My theory is that when some horrible crime happens, it’s human nature for us to think “I could never do something like that–that person must be a monster.” It’s probably pretty easy for us to think that about Sandusky, because what he (allegedly) did is so heinous, but it’s harder when it comes to seemingly upstanding people like Paterno and the other Penn State people. So, it must be that they were really “complete moral trash” all along–in other words, not like us. We know we’d never behave like McQueary did, even if it was our most beloved, trusted friend we saw doing this.</p>
<p>I will add that another similar defensive mechanism is to believe that the person who does some horrible thing is “sick”–in other words, also not like us.</p>
<p>And these ideas may be right–some people may be sick, and others may be moral monsters. But…</p>
<p>According to the grand jury report, Eight victims came forward. They came foward BEFORE there was a press release. They came forward without even knowing of one another, and he was eye witnessed raping a boy in the shower, and eye-witnessed fondling a boy in the shower, and the boy whose high school reported to the police …</p>
<p>If the jury decides he is innocent, then so be it.</p>
<p>Probably the worst thing that could have happened was that this grand jury thing was leaked. For sure Paterno should not speak to anyone without an attorney, at this point, now that the feds are investigating. but, ultimately, I don’t believe he will be charged. He didn’t commit a “legal” crime. He did what he was expected to do under the law. He didn’t cover anything up, as far as we know. he simply didn’t make it his business to take care of the problem until it was completly gone.</p>
<p>Maggiedog- I agree. My niece is a PSU alum (2010 engineering), and I saw her this week in the middle of all this. While she enjoyed her time at Penn State, some things got very old. She was glad to graduate and get out. She really outgrew the football frenzy and culture.</p>
<p>I remember when Bobby Knight got fired for an anger incident with an obnoxious student. The student body and alums were furious and there was some protesting. I was long gone, but was upset myself. That all pales in comparison to this. I can’t imagine anyone thinking Paterno could stay. He was a couple days late in being gone, in my opinion. Maybe even a couple of years.</p>
<p>momof3-
I don’t know what state you are in, but it might be important to check the state statue re: what is considered “sexual abuse”. A child telling another to “suck his ***” and do gesture accordingly may meet your state’s definition of abuse and mandatory reporting. In some states the regulations state that you do not have to have the firsthand knowledge (ie you didn’t have to be the one to witness the action) but that if you have “reasonable cause to suspect” abuse (by their definition of abuse) that you must call the state’s child protective services to report. When you told the sub to report it to social services and the principal, do you mean the state agency social services or do you mean the school’s counseling services? In many systems the procedure is to report up the chain and the person in authority is then required to report to the state agency. In your case, it is quite possible that the sub telling you about what he/she heard then requires you to make the mandatory report to the state agency. Did you? Did the principal (or someone) report the incident or not? It is not up to the school personnel to decide whether it meets the definition of abuse- it is up the the state agency. The requirement is to report and let them handle it. My point is, you may or may not have handled the situation by the letter of the law, but in the best way you knew to do at the time.</p>
<p>I am NOT excusing Paterno, but it is possible that this scenario is similar in his case. The GA (who it has been reported will not be attending this weekend’s game due to death threats, etc) reported to Paterno, who reported up the chain. SOMEONE should have contacted the State agency, but there may be procedures within the educational system to follow. I totally agree that someone swept it under the rug and there is no question that that is despicable. Its just not totally clear to me yet where that occurred. </p>
<p>And there is a lot of righteous indignation going around. Yes, this is a seriously emotionally charged situation that pushes hot buttons in all of us. Look at the length of this thread and the intensity of the responses. But we can all claim what we would do if we were the GA, but really? It the height of a shocking situation, it is hard to automatically make the “best” decision. As others said, the “fight or flight” response kicks in. Even law enforcement or military staff, trained to know how to respond in a crisis situation do not always make the right or best decision. </p>
<p>We all want to blame and point fingers. But IMO, there is a lot of culpability to go around-- we may need to be patient and see where the blame lies, all the way around.</p>
<p>Yes, a president of a university CAN be fired that easily by the Board of Trustees. The football coach, too. No hearing, no due process, no presumption of innocence. Maybe they have a lawsuit and damages, but reinstatement would be unimaginable. That’s the way the world works.</p>
<p>Understand: One of the trustees is the governor, and he holds a lot of the purse-strings. Penn State is not wholly dependent on state funding (and not wholly dependent on the governor for the state funding it gets). But it would be deeply, deeply harmed by a serious interruption in its relationship with the state. And the governor was in the room, and apparently expressed a very strong conviction that Spanier and Paterno had to go effective immediately.</p>
<p>That IS the kind of thing that gets a CEO fired – utterly losing the confidence of his most important stakeholder. And it’s now clear that Spanier and Paterno lost the confidence of their most important stakeholder quite a while ago – even before he WAS their most important stakeholder. He just couldn’t do anything about it until now, because he couldn’t say why they had lost it.</p>
<p>Note that this really has nothing to do with whether Paterno should have done this or that in 2002. It’s a much more global, character-based thing.</p>
<p>As for Schultz, Curley, McQueary – they are much farther down the totem pole, and not necessarily people for the Board of Trustees to focus on, at least not in emergency meeting. The grand jury apparently liked McQueary, and that may reflect Gov. Corbett’s view.</p>
<p>poetgrl, I agree that it’s unlikely that Sandusky will be able to successfully defend himself. But I have to note that you’d really have to put a lot of “allegedlys” in your summary of the evidence. I can imagine the cross-examination of McQueary now–“If you really saw x, why didn’t you…” “How can you be sure that…” “Could it be that you misunderstood what you thought you were seeing…” etc, etc. Heck, what if Sandusky has an alibi? What if Sandusky comes up with a really small adult who testifies that he was the person McQueary saw? (Far-fectched, obviously, but the inability to identify Victim 2 makes that particular part of the case pretty hard to prove.)</p>
Hunt - This is why Curley and Schultz statements to the grand jury that McQuery didnt tell them about the details of Sandusky’s sexual abuse of victim 2 helps Sanduskys defense.</p>
<p>According to an article in this morning’s New York Times, McQeary’s father told the NYT that McQ told Paterno all the details. If that is true, there is no excuse for Paterno not insisting McQ call the police right away or calling the police himself.</p>
<p>McQ should never have left the scene without rescuing the child and should have called the police before he called his father.</p>
<p>What actually happens if you call the police and tell them that you (or somebody who told you) saw X raping a child yesterday, but you can’t identify the child? What, exactly, would the police do, and when would they do it? This is not a rhetorical question–I really don’t know the answer.</p>
<p>"sparkeye, it’s probably best to avoid this thread while eating … "</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice, annasdad!! I’ve not been able to sleep well, too! And I am so very looking forward to attend the church service this Lord’s day. Meanwhile, I can only pray for the little victims and ask God for sanctification and forgiveness since I am constantly tempted by the devil for the up-to-date news. :(</p>
<p>This is something I wondered about too. Would the police pick up Sandusky just on the GA’s say-so? (Perhaps if they had, they would have checked some old files - but what if this was his first known offense?)</p>
<p>No reason not to call the police, but I can see how for the GA sadly, it might not be as obvious as calling the police when you come home to a ransacked apartment or a dead body. Please note I am NOT excusing the GA, just trying to figure out why he didn’t think to call the police. (Did the AD or Paterno specifically tell him not to?)</p>
<p>One good way to avoid that particular problem is to call 911 immediately upon witnessing somebody raping a child, even if you are afraid to intervene yourself. Make that little call, like you would hopefull do if you saw someone raping someone in your apartment hallway, and perhaps the identity of the victim doesn’t become a secret at all.</p>
<p>This whole story is just so awful. I can’t think about it anymore today. Must go do something else.</p>
<p>As to the calling the police- the point has been repeated that the call should have been made the the child protective services. They can then contact the police.</p>
jym I agree, but Paternos failure to act, Curleys failure to act, and Shultzs failure to act - cannot be so easily explained away. They each had the power and responsibility to alert the authorities.</p>