that it was his job to identify exactly what was being reported?</p>
<p>here’s where I disagree with myturnnow in post 8616.
I would say: it can be reasoned that the PSU individuals involved felt if they chose to look away then it could be said they didn’t see anything. Like the phrase “none so blind as those who will not see”.
In that scenario, I don’t agree with their conclusion, I don’t consider it appropriate, proper, or moral, but I do consider it reasoning. They may have reasoned that they were willing to let it be swept under the rug. I have tenants do it all the time. They break a lease but believe and hope that if they ignore a problem it will go away on its own. Probably sometimes it does, but not always.</p>
<p>I don’t quite understand what you’re saying younghoss? This was the leadership of a university, not some insignificant bystander coming upon a situation they chose to not see.</p>
<p>He’s saying there is the possibility Spanier made a deliberate decision not to ask questions so he would not know more. That would have been his “reasoned” decision. He’s not agreeing with the decision or saying the reasoning was good. I also think that is what happened. Spanier did not want to know more.</p>
<p>Some in this thread have questioned why they didn’t come forward quicker, tell what had gone wrong while it was relatively small, stop the action, take a few lumps, and move on- stronger wiser and with integrity.
Instead, some at PSU seems to have hidden what they know, are now contacting attorneys, are telling only what they get caught in, and seem to be seeking every angle or loophole they can to avoid guilt/punishment. Many here state that that course of action is wrong. I offer no opinion about that.</p>
<p>But has anyone else reading here noticed that when a new post comes up like- I got caught speeding, or my child got a dui- many posters in this forum recommend
they hide what they know, to contact attorneys, to tell only what they get caught in, and seem to be seeking every angle or loophole they can to avoid guilt/punishment?</p>
<p>Aren’t some PSU individuals just doing what many posters have recommended that everyday regulars in this forum should do regarding traffic violations?
Not to say I see it as good, bad, right, wrong, common, uncommon, etc. But to say that I hope those that feel PSU should come clean will be consistent if another “should I fight a speeding ticket” post comes up.</p>