Apologies for the intemperate tone of my earlier PSU rant ...

[markpkessinger]

... but I don't apologize for the content of it (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2282233&mesg_id=2282233 ). In my fit of pique, I apparently misconstrued the intent behind some things, and for that I also apologize.

Here's a little background, to hopefully give folks an idea of where I was coming from when I posted my tirade.

I grew up not 30 miles from Penn State. I am not an alumnus, and am not even particularly a football fan of any sort. But I have plenty of friends and family who live in the area, and who are major Nittany Lions fans. They are all, to a person, utterly devastated by these events. In various threads here today, I've seen some truly over the top characterizations of the Penn State community -- characterizations that do a gross injustice to the vast majority of students, alumni and fans. They are most certainly NOT a bunch of willing enablers of child abuse who value football above the safety and welfare of children.

I realize that, in the actions of some of students who rioted last night, such an impression would be easy to take away from it. I don't defend their rioting. But I do, at least, have an idea where they are coming from. I spent a considerable amount of time online last night, talking/corresponding with students at PSU, both Paterno defenders and non-defenders. I tried to explain to some of the hardcore defenders that the rest of the country was reading their actions very differently from what they themselves were trying to express, that they were sending the wrong message. I still believe that. But I have to say that some of them were remarkably articulate about why they were upset, and they made some very valid points that merit at least a bit of understanding, even if not agreement. Below are some of their arguments, as I understand them (and there are certainly counterarguments to be made as well). Among the points they raised:

• By far, the majority of the kids I spoke to were in full agreement that Paterno should have done more, and indeed was morally obligated to do more, either by advising the grad assistant to go straight to the police, by calling the police himself, or, after weeks went by and no action had been taken, demanding action himself. And they seemed to think this was the prevailing view among the students.
  
  
• Penn State has a policy in place regarding the protocol to be followed upon receiving this kind of complaint -- a policy that complies with state law, and which is likely virtually identical to similar policies at colleges and universities across the state. Whatever else may be said about what Paterno did and did not do, or about what he was morally obligated to do, the fact is he complied with the law. Many of the students feel that if there are going to be requirements over and above the policy -- requirements which, if not met, can result in dismissal -- then those requirements should be clearly delineated in the policy. They feel that it is rather unfair, when such a policy is in place, to impose additional requirements after the fact.
  
  
• Related to the point above, they point out that if failure to go above and beyond the stated policy is an offense worthy of dismissal, they are outraged that the same standard has not been applied to McQueary.
  
  
• They agree the administration as a whole dropped the ball on this. But some pointed out that by Paterno notifying the athletic director, and the athletic director in turn notifying VP Gary Schulz, who oversees the university police, that police were effectively notified, and responsibility for the fact that Schulz failed to instruct university police to investigate is a matter that properly falls on Schulz, not on Paterno.
  
  
• In light of these, what the students believe are mitigating, circumstances, they felt Paterno should have been permitted to finish out the season and then retire.
  

Not once, from anyone I spoke to or corresponded with, did I hear a suggestion that Paterno shouldn't have done more. There was not one who wasn't thoroughly disgusted by the events. As I said, there are counterarguments to each of the students' points -- and I made them to those I talked to -- but their points are worthy at least of some consideration. So that's why I reacted so strongly to suggestions by some here that these students were more interested in football than the safety of the children and other similar nonsense. Those kids were in tremendous pain last night. They acted out, unfortunately very inappropriately, in a manner that gave to those outside the institution a very distorted view of what the majority of students think about the whole affair. What I am pleading for is just a bit of restraint, a bit of understanding, before labeling them all "enablers of child abuse."

And again, I apologize to all for the intemperate tone of my earlier remarks.

[Ohio Joe]

1. Yeah... Sorry but I don't agree with it, I see none of those points as valid

Trying to excuse him for following the letter of the law (assuming that is true, I have no idea) in a case like this... No, sorry. IMO, he and a lot of others should be going to jail for this and only getting fired gets zero sympathy from me.

[markpkessinger]

3. So we jail people based not on what the law is, but what we think it should be?

I, for one, think the laws need to be re-examined in light of all of this. But in the meantime, you cannot go around arresting people for violating non-existent laws, whether or not you think those law should exist.

[Ohio Joe]

5. As I said, I do not know the exact laws there

But yes, IMO, he should go to jail.

[pnwmom]

8. In a country based on law, the actual law is a pretty big deal.An

And the reporting requirements under PA law applied to the administrators, not to the grad school assistant or even Paterno.

[Ohio Joe]

13. So...

In PA, if you know of an active pedophile working around children, all you have to do is tell your boss? What a fucked up law, I'd love to see how that one is worded.

[pnwmom]

22. I replied about this in other posts here, but yes.

PA is one of a handful of states that allows someone to report up the chain of command, rather than going straight to the police.

[Zoeisright]

14. He wasn't jailed. Or arrested. He was fired.

People are fired every damn day in this country for no reason at all. Firing Paterno is the first step in what should be a long, thorough investigation.

Firing him because he ADMITTED he didn't do enough was the right thing to do.

And yes, they certainly ARE "a bunch of willing enablers of child abuse who value football above the safety and welfare of children." Because that's EXACTLY what they did.

[pnwmom]

23. The person I responded to said he SHOULD be jailed.

I don't disagree with him being fired. I just don't think people can be jailed unless it can be shown that they broke a law. The problem is that PA's laws have a giant loophole.

[eridani]

114. That happens--WA State leg passed a law banning sex eith animals--

--after the Puyallup horse incident. Previously there was no law and no basis for charges. Getting one passed was probably the last example of bipartisanship that most people here recall.

[markpkessinger]

92. I know that. Here's the line I was responding to ...

...in the post that I was responding to: "he and a lot of others should be going to jail for this."

[pnwmom]

7. You can only send people to jail if they violate an actual law.

If they follow the "letter of the law" then you can't send them to jail, no matter how despicable you believe their actions to be.

As far as we know, Paterno and the grad assistant both followed PA state law in telling their higher-ups. It was up to the Penn State administrators to report this to the police, and they apparently failed to do so.

[Ohio Joe]

12. And still, as I said, I do not know the exact laws there

When Penn State did nothing... and he knew they did nothing... Is he obligated then to go to the Police? Or is he still ok because he told his boss? What are the rules in PA for not reporting an active pedophile and letting him remain around children?

[pnwmom]

16. In PA, it can be reported up the chain of command. Only the people at the top

have the obligation to go to the police.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/penn-state-scandal-raises-questions-over-abuse-reporting-laws-in-pennsylvania-and-elsewhere/2011/11/10/gIQAubfP9M_story.html


When Joe Paterno, the ousted Penn State football coach, was confronted with a possible case of child rape, he notified his bosses rather than call the police or the child-abuse hotline. That was all Pennsylvania law required him to do, yet in most other states the failure to call could be a crime.

In more than 40 states, the prevailing policy is that such reports must be made to police or child-protection authorities swiftly and directly, with no option for delegating the task to others and then not following through.

Already, the Penn State scandal has sparked calls for Pennsylvania to toughen its law. State Rep. Kevin Boyle says he will introduce a bill that would require mandated reporters — including school and hospital employees — to notify police themselves rather than pass their information on to superiors at work.

“It is clear that a loophole exists in our law,” Boyle said. “My legislation would close that loophole by requiring those who are aware of the abuse to report it to law enforcement authorities, rather than simply following an in-house chain of command.”

A review by The Associated Press of the abuse-reporting laws of all 50 states showed that Pennsylvania is one of only about a half-dozen states where the protocol for staff members of schools, hospitals and other institutions is to notify the person in charge in the event of suspected child abuse. That superior is then legally obliged to report to the authorities.

SNIP

[Ohio Joe]

27. Thats one fucked up law they got there

Being allowed to let someone you know is a pedophile continue working around children just because you told your boss. I'm still standing by my opinion that he should be charged and sent to jail. He also still gets zero sympathy from me for not being allowed to finish the season, he got off way to easy.

[pnwmom]

39. How can you stand by the idea that he should be charged? Charged with what?

You can't charge someone unless you can cite the law he broke. And you can't convict someone unless he broke a particular law.

[Ohio Joe]

47. Because I think it is a crime to allow known pedophiles to work around children

If you are of the opinion that it is ok because of a legal loop hole, you are entitled to that opinion. I bet if looked at, allowing it to go on for so long breaks some law. The article is vague and seems to cover initial reporting.

[markpkessinger]

51. "Because I think" is not the way the law works n/t

[Ohio Joe]

53. And how does the law work with him being on the board of TSM?

Was it still legal for him to allow an active pedophile to work with kids?

[pnwmom]

59. Are you certain he was even on the board? I haven't seen him listed over there.

However, unless he broke an actual law, you can't charge him. Any indictment has to specify an actual law.

[Ohio Joe]

63. Yeah, pretty sure

Sandusky founded The Second Mile charity in 1977, working with at-risk youths. It now raises and spends several million dollars each year for its programs. Paterno is listed on The Second Mile's website as a member of its honorary board of directors, a group that includes business executives, golfing great Arnold Palmer and several NFL Hall of Famers and coaches, including retired Pittsburgh Steelers​ stars Jack Ham and Franco Harris​.

http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_19302523?source=rss

Down near the end of the article. So how does that law apply to board members? Are they allowed to let active pedophiles work with children as well?

[pnwmom]

66. Honorary board members don't do anything except lend their names

for fundraising, and probably give some money themselves. They're not actively running anything -- even regular board members aren't involved in day to day operations.

[Ohio Joe]

69. So they are exempt as well?

And he is no longer on their board today... There is a shock. But yeah... nobody should look to see if he did break any laws because of that one fucked up one he did not break.

[pnwmom]

74. Go ahead. All PA's statutes are online. Find the laws he broke.

The ones the Grand Jury and the prosecutor apparently don't know about.

[pnwmom]

58. The Grand Jury makes this decision based on the law, not based on what you think.

Fortunately. All our rights are protected when decisions are based on law, not feelings.

[roguevalley]

11. a simple review of if you lead, you take responsibility undercuts

their arguments. How long do they want to look like shit? This is going to blacken PSU forever and how awful that is can be laid squarely in their hands based on a lot of their conduct. When the rumors get nailed and I think they will, they will see that a man who kept a pedo on the staff kept him around when he pimped out boys to big donors. The entire structure of PSU is rotten to the core and only by rooting out everyone will they get a chance to rebuild.

Keeping Paterno on is part of the enabling, part of the sickness. Jail for everyone. THey are still in delusion. And because they are they will continue to drive PSU into the stink.

IMO

[markpkessinger]

15. I agree, and I made that point to folks I talked with...

... and I honestly think, when cooler heads prevail, they will come to realize the Board of Trustees made the only possible decision under the circumstances.

[pnwmom]

19. Jail for everyone? Even for the people who broke no laws?

PA law doesn't require mandatory reporting for everyone. In a country based on law, you can't send people to jail based on your wishes of what the law said. They have to actually break a law.

[melissaf]

2. I hear you

I grew up in State College. I did not go to Penn State. I was not a lover of football, nor a believer in the Happy Valley mystique. My whole extended family lives in Centre County, as do many former schoolmates and friends. Like everyone else, I am horrified at what happened at Penn State. But now I just get the impression that I'm being lectured to by hordes of people who DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE my hometown is, WHAT IT'S CALLED, or WHAT THE NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY IS CALLED. (It's Penn State, by the way, NOT Penn.)

I'm not betting on much restraint happening on this board. But I appreciate you pointing out that it's easy to tar and feather a whole community when you don't bother learning a thing about it.

[Fumesucker]

18. Try living in Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi ..

Insults against the Southern states are rampant on DU..

Frankly it doesn't bother me, I find the best way to stop someone from making fun of you is to embrace it and make fun of yourself. I like to tell people that my state had a candidate for governor who actually bragged of having sex with farm animals.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/georgia-candidate-for-governor-admits-to-bestiality

That shuts them up every time.

Did you know that the toothbrush was invented in Alabama?

If it had been invented anywhere else it would have been called a teethbrush.

[melissaf]

24. Hah! Teethbrush...

:D

Yeah, I've just been re-introduced to what it feels like to live in "fly-over country." Most of the time, I _do_ joke about coming from a place where you spend 1/3 of your life explaining where it is you live. (As in, no, I don't live in a college, it's a town. It's where Penn State is. No, I don't live at Penn State...) Tragically, there's nothing to joke about this time around.

[eridani]

115. The citizens of Puyallup, WA are delighted that State College has displaced

--them from their reputation of tolerance of pervo behavior. This too shall pass--I'm sure some outrage a couple of years from now will push State College into the background. (Google horse + Puyallup for details)

[DURHAM D]

4. Question ?

"Penn State has a policy in place regarding the protocol to be followed upon receiving this kind of complaint -- a policy that complies with state law, and which is likely virtually identical to similar policies at colleges and universities across the state."

Is this a reference to the university's Sexual Harassment Policy? If so, I don't believe it applies in this case. It is being used as an excuse/cover for immoral behavior.

[pnwmom]

9. No, it's the reporting law for suspected abuse cases.

The law affects administrators at a University, who are obligated to report to the police and CPS every report that comes to them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/penn-state-scandal-raises-questions-over-abuse-reporting-laws-in-pennsylvania-and-elsewhere/2011/11/10/gIQAubfP9M_story.html

NEW YORK — When Joe Paterno, the ousted Penn State football coach, was confronted with a possible case of child rape, he notified his bosses rather than call the police or the child-abuse hotline. That was all Pennsylvania law required him to do, yet in most other states the failure to call could be a crime.

In more than 40 states, the prevailing policy is that such reports must be made to police or child-protection authorities swiftly and directly, with no option for delegating the task to others and then not following through.

Already, the Penn State scandal has sparked calls for Pennsylvania to toughen its law. State Rep. Kevin Boyle says he will introduce a bill that would require mandated reporters — including school and hospital employees — to notify police themselves rather than pass their information on to superiors at work.

“It is clear that a loophole exists in our law,” Boyle said. “My legislation would close that loophole by requiring those who are aware of the abuse to report it to law enforcement authorities, rather than simply following an in-house chain of command.”

[DURHAM D]

20. The excuse makers I have read are claiming that reporting

one position up the chain is all that is required of everyone involved with the University. That is why I am trying to pin down the applicable rules. IOWs, there seems to be a lot of confusion, perhaps on purpose, of the prevailing standard/law.

Earlier today I read Penn's Sexual Harassment policy and it seemed some of the defense spin was coming from the language in that document although it otherwise does not apply to this situation.

Can you be more specific as regards Pennsylvania?

[pnwmom]

26. They are right. That's why the President was fired.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/penn-state-scandal-raises-questions-over-abuse-reporting-laws-in-pennsylvania-and-elsewhere/2011/11/10/gIQAubfP9M_story.html

Already, the Penn State scandal has sparked calls for Pennsylvania to toughen its law. State Rep. Kevin Boyle says he will introduce a bill that would require mandated reporters — including school and hospital employees — to notify police themselves rather than pass their information on to superiors at work.

“It is clear that a loophole exists in our law,” Boyle said. “My legislation would close that loophole by requiring those who are aware of the abuse to report it to law enforcement authorities, rather than simply following an in-house chain of command.”

A review by The Associated Press of the abuse-reporting laws of all 50 states showed that Pennsylvania is one of only about a half-dozen states where the protocol for staff members of schools, hospitals and other institutions is to notify the person in charge in the event of suspected child abuse. That superior is then legally obliged to report to the authorities.

In the Penn State case, the superiors notified in 2002 by Paterno — the athletic director, Tim Curley, and a vice president, Gary Schultz — have been charged with failing to report the suspected abuse. They deny wrongdoing. State authorities say that failure enabled former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky to perpetrate additional sexual assaults on boys. Through a lawyer, he says he is innocent.

According to a 2010 database compiled by the National District Attorney’s Association, other states with provisions resembling Pennsylvania’s — giving institutional staff the option of reporting suspected abuse to their superiors — include Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri and South Dakota.

[CoffeeCat]

6. I read the Grand Jury testimony...

...and in that grand-jury testimony--it was stated that employees of Penn State
are obligated to report crimes to the local police.

That would include Joe Paterno, would it not? And the rest of the staff who knew
that Sandusky was a pedophile?

They didn't report to the police, did they?

[pnwmom]

10. Not in PA. Only the leading administrators -- not all employees. Here's more info:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/penn-state-scandal-raises-questions-over-abuse-reporting-laws-in-pennsylvania-and-elsewhere/2011/11/10/gIQAubfP9M_story.html

NEW YORK — When Joe Paterno, the ousted Penn State football coach, was confronted with a possible case of child rape, he notified his bosses rather than call the police or the child-abuse hotline. That was all Pennsylvania law required him to do, yet in most other states the failure to call could be a crime.

In more than 40 states, the prevailing policy is that such reports must be made to police or child-protection authorities swiftly and directly, with no option for delegating the task to others and then not following through.

Already, the Penn State scandal has sparked calls for Pennsylvania to toughen its law. State Rep. Kevin Boyle says he will introduce a bill that would require mandated reporters — including school and hospital employees — to notify police themselves rather than pass their information on to superiors at work.

“It is clear that a loophole exists in our law,” Boyle said. “My legislation would close that loophole by requiring those who are aware of the abuse to report it to law enforcement authorities, rather than simply following an in-house chain of command.”

SNIP

[CoffeeCat]

25. Yes, thank you for that...

I typed that gj testimony, read it and I see now. Paterno was obligated
to tell the higher-ups--who where then supposed to report to law enforcement
and to child-protective services--and that was never done.

Even tho Paterno may have followed the law--it is outlandish and horrifying
that a child was raped and there was a witness and nothing was done. Paterno
knew about it and there was never any follow through or legal recourse.

Also, it is obvious that the higher ups at Penn State need to go--the two men
cited in the gj testimony.

They're lying and the gj testimony says that their version of events isn't credible.

[CoffeeCat]

17. Directly from the grand-jury testimony---

"Department of Public Welfare and Children and Youth
Services local and state records were subpoenaed by
the Grand Jury; University Police records were also subpoenaed. The records revealed that the 2002 incident (shower rape) was never reported to any officials in contravention of Pennsylvania law."

The Grand Jury concludes that the sexual assault of a minor male in 2002 should ahve been reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and/or a law enforcement agency such as the University POlice or the Pennsylvania State Police. The University, by it's senior staff, Gary Schultz, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business and Tim Curley, Athletic Director, was notified by two different Penn State employees of the alleged sexual exploitations of that youth. Pennsylvania's mandatory reporting statute for suspected child abuse is located at 23 Pa.C.S 6311 (Child Protective Services Law) and provides that when a staff member reports abuse, pursuant to statute, the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obligation to report or cause such a report to be made by telephone and in writing within 48 hours to the Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. An oral report should have been made to the Centre County Children and Youth Services but none was made. Nor was there any attempt to investigate, to identify Victim 2 or to protect that child or any others from similar conduct..."


"Both the graduate assistant and Curley testified that Sandusky himself was not banned from any Penn State buildings and Curley admitted that the ban on (Sandusky) bringing children to the campus was unenforceable." (So basically, they admitted that any admonitions of Sandusky and his pedophilia were worthless and would not protect children).

[kath]

21. Are you (and the students) unaware that the 2002 rape that McQueary witnessed is just the tip of

the iceberg?
Read the grand jury report - abuse may have started as early as 1994 (my memory fails me on this), but it was after incidents in 1998 were reported to the police (by the mother of one of the children) that Sandusky suddenly "retired" - Paterno and others at PSU (and at the Second Mile foundation) all up and down the line HAD to have been aware of this, yet Sandusky was still allowed access to the locker rooms, showers and sauna, and still took boys to games with him - with the boys staying in his hotel room! Apparently it was an open secret in college football that Sandusky had a history with little boys - thus no job offers were forthcoming after he "retired".

Lots and lots of people knew, for lots and lots of years. And they all looked the other way.

[melissaf]

29. Is this an established fact

that "it was an open secret in college football that Sandusky had a history with little boys"? Or is this just conjecture, based on the timing of his retirement?

What I saw in the grand jury report was that one of the victims mentioned Sandusky's upset at having a discussion with Paterno in which Paterno said *he* wasn't retiring, thus Sandusky would never become head coach. Was that doublespeak for "Penn State's never going to give a deviant like you the head coach title"? Possibly, but that's not how I read it.

[LynneSin]

30. Thanks to Joe for following the protocol MORE KIDS WERE RAPED BY SANDUSKY

Penn State had to fire Paterno if they wanted to somehow not lose every single last penny in reserve they have to the massive lawsuits about to be filed with them.

[pnwmom]

37. I agree they were right to fire him. n/t

[DURHAM D]

45. I wonder what the students think about Sandusky getting a promotion

at the same time he was removed from the coaching staff.

Among other things he was given faculty status, an office, a parking place, access to all facilities (sans child on main campus) and Professor Emeritus status. Oh, and I assume a salary and life time football tickets. I sure would hate to be the University's defense attorney. You just can't defend the stupid.

Add to that the fact the University's legal counsel (Wendell Courtney) was simultaneously serving as legal counsel for The Second Mile Foundation. Guess that is why it was easy to work out the golden handshake for Sandusky as they moved his child procurement business to another building with no drop off in perks for the perp.

[melissaf]

56. I don't know

that "Professor Emeritus" status = getting a promotion on leaving the coaching staff.

[markpkessinger]

57. If you're going to comment, get the facts correct, please....

It was McQueary, the witness, who got the job on the teaching staff. Sandusky was a retired assistant coach, and the actual abuser in this case.

[DURHAM D]

60. Sorry - you need to check your facts. nt

[markpkessinger]

65. Uh, no -- you do. Sandusky retired in June of 1999 from PSU; McQueary is the GA who landed ...

...the staff teaching spot.

[DURHAM D]

70. I am well aware of Sandusky's situation as well as McQueary.

I'm sorry but you are wrong about Sandusky's status.

[melissaf]

78. In what way?

Professor Emeritus STATUS. STATUS does not mean he became a professor.

[DURHAM D]

83. I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

In 1999 Sandusky went from being a coach to receiving faculty and Professor Emeritus status in the physical education department. If you want to know more you need to ask the administration at Penn. They are the ones who made the decision.

[markpkessinger]

85. You obviously don't understand what "emeritus" means -- it's not a promotion

[DURHAM D]

87. I suspect I know way more than you do.

Seems you are avoiding reality.

[melissaf]

88. He received faculty status because he was COACH

he received Professor Emeritus STATUS because he was retired. STATUS = the same kind of thing as a professor, but not a professor.

Also the school is PENN STATE!!!

PENN is the nickname of the UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, and IVY-LEAGUE SCHOOL in PHILADELPHIA. Before you throw around insults about who knows what facts, get the name of the frakkin school you're talking about straight.

[markpkessinger]

82. Here is a source for you...

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

Quote:

"June 1999
Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status."

[DURHAM D]

86. You have just proved my point.

I assume you are aware that Sandusky was still coming to campus, using his office, his parking place, and working out in the weight room as recently as 10 days ago.

[melissaf]

90. No one's arguing that point.

[markpkessinger]

91. I never said he didn't ...

... nor did I say he didn't retain staff level privileges (as emeriti often do). That isn't a promotion.

[DURHAM D]

93. Whatever you need to believe is whatever you need to believe...

But I just can not imagine any other institution in the country that would allow a pedophile any status at all with the University.

[pnwmom]

62. They should think that was terrible.

But they shouldn't think that Courtney, as the attorney for Penn State, would breach his attorney/client privilege with them to inform TSM of the allegations against Sandusky. He had a clear conflict of interest but there's no evidence that he informed TSM of this.

I think Courtney has as lot to answer for, morally if not legally. (I don't know exactly what his legal obligations would have been. Maybe he CAN be held legally responsible, somehow.)

[pnwmom]

64. Professor Emeritus isn't a promotion, it just says you're retired

but still have a connection with the University.

Which shouldn't have happened, I agree. But it's not a promotion.

[DURHAM D]

67. It is also not punishment.

Basically the title probably just meant an office, parking space and use of facilities to work out. However, it would carry some weight in fund raising for TSM and access to university resources. It was a very bad decision on the part of the University.

[pnwmom]

76. I agree. The University's decisions are inexcusable. n/t

[pnwmom]

32. I haven't seen evidence of people at TSM who knew about what was going on.

They say that they were told by Curley in 2002 that Sandusky had been seen in the shower with a boy, but that an investigation had been conducted and no wrong-doing was found. They also say that they weren't told more until 2008, when they broke off with Sandusky.

We know that Curley has been indicted by the Grand Jury for lying to them in the same way he lied to TSM; so I think it's likely they didn't know. They're mistake was in trusting the Penn State people, who didn't deserve their trust.

[Ohio Joe]

38. Wait a sec... Did I not also see that Paterno was on the board of TSM?

What were his obligations with that for reporting an active pedophile?

[DURHAM D]

50. Yes. He enabled a pedophile for 17 years.

Perhaps the board of TSM didn't care that Sandusky was a perv - he brought in the young talent and the old money.

[pnwmom]

72. The board cut ties with Sandusky in 2008 when they found out about the real charges.

(I'm talking about the real board, not the honorary board that included Paterno as a member.)

In 2002, Penn State's Curley had lied to them about an investigation being conducted that showed no wrongdoing.

[pnwmom]

68. He had an "honorary" position, which is pretty meaningless.

Even regulär Board members aren't involved in day to day operations. But he was just honorary -- which means he probably donated a bunch of money and they could use him in fundraising. He wouldn't even have been attending board meetings.

[ScreamingMeemie]

71. But, it's true that he would know people...and imagine if he had

talked to those people. I think those children would have found that position very meaningful.

[Ohio Joe]

73. "meaningless"? Like he did not have to report an active pedophile in the group?

The law says that as well? What a nice law for pedophiles and their enablers.

[pnwmom]

75. I agree that PA's law is inadequate and should be changed ASAP. n/t

[DURHAM D]

49. Of course TSM knew.

The University and TSM had the same attorney at the time.

[pnwmom]

77. Attorney/client privilege would prevent the attorney from sharing information

he knew from his client Penn State with his other client, TSM.

He had a conflict of interest, clearly.

[LynneSin]

28. So if your underage kid was in that shower naked and being screwed by a man...

you'd be ok to wait for all the coaches and PSU staff members to go thru their protocol before they called the police.

Your post is absolute BULLSHIT but I guess since no child related to you was in the shower or one of the many kids raped by Sandusky BEFORE or AFTER they knew he was a pedophile then it's ok to claim unfair we judge poor JoePa for not dealing with this shit 9.5 years ago when it should have been dealt with.

SHAME ON YOU SHAME!!!!

[pnwmom]

34. No one is saying that. Are you saying that it's okay

to blame everyone at Penn State or in the state of PA for the actions of a few?

I didn't think so.

[LynneSin]

41. I'm saying 'bullshit' to this whole protocol/chain of command excuse

I'm saying that everyone from McQueary, his father, the coach, the athletic director, the school president and the head of campus police did a giant size fail. Out of those 6 bumbling Keystone Kops ONE of them should have made the call to the State Police and/or Child Protective Services.

I'm tired of people defending these 6 especially Paterno. He knew and he kept silent too. His silence allowed Sandusky to continue to rape children.

[pnwmom]

42. I'm not defending any of THEM. I'm defending the fact that we're supposed to be a nation of laws.

And you don't go around jailing people -- as some have suggested here -- just because they didn't follow a law that doesn't actually exist.

The solution, obviously, is to change the law in PA -- and in the other states with loose reporting laws -- to prevent such a thing from happening again.

[DURHAM D]

54. I assume you are aware

that Pennsylvania also has a law that would have protected any university employee that went outside the chain of command to report directly to the police.

[pnwmom]

55. No, but it doesn't make any difference. You still can't jail someone unless they broke

an actual law, no matter how much you wish things were different.

[DURHAM D]

61. I have not made any suggestion about jailing anyone.

[pnwmom]

79. No, you haven't. But I've been reacting to the many posts

suggesting that they should be jailed, regardless of whether they broke an actual law or not.

[melissaf]

44. Yes, and no one (or no one I know)

disagrees that staying silent was the wrong thing to do. Just because people have a different opinion from you re: what happened to Joe Paterno doesn't make them evil.

[melissaf]

36. Do you understand

that the OP is simply reflecting what people at Penn State are feeling like, NOT what the poster actually thinks or feels? Do you understand that it's likely that a VAST MAJORITY of the people at Penn State and in State College AGREE that what Joe Paterno did was wrong? Or does it just make you feel better to have an enemy to scream at in this case?

[markpkessinger]

43. Thank you...

... I am finding it utterly exhausting trying to make that point. Sincere thanks for making it in my stead.

[melissaf]

46. You're welcome.

I think I'm starting to get disgusted by everyone else's level of disgust.

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. It is my hope that, in a few years time, the students of this institution

will realize what a grave mistake they made, a tremendous dishonor to the true victims, and feel sick about it. It would be too much to hope that, by the time they have kids of their own, they would come back to congregate and remember those real victims. And that is all I am willing to give them.

That said, we all get a little vehement once in awhile.

[tuckessee]

33. I find these Penn State apologists very puzzling creatures.

Why would someone devote so much effort and passion to run interference for a ring of serial pedophiles whom they don't even know?

[pnwmom]

35. A handful of people at Penn State -- not the whole University --

probably knew, or had reason to know, that crimes were being committed.

I'm "running interference" for all the people who are being unfairly smeared.

[melissaf]

40. Thanks, pnwmom!

[markpkessinger]

52. Thank you! n/t

[markpkessinger]

48. What a dishonest argument....

...NOTHING I said can remotely be construed as "running interference" for Paterno, Sandusky or anyone else. I haven't said ANYTHING in defense of them. I was trying to convey what I was hearing from members of the community -- people who were also not in anyway defending what happened.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with the students' viewpoints, or with mine, but have the decency to do so with a measure of intellectual honesty, for Christ's sake.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

80. What?! Not Paterno's fault?!

"They agree the administration as a whole dropped the ball on this. But some pointed out that by Paterno notifying the athletic director, and the athletic director in turn notifying VP Gary Schulz, who oversees the university police, that police were effectively notified, and responsibility for the fact that Schulz failed to instruct university police to investigate is a matter that properly falls on Schulz, not on Paterno."

EPIC FAIL

That's the, "Do as I say, not as I do," Proverb. When you're mentoring young men and preaching integrity, honor, and all that college football, raw, raw, bullshit, you don't maintain a relationship with a pedophile, let alone grant him exposure to young boys.

The kids still just don't get it. But, they're at a fine institution of higher education. They have ample time and opportunity to educate themselves.

[pnwmom]

81. That is true in the sense that Paterno followed the law and Schulz did not.

But I agree that Paterno should have gone beyond the requirements of the law, as soon as he realized that Schulz and Spanier weren't going to take it to the police

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

97. This is tricky, because the police were involved in 1998...

Paterno knew in 1998 that Sandusky was showering with boys. And the reported sodomy occurred in 2002. How much rope do folks want give Paterno?

Let me put it like this. We have to suspend disbelief and assume that Paterno is *not* involved in a cover-up.

So in 2002 someone on his staff reports that they witnessed Sandusky raping a 10 y/o boy in the PSU Football Men's locker room. Paterno says he takes this information to his superiors. OK, now what? He should expect an investigation and, he should expect to be questioned. But there is no investigation. No one questions him. Not in 2002, and here it is, 2003. So he's wondering, "Gee, that poor child of God was raped. Where are the police? Where's the investigation? Why hasn't anyone questioned me? This can't be. This is wrong. I've got a duty to this boy to see that there's an investigation and justice is done."

That never happened. There never was an investigation. The house of cards finally came crashing down in 2011.

[pnwmom]

102. I agree. Paterno had a moral obligation if not a legal one.

Apparently, he chose to keep his blinders on.

[deadinsider]

109. Excellent post n\t

[TorchTheWitch]

84. since when is firing only appropriate when a law is broken?

Yes, Paterno followed the LAW but did he follow the school's ethical rules? You can't tell me that any school doesn't have it's own set of ethical rules and responsibilities that are entirely separate from the law and entirely more stringent. There is no way on earth that Penn State's only ethical rules and responsibilities in such a circumstance is to just follow the bare ass minimum of the law and to hell with all the rest.

Paterno had an ethical responsibility as a staff member of that school to do everything possible to ensure that everything was being done to stop any further criminal acts by the pervert and ensure the safety of every single child or student or employee or guest on that campus. There's no way I will believe that the school did not have an ethical code of conduct and responsibilities that anyone in a staff position and particularly those whose positions deal with students directly are obligated in such a circumstance to contact police or child services or both and make every effort to stop the abuse and protect every child, student, employee or guest of that campus from an alleged predator.

Paterno's firing doesn't have jack shit to do with the law, it has EVERYTHING to do with his responsibilities as a staff member of that school. For fuck's sake STUDENTS get a big fat student handbook that details what behavior is inappropriate especially including such behavior that would require they be dismissed, you better bloody believe that every employee contracts when hired to follow the rules and obligations in the employee handbook, and that the staff dealing with students directly and in leadership positions are going to have a handbook so fat it needs it's own bookshelf.

These kids you've been talking to are too damn STUPID to have been admitted to this school if they can't figure out that much. They're making lame excuses because they've allowed themselves to be blinded by the school's decades of it's own bestowing of imagined god-like status on Paterno instead of using the brain they should have been required to have in order to gain admittance as a student.

Shame upon every single one, and shame on anyone buying into their excuses and believing they have one iota of merit.

[deadinsider]

89. Points taken... a few do not represent the whole.

I'm not here to kill the messenger (markpkessinger).

However, one thing that bothers me, and probably bothers most of us, is that Sundusky was seen directly engaging in anal sex with a +10 year old boy. And, after it was reported, and everything died down, he was still seen to be accompanying little boys around. Paterno and McQueary both witnessed this (among others).

That's what gets me...

So, what do they do? Nothing. I mean McQueary says he directly and unmistakably saw it happen. How does he not think: "What is this guy doing walking around with more little boys?" And knowing full-well he's still associated with that boys charity group "Second..." whatever apparently euphemistic BS term they came up with for it.

And it also goes further: there is the story of the janitor that caught Sandusky in the shower performing oral sex on another young victim. The janitor was so distraught that the other staff feared he was going to have a heart attack when he told them (read the Grand Jury report). But it was relayed to multiple individuals and subsequently to the 'appropriate' authorities. Who in the hell is in authority? It can't be blamed on one individual with the power to do something.

How can it possibly be that only a 'few' people knew about this? Impossible. I would dare speculate that this involves more than just Sandusky.

I would also add that there had to be rumors at campus about this kind of shit going on. There is no way a pattern like this, that developed over a decade plus, is not noticed by anyone. Something stinks to high heaven here folks.

No, the fans are not to blame, but I'll be damned if I'll defend anyone in anyway defending Paterno. Not after reading the Grand Jury report. Its absolutely ridiculous to think Paterno is merely caught up in the scandal. He is absolutely and unmistakably an enabler; in the least.

[markpkessinger]

94. I agree entirely. I never said otherwise. n/t

[deadinsider]

95. I know...

I think its admirable to try and further explain yourself after you posted something when you were upset.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

[fizzgig]

96. regarding your second and third bullet points

i don't know for sure, but i think the university could have said they fired him for conduct unbecoming to the university. allowing a known, or at least suspected, child molester continue to work around children without breathing a word to police or cps certainly strikes me as conduct unbecoming of ANYONE.

that said, mcqueary needs to lose his job, too.

eta: it may be moot to argue whether mcqueary should keep his job, i don't see how he can stay. one way or another, i think he's out.

[melissaf]

99. Yes indeed

McQuery does need to lose his job. And I'm 100% positive he will.

[fizzgig]

100. i had just edited to add that i don't know how he can stay

one way or another, he's done

[melissaf]

101. Infuriatingly,

I'm guessing they're keeping him around to finish out the winning football season. Paterno didn't really do much coaching, I'm told, because he's very old and frail. McQuery's probably there because he *does* still coach.

[fizzgig]

103. that is possible

i can't argue otherwise. but, he won't be there for the nebraska game, they said it was "in the best interest of all." maybe just a hunch, but there's something about it that makes me wonder.

i could be wrong, my gut has sh*t for brains ;)

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[markpkessinger]

105. Not even worth responding to n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

106. So you're denying that the frat rats at Pedo State U. are joking about

'Sanduskying" folks? Anderson Cooper on CNN reported that gem just today. Your denial places you perilously close to enabling pedophile enablers.

But whatever you have to tell yourself about the Pedo State U. criminal enterprise.

[deadinsider]

108. Dude...

There was a thread on DU that was making jokes about Penn State and pedophilia until the mods finally locked it a couple of hours ago.

Does that reflect your opinion too since you are also a member of the DU community? No.

Do the provocateurs in the Occupy Movement(s) stand for the beliefs of the movement itself? No.

I don't think the original poster is denying your 'Sanduskying' anecdote. What I believe the OP is saying is don't lump everyone together.

Some of the students that were rioting were just there to be idiots, some were what you say they are, and some were there with mixed emotions. Some may not even be totally informed of what's going on with the story (believe it or not; see Ashton Kutscher). This also seems to be the point of the OP.

I agree with your being pissed off about people making insensitive and gross jokes about the situation, or being infuriated that this shit was allowed to happen in the first place. But remember the situation doesn't reflect upon the whole freaking university and town.

[coalition_unwilling]

110. The OP wasn't denying my (and Anderson Cooper's) "Sanduskying"

anecdote, he was deeming it unworthy of response whatsoever.

And when 10,000 out of 40,000 students (in other words, 25% of the student body) riot in defense of a pedophile enabler like Paterno, I think one can say rightly that the situation indeed does reflect upon the whole freaking university and town.

[deadinsider]

111. OK...

I agree that 10,000 looks bad, and I agree with you that *if* they were rioting in defense of Paterno then that is absolutely unacceptable.

However, I'd like to extrapolate a bit:

1. The OP not responding does not mean he (I'm making a guess here; it may be she) is in denying your post. It may mean he thinks it off topic or a well disguised straw man argument. Meaning: how many people were actually making the 'Sanduskying' jokes? A story about some idiots making jokes should not be used as a broad based criticism.

2. 10,000 out of 40,000 does not represent a ** whole ** freaking anything. It represents 25%. Another point of the OP. (Granted, it is an unseemly percentage given the circumstances).

3. Was a poll taken of the 10,000 and the reasons for their actions? Was it actually 10,000? Were they all students? What was their demographic?

I'm going to make an assumption here, I've lived long enough and think I have a good grasp of some things (of which you may understandably disagree; I don't mind): some of the students were morons that were actually upset with Paterno's dismissal despite their knowledge of the circumstances; some were just college kids being wild idiots; some were upset 'sports' fans that don't pay much attention to anything 'newsworthy'; and some were there with mixed emotions (what I believe the OP was getting at).

On Edit: Also, you post (110) does claim he is denying the story about the jokes.

[coalition_unwilling]

112. The OP DID respond to say that my post was not worth

responding to. That post clearly cited the 'Sanduskying' anecdote. So, when the OP responded that my post was not worth responding to, what other conclusion can be drawn but that my claim is so specious as to not merit a response? (And I didn't cook it up out of thin air - I heard about it on CNN or, actually, on a thread reporting on CNN's report)

As to #2, of course 10,000 out of 40,000 does not represent a 'whole' anything. Mathematically (assuming the raw numbers are roughly correct) it represents 25%. But I would say that 25% of the student body allows one to make inferences about the institution whence that 25% comes.

As to #3, you're stretching ingenuity to its limits. I'm unaware of Gallup doing polls at any riot so, no, there was no poll taken. Hence, one must turn to common sense. Board of Trustees announces Paterno is fired and, lo and behold, not 1 hour later, massive numbers of PSU students are protesting in the streets. That's known as a 'proximate cause'. The reporting I saw and read (and I have to rely on it) implied that the protesters were students (and a large number from the fraternities, apparently).

I actually think your final assumption is a fairly plausible breakdown of student motivations for rioting.

Please note that at roughly the same time the PSU students were, arguably, rioting in defense of Paterno, students at the U of California - Berkerly were being criminally assaulted by UCB campus police for trying to protect the tents of OccupyCal. The contrast between PSU's student body and UCB's student body is, I think we can agree, revealing and suggestive. and paints PSU's student body unfavorably.

[deadinsider]

113. Actually, I think I am going to start polling at riots

If I could only figure out beforehand when they will be taking place ;)

I'll let you know what I find, when I find one.

Anyway, I don't agree with everything in your post, but I can now appreciate your viewpoint because it is much more articulate and laid out than the other ones. And when you do that it makes it more difficult for me to find uncommon ground.

As to your final juxtaposition of OWS and this: entirely agree. It reveals the power of the Circus Maximus. But I really, really believe that it is not particular to Penn State, Pennsylvania, fraternities, etc. But I'll refrain from boring you with my socio-economic philosophy.

I'm out for the night. Have a good one.

[deadinsider]

104. The fans should be demanding heads...

How about the university police?

Penn State fans need to say "we are going to demand that they clean house." I understand that the fans, alumni, students, and faculty put a lot of their heart and soul into the university. I would hope and expect they demand that anyone that passively dealt with this situation be terminated ASAP (and prosecuted where applicable).

And how in the hell is it that the DAs Office had nothing that suggested they could successfully prosecute? After a pattern of abuse that lasted this long? That is nowhere near an acceptable conclusion. This doesn't seem to incriminate Penn State exclusively unless the DAs Office was never provided with all the evidence.

However, I cannot see how they did not catch wind of the multiple reports and hearsay involving this case. Either way, there's some major criminal activity going on if you ask me. And I really don't give a shit what the State laws say. Isn't their one Federal Law that would apply here? And if not: why the hell not?

In a way, Penn Stat seems to reflect the current state of our country: those in power are either incompetent (I don't think so) or are just self-centered pieces of shit who care nothing about right and wrong or the greater good.

Also, all the original poster is saying is "don't think of Happy Valley as some hotbed of pedophiles." It is no more a 'haven' for such filth than Omaha, Nebraska (see Franklin Scandal) or the red light district of any major city where underage prostitution is not as uncommon as one would like to think. This just happens to apply to a notable institution, and people should always be aware that its not particular to that institution. That's the point: its about power and it could happen anywhere. And it does.

I feel bad for the good people of Happy Valley and Penn State to have to see their cherished institution and the good name of their town besmirched by some very bad men.

But I feel sorrier for the kids and their families that were the victims of these crimes. As I believe we all are.

On edit: i had to correct 'capital' to 'university' police. Sorry, live in Madison, WI ;)

[aikoaiko]

107. Yes, one can be dismissed for poor judgment on a supervisory responsibiity even if ....

...if the letter of policy is followed. I'm fine with McQueary (and others) losing his job too, but there are differences in responsibility between head coach and GA.


The student protests over Paterno's dismissal does say something about their priorities.