<p>Thank you Mom, you are dead-on with your explanation post 8619. In 8618, myturn said: “There is no reasonable explanation for not asking …”. I disagree. I see a very cold and calculated reasoning as possible. How many times to we see a tv defense atty tell his client not to volunter anything, or to answer only what was asked. Tv, I know, but I suspect it occurs in real life.</p>
<p>In re post 8618- if myturn believes leaders of a U cannot be tempted when faced with a moral dilemma, then imo mytun is living in a dream world. People of all walks of life can be tempted. Sometimes they give in, sometimes not.
We might hope a U president always chooses the high ground, but we must accept that they don’t always do so.</p>
<p>Speeding ticket and sexual abuse not on same level, but I see your point and I think you are correct that they deliberately did not want to know more.</p>
<p>I agree the position they appear to have taken is unacceptable.
I cannot agree it was unreasoned.
I strongly agree- sex abuse and speeding are not the same level.</p>
<p>But the principle of coming clean, and admitting guilt are the same.
But some would feel based on what we know, that Spanier and others were not principled men. That is a different issue.</p>
<p>I have to agree, when you are trying to get the ‘best possible outcome’ regarding a speeding ticket you are one person, a private citizen, responsible for yourself. The president of a university is, and should be, held to a higher standard. They are entrusted to make decisions ranging not only to institutional, but ones that can affect the welfare of young adults. They take the job knowing this, that every move they make is subject to accountability to a BOT and ultimately students and parents who will ‘vote with their feet’. Make questionable decisions that reflect poorly on your university and there is the very real possibility that students will transfer and applications will drop. In this day where we all acknowledge that university presidents are also ‘fundraisers in chief’ it is doubly important to do the right thing. That doesn’t always equate to steering clear of something unpleasant. Spanier lost sight of that.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that eyes were averted because they wanted plausible deniability. In this case in particular it is morally reprehensible. If you don’t want your actions held to such scrutiny on a moral or ethical level there are plenty of other lines of work. Being the president of a state funded university isn’t one of them.</p>
<p>Younghoss, your reasoning/explanation may hold for Spanier but not for Curley and Schultz. Spanier is claiming he didnt know - because he wasnt fully informed or mis-informed by C and S and that he had no knowledge of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky. Unless C &/or S say otherwise, Spanier can continue to claim ignorance, provided you ignore the emails.</p>
<p>The same isnt true for Curley and Schultz they both knew about the 1998 incident. McQ and Paterno in their grand jury testimonies said they reported to C and S it was sexual in nature and McQs testimony in Sanduskys trial states he told them it was sexual. And honestly, would Paterno summons them to his house on a Sunday afternoon to report that McQ witnessed Sandusky in the PSU shower just horsing around w/ a 10 y/o little boy. Sorry that dog wont hunt.</p>
<p>As Penn State boosters on this thread will gleefully remind you, the number of applications actually rose this year. What I haven’t seen any figures on is the quality of the applicants rather than simple quantity. Has that dropped? It’s easy to imagine a scenario where many borderline students who normally wouldn’t be accepted by Penn State might view these troubled times as their big chance to get in - hence a net increase in the number of applicants despite some students who would normally apply looking elsewhere.</p>
<p>But now blueigua brings up what is called situational ethics.
It’s ok to lie if…
it’s not ok to lie if…
it’s ok to hide facts if…
it’s not ok to hide facts…
It’s ok to seek legal loopholes if…
it’s not ok to seek legal loopholes if…
If I want the best outcome for myself…
if pres of PSU wants best outcome for himself…</p>
<p>all are interesting scenarios, and can be debated by good people. Apparently my intent wasn’t clear in my last few posts. I meant it as a comparison on some posters here whose comments are inconsistent with principles they espoused in the past, not as a comment on the validity of PSU actions or on the guilt or innocence on any PSU officials…</p>
<p>If my posts aren’t clearly written, I apologize. I am commenting on 2 things: 1) I feel Spanier’s actions may have been reasoned, rather than unreasonable as myturnnow said. and 2) I am NOT commenting on the right, wrong, or believability of any of the PSU officials. I am commenting that many of their actions now are consistent with advice other posters gave to other posters in past threads, yet some of those decry PSU actions.</p>
<p>coureur - I was making a blanket statement about ANY president at ANY university…pointing out that they must expect their actions to reflect on their university, it’s part of the job. I did not mean to insinuate anything regarding PSU’s application numbers. I don’t know anything about them.</p>
<p>And you will not see much verifiable information about the quality of applicants! As it is well known, the data shared from the Fall through the summer are nothing more than estimates or … wishful thinking. The numbers that are collected AFTER the school starts and serve as the basis for statistics such as the Common Data Set are based on ENROLLED students. Except for fewer quality football players, the enrollment at Penn State will be a mere copy of previous years. </p>
<p>As far as application numbers, there are really few reasons why the application number would have decreased. Applications numbers are still up at most schools, and people do react to adverse circumstances as an opportunity --falsely believing that the pool of applicants might be weaker in their year. The reality is that the pools of applicants remain stable, year after year. In the case of Penn State, there are no reasons to think that the 120,000 students who apply to the Penn State overall system and the 28,000 who apply to University Park will be very different from previous years. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the applications to Penn State Law schools were down, but that might have more to do with the bad press received by law schools in general than with the discovery of a heightened conscience.</p>
<p>In other news, it also appears that the fundraising efforts of the Penn State machine will not be severally impacted by the scandals, which will make the supposedly heavy fine an afterthought.</p>
<p>Agree, and the wording of the 2001 emails bears this out. They don’t mention the name “Sandusky” or the nature of the problem – as if no one would ever be able to figure it out later. The attempt at careful wording is so transparent it would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.</p>
<p>and when they were all questioned, they were under the mistaken belief that the 2001 emails were irretrievable due to a change in the email system, but voila, they were found.</p>
<p>Father Bernard Groelsch has been dropped from his weekly program on EWTW. A statement from the network’s CEO Michael Warsaw:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His comments didn’t seem to me to be attributable to declining health–just his genuine beliefs, which belonged to an earlier time when the sexual abuse of children was not seen as criminal by some men in power.</p>
<p>Father Groeisch’s comments were not due to a decline in physical health. Often, as people age, they lose the inhibitive instinct to refrain from verbalizing socially inappropriate thoughts.</p>
<p>That’s a little scary. DH’s grandmother began to accuse her DIL of stealing her clothes. DH’s stepmother said, “as if I would covet a 95 y/o woman’s mumus.” She was sweet as sugar to everyone else; only his stepmother incurred her wrath. It was very uncomfortable at times as DH’s father seemed incapable of defending his wife against these mean spirited accusations. He would simply get very quiet or change the subject.</p>
<p>I wonder if that’s why they are no longer married…</p>