Penn State Was Right to Fire Joe Paterno
by T Kyle King on Nov 10, 2011 8:23 AM EST
in College Football
Email
PrintThe wins will survive, obviously. Six undefeated seasons, two national championships, three Big Ten titles, etc. His philanthropy will survive. They're not going to take his name off the library. His sheer longevity at Penn State — 46 years as a head coach, 62 years altogether — will be in there, even if the Queen of England phase he's occupied over the past few years is dispatched in a line or two. Of the many books I read growing up by and about college coaches, Paterno was the only one I really admired, precisely because of his basic humanity above and beyond winning football games. He's progressive, funny and still wins football games. The debt that college sports owes to the man and the deep respect it has for him will survive in hallowed, Wooden-esque tones, and it will all be true.
Now, though, Paterno's role in covering up heinous allegations against one of his longest-tenured, most trusted assistants will be equally true. And which part of the story comes first, which one is The Truth, and which is the caveat, the footnote, I don't know. This is not Woody Hayes punching Charlie Bauman in a bout of frustrated senility. This is serious criminal behavior in Paterno's program, in Paterno's locker room, left essentially unchecked for years after he was informed.
Matt Hinton (November 7, 2011)
Outside Paterno's house, it was a scene out of the Last Days of Richard Nixon . . .
Matt Hinton (November 9, 2011)
Matt Hinton is perhaps the blogosphere’s most perceptive college football writer, and has been for years, so it is not surprising that Dr. Saturday was the one who sounded both of the right notes in the sad case of Joe Paterno’s final days as the head coach of the Penn St. Nittany Lions. Woody Hayes and Richard Nixon are, in fact, the proper parallels: the former, due to the differences; the latter, due to the similarities. We begin with the latter, because that comparison is the one that answers Hinton’s question about "which one is The Truth, and which is the caveat."
In the third and final volume of his biography of Richard Nixon, Stephen E. Ambrose wrote:
He is the only President who resigned his office, the only one forced to accept a pardon for his deeds. This will never be forgotten. Two hundred years from now, when he will get only a paragraph or two in a high school American history text, the first sentence will begin: "Richard Nixon, thirty-seventh President, resigned his office because of the Watergate scandal."
The passage will go on to note his opening to China, his pioneering efforts at establishing détente, and his role in ending the American involvement in Vietnam. Depending on what happens in the first generation of the twenty-first century, he could be seen as a pivotal figure in world politics of the post-World War II era, the man who prepared the way for the ending of the nuclear arms race and of the Cold War. It might go the other way and fault him for a failure to seize the opportunity and use American power in 1973 to impose an enforceable peace on Israel and the Arabs. It all depends on how things turn out, and the judgment on Nixon will shift with every major upheaval in world politics.
What will not shift is that spot that will not out, the Watergate cover-up, resignation, and pardon.
The Jerry Sandusky scandal is the spot that will not out, and should not. Mike McQueary says he saw a grown man sexually assaulting a ten-year-old boy. He relayed this information to Joe Paterno, who did not call the police. He pushed the problem one rung up the ladder by reporting it to his superiors, but, otherwise, he did nothing. There’s no neat capsule into which you can fit those facts.
Paterno is a committed, practicing Roman Catholic, and, by all accounts, a decent human being. I believe him when he says he’s torn up about this, but I imagine he must have been torn up about the similar scandal a few years ago regarding Roman Catholic priests. There, too, there was an initial outrage (the molestation of children by adult authority figures) compounded by a subsequent outrage (addressing it internally and secretly, in a manner that allowed it to continue). Having seen the effects of that approach, and the ensuing scandal, upon one institution to which he was wholly devoted, how could he not take a different approach when confronted with the same situation at another institution to which he was wholly devoted?
Joe Paterno knew better. Joe Paterno brought Jerry Sandusky to Penn State, and let him stay there. Joe Paterno had (probably) the power and (certainly) the influence to decide whether Sandusky stayed or went. Joe Paterno didn’t hear a report from further down on the organizational chart, the way his superiors did; Joe Paterno heard an eyewitness account from the guy who was there. Joe Paterno had none of the fear of reprisal that McQueary may have felt.
As weak as McQueary’s excuses for inaction are, Paterno didn’t even have those excuses. Paterno didn’t make this happen, but, when he found out it was happening, he let it keep happening for nearly a decade. That is why this is Joe Paterno’s Watergate; this ending taints everything good that went before. Just as Nixon’s whole career now serves solely as a footnote to the scandal that caused his resignation, so, too, is everything Joe Paterno did in State College now a mere afterthought to the appalling moral and legal wrongdoing he permitted to continue.
This brings us to the Woody Hayes comparison. Paterno did a lot for Penn State, but Hayes did a lot for Ohio State, too, yet, when Hayes hit Charlie Bauman, his career ended immediately; within days, he had cleaned out his desk. What Hayes did was egregious, but that assault was committed in the heat of the moment against a single legal adult. What Paterno did was to overlook an assault against a child, and to permit additional assaults to occur against additional children, and to do so with clear-headed calculation.
That is why the Pennsylvania State University trustees were right to conclude that Joe Paterno should not be allowed to retire, nor allowed to finish out the season. It took courage for the trustees to take the stand they did, and to say: "Joe Paterno is no longer the football coach, effective immediately."
Last Sunday, November 6, marked the 142nd anniversary of the first college football game, as a result of which last Saturday was commemorated as national college football day. Joe Paterno was a large part of that long history, but, given the deplorable conduct he permitted to continue for nearly the last decade of his storied career, he deserved to be fired, and Penn State deserves credit for ending his tenure as abruptly and unequivocally as his actions---or, more to the point, his inaction---deserved.
The first Saturday following the celebration of the anniversary of the birth of the sport will be a sad one for college football, but it would have been sadder still if Joe Paterno had been allowed to be in the stadium this weekend as the head coach of the Nittany Lions. The trustees did the right thing. Unfortunately, it has been almost ten years too long since anyone could say that about the manner in which anyone in authority at Penn State handled anything relating to the appalling acts toward which they turned a blind eye.
100 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Immediately after posting this, . . .
. . . I saw the fanposts in which vineyarddawg quite rightly reminded folks that we try to shy away from politics and religion, both of which I referenced in this posting. I apologize if anyone was offended; I meant neither to endorse any particular party or policy, or to slight any specific church. I simply believed, and believe, those analogies to be apt, under the circumstances. I regret any offense I inadvertently may have given, though I believe the larger point still stands.
Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!
I think it would be hard not to notice the similarities.
Thanks for your post. I concur 100%. I also think the more this came to light Paterno’s words and actions now as well as the documented past illustrated how removed from reality he has (unsurprisingly) become; he is certainly an iconic figure but you do not tell the Board of Trustees that don’t need to worry themselves with your job status.
I agree with rbubp.
I think you discussed the religious and political aspects in their proper light and handled them well.
To be honest, I was mostly trying to make sure things didn’t get out of hand last night.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 9:32 AM EST up reply actions
This is a rare situation...
Where politics and religion are part of the story—a huge, national story. One cannot discuss the Penn State scandal without addressing politics (BOT, Joe Pa’s power, etc.) or religion/morality. In fact, if religion or morality is removed from the story, then there isn’t a story.
Personally, I’ve felt you and everyone else on this blog have done a great job of handling the touchy subjects appropriately.
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
Well said
Everybody involved with this sickening situation needs to go immediately, letting Paterno finish the season only would have created even more of a circus which would have made things even worse.
"When people see me sack the quarterback, I want them to see Jesus." - Reggie White
Twitter @JoshBernat17
by jbernat17 on Nov 10, 2011 8:48 AM EST via iPhone app reply actions
Part of me would like to have seen the announcers try to deal with this during a broadcast.
The other part of me things being fired is a pretty mild punishment for this cover-up.
by Biggus Rickus on Nov 10, 2011 9:01 AM EST up reply actions
at first i thought that they should let him finish the season...
but then i thought about it a different way. had this been any other professor at my university who not knew something like this happened, I would want him fired immediately. I would be sickened that so many people that knew and stood by continued to get paid on my universities budget.
I had to remove the context of sports and then the board’s decision was crystal clear.
Life will always throw you curves, just keep fouling them off... the right pitch will come, but when it does, be prepared to run the bases. ~Rick Maksian
by oneloyaldawg on Nov 10, 2011 9:20 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Exactly.
I think most people with a historical appreciation of college football really didn’t want to see Joe Paterno go like this, and it’s natural for the initial reaction to be, “Wait, does he really have to be fired right now?”
As you said, though, when you examine the situation objectively, remove the names and the connotations associated with those names, the decision is really quite clear.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 9:35 AM EST up reply actions
If, God forbid, something like this happened at UGA...
…and Mark Richt was aware of it and took similar actions to Paterno, it would matter little to me if he was legally in the clear; I would still want him gone immediately. I can understand why Penn State fans, students, and bloggers want the media to stop piling on Paterno, but I can’t understand why they think he should have been protected from any consequences from his lack of action.
by dawgfan will on Nov 10, 2011 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Richt has acted swiftly and decisively over less
I can’t imagine a similar situation resulting in similar actions from him. Not in the slightest.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 10, 2011 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Everyone thought that about Paterno up until last week. I’m not saying Richt would do anything like this, but hypotheticals are kind of pointless.
Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to Vicktory!
by KeepSwinging on Nov 10, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Not exactly.
There had been an allegation against Jerry Sandusky in 1998 that was dismissed, and it wasn’t (or shouldn’t have been) a secret that the grand jury was investigating Sandusky, and that Paterno himself testified in front of the grand jury.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
Good Post
Totally agree that in this situation Paterno had to go. While I am angry at Paterno for not doing more, I am sad that a person who has done so much for so many people has to go out like this. But, this will be Paterno’s legacy.
I am watching and reading all this news coverage and just trying to remember the real victims.
This was the only option the Board of Trustees had.
Removing Paterno for his for his part in the Sandusky incident will allow the University to:
- Show that the University is aggressively active to remove all persons who failed to do the proper thing in this scandal. This is a sign to the public and to the real victims that there is active leadership at PSU that wants to do the right thing. (Huh, PSU; we are waiting for McCreary to be removed!!). I’m a retired Army officer and even the “perception” of wrong doing or failure of action on our part was enough to get us fired. Real leaders act decisively!
- Allow the football team to continue with their season with less distractions than if JoePa was still coaching. These kids, who were nine and ten themselves when this scandal started over a decade ago, deserve to get play their season and be recognized for their efforts and success; especially the seniors. Honestly though, you won’t be able to talk PSU football for many years without thinking/discussing this scandal.
Of note, I read an account this morning in the LA Times by Chris Dufresne that “Some bowl officials are horrified Penn State could fall to them in the selection rotation.”
…And the innocent shall also be punished………..
by pseudonymion on Nov 10, 2011 10:29 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Question for the lawyers out there...
I’ve seen a few people mention that Joe Paterno had no choice but to report the allegations to his superiors and let them take the lead, because if he had reported it to the authorities, and the allegations turned out to be false, he could be sued for defamation. I find this hard to believe, but, I’m not a lawyer…so, what would the possible legal repercussions have been to JoePa in the event that the allegations were, indeed, untrue?
Likely not defamation
Reporting something to police cannot usually result in a defamation claim. It might result in a malicious prosecution claim, but that’s a separate claim.
There are ways, however, to report something to police in a manner that may result in a defamation claim. This requires a lot more than simply reporting allegations, however.
You're wrong
The firing of Joe Paterno, and more importantly the method by which he was fired, is a travesty that only highlights how poorly managed and run the university is.
People dogpile onto Paterno as if he should have done more. Certainly, in hindsight, he should have done more. Hindsight, however, is 20/20.
But let’s lay out what was actually done. A graduate assistant witnessed something disturbing. Not knowing how to act immediately, he sought to later handle it by bringing it up with his superior—Joe Paterno.
The real question is what was said during that meeting. There are differences of opinion as to what was said and how it was and could be interpreted.
But here’s the thing, Joe Paterno escalated it. He escalated it up to Curley, and Curley should have investigated it more thoroughly and passed on information to the authorities. He did not.
Joe Paterno is being dragged through the mud because he trusted Curley to do his job and Curley did not. To say Paterno covered up anything is laughable—he reported a good friend to his superior who should have launched an investigation and turned details over to the police.
It is easy to play the hindsight game. In retrospect, it is easy to think someone could have done more. In fact, this is exactly what happens to both the victims and their families, friends, and other loved ones.
Paterno trusted someone who turned out to be, allegedly, a villain. So did, unfortunately, the parents and teachers of the victims as well as the members of the non-profit Sandusky was involved in.
To blame Paterno is to ascribe greater powers to the man than he held. Paterno certainly brought some of this on himself—he is a legend, and all legends are given power over things they cannot and do not control by the public. Paterno’s relentless effort to coach the game the right way certainly did not help.
The reality, however, is that the man was the football coach. He was not the athletic director. He was not the head of the campus police. He did his job, and he even did it in a way that he knew could bring trouble to a longtime friend.
It is easy to cast stones with the power of hindsight. Paterno could have done more. He could have checked up on the situation. He could have followed up on whether there was an investigation. He could have called in the police himself. Yes, he could have done more.
But to blame him requires one to blame the community, the families, even the victims. There is a villain who did wrong, and there are those who had duties to act who failed to do so. Paterno is neither. Nor are the families of the victims. Nor is the community.
Finally, to believe Paterno does not ache inside with the power of hindsight is to ignore the man that has stood for honor and dignity in football for so long. I believe his sadness and regret is evident. It is the same sadness and regret anyone who dealt with Sandusky and was fooled by the man must feel.
It may have been appropriate for Paterno to be fired, but he deserved more process and consideration. He deserved to be heard by the board. The board owed it to Paterno, and to the Happy Valley community, to consider the facts and details and reach a reasoned decision.
The head of the board said he did not think he could explain the reasons why Paterno should go. That’s the wrong answer, and it is emblematic of how poorly this whole issue has been handled by all involved. The board should be able to explain the reasons, and that’s the bottom line.
The board had options. Coaches can be suspended without being fired. Coaches can be placed on administrative leave. Steps can be taken to show a board in control and thus give confidence to the community that well-reasoned and appropriate steps are taken.
Instead the board flinched at misplaced criticism and reacted in a knee-jerk reaction. A courier from the board hand-delivered a letter to Paterno 15 minutes before they held their news conference. The letter instructed Paterno to call a number. Two board members waited at the other end of that number to tell Paterno that he was fired.
Firing Paterno this way was no act of leadership—it was an act of cowardice. There may have been a way to fire Paterno in a manner showing leadership, but now we’ll never know.
Happy Valley, Penn State, and, most importantly, the victims deserve more than this.
What a shameful moment in sports history in oh so many ways.
by Jwnelson on Nov 10, 2011 10:35 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Your first sentence was certainly correct
—and those people who run it are pretty much all going down with Paterno. But do not do not do not forget that JOE PATERNO was one of those people who ran and managed the university.
Furthermore, you don’t really think the legacy of an 84-year-old football coach is more important than the lives of those young men, do you? That is what Joe Paterno and the university admin apparently thought.
by rbubp on Nov 10, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You claim something with no support
You say that Paterno and the university administrators felt Paterno’s legacy was more important than the victims. You say it is apparent. I do not believe that’s apparent.
The reality is that there is a good deal of information that still needs to be absorbed. To fire Paterno in the way he was fired, without being able to even articulate why he should be fired, helps nothing.
Suspend him. Put him on administrative leave. Prevent him from benefiting from a delay in firing. Then take the time do it right, and for the right reasons.
You are correct that Paterno was one of the people who had a role in running the university. In Paterno’s case, he ran the football program. He should be accountable, but to be accountable there must be an accounting.
The board’s method for firing brought no accountability. It was a cowardly, knee-jerk reaction. Bravery would have been facing down the withering criticism while coming to a reasoned conclusion.
Yep...
This enough for me:
It is easy to cast stones with the power of hindsight. Paterno could have done more. He could have checked up on the situation. He could have followed up on whether there was an investigation. He could have called in the police himself. Yes, he could have done more.
There you go. He could, and should, have done more. This isn’t about hindsight; it’s about doing the right thing—and he didn’t do the right thing.
Removing everyone attached to this mess was absolutely the right thing, allowing the current student athletes to play their final games with this behind them, as much as possible. There’s no way that could have been accomplished with Paterno on the sidelines, directing attention away from his innocent players.
In fact, Paterno shouldn’t have put the BoT in this position. He should have resigned immediately, for, if he cared so much about his players, he would have stepped aside to let his team play without distraction—once again, as much as possible.
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
by Jman781 on Nov 10, 2011 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Two wrongs do not equal a right
You say Paterno should have never put the board in this situation—he should have resigned immediately. Point well taken.
That does not absolve the board from their cowardly decision.
They could have suspended him immediately and done their due diligence. Instead they punted on due diligence and opted to wash their hands as quickly as possible.
Disagree
The board’s method for firing brought no accountability. It was a cowardly, knee-jerk reaction. Bravery would have been facing down the withering criticism while coming to a reasoned conclusion.
Allowing Paterno to strong-arm the BoT and leave “his way” would have been the cowardly reaction. Any other coach in the nation, under the same circumstances, would have also been fired, yet we’re supposed to feel sorry for an 84-year-old legend?
That’s the cowardly position.
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
There are many ways to punish Paterno, this was the worst way
I never advocated allowing Paterno to leave “his way.” I even outlined how the board could suspend him immediately and then do their job.
I feel sorry for anyone who has been fooled by people they trusted in such a horrific way. To paint Paterno as the wrongdoer, however, ignores the facts.
What is cowardly is for the board to simply fire Paterno without due process. Sure, Paterno could have resigned immediately, or immediately put himself on leave, but he did not.
Paterno’s failure to do so does not absolve the board from their poor decision.
Fair enough...
Thanks for clarifying.
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
No problem . . .
I don’t think my disagreement with Kyle or most folks here is that great. I think we agree on many things. I just disagree over how it was handled. I also grieve for the victims and the community up there, and I hate to see steps taken that will only make it more difficult to heal. (And the board’s methods have been such steps.)
You know why it is apparent?
They witnessed a man commit a crime on their facilities right in front of them and they continued to allow him to use the facilities and act the same as he always had for the next nine years. This man had already been investigated by city police and banned from one high school.
How much more apparent could it have been?
And don't forget this 2002 situation may not be his first knowledge of this
as Sandusky’s actions are said to date back to at least 94. The local DA and PSU police investigated an incident in 1998. Sandusky “retired” soon thereafter. Does anyone think Paterno had no knowledge of the 98 incident? That those people would investigate Sandusky at that time, and Paterno be unaware of that investigation, especially considering his premature retirement soon thereafter?
In light of that, in addition to the continued allegation from 2002, and beyond, it’s hard to dismiss Paterno’s knowledge as so minimal.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 10, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Perhaps there was more
But based on the facts presented in the grand jury investigation, it’s not clear what Paterno knew.
Then again, if the board hadn’t acted so cowardly, had instead suspended Paterno and done their own investigation, perhaps we would know.
As I wrote, there is a way it could have been done with leadership and honow, and then there is the cowardly way it was done.
Not perhaps...
THERE WAS MORE. Perhaps ignores the facts. I agree that the Board should have at least told him to his face, and allow him to resign immediately with grace. But there was more, not perhaps, not maybe, there was more. There was way too much more to allow him to continue, either suspended or otherwise.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 10, 2011 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
Even if it was!
even if it was!!!! his first knowledge! Dude committing crimes in your locker room—and you forget about it and go about your day?
THEY KNEW.
Exactly how much hindsight do you need?
The bottom line is that in instances such as this, it does not and should not matter what sort of power one holds in the administration. This is not a matter of administration or administrative steps. This isn’t a matter of having a staff meeting about possible weight room dangers, taking an item down as an action-item to be discussed, and then leaving it in the hands of superiors.
This was a matter of a man sexually assaulting young boys on multiple occasions. Were there complications to the situation (friendships, organizational hierarchies within the University, etc.)? Absolutely. This instance, however, is an issue of humanity, civility, and a responsibility to mankind as a whole. Joe Paterno didn’t have to follow up with Curley to know that nothing was being done. If Sundusky were being investigated and facing legal repercussions, you better believe Joe Paterno would have known about it (and in the lack of such measures, would’ve known about their absence as well). Regardless of his power within the University, Joe Paterno had the moral obligation (both before and after reporting the incident to his superiors) to take this issue to the authorities. Simply escalating the issue is not enough.
It seems as if many folks in Happy Valley (and elsewhere), are defending Joe by saying “he escalated it to his superiors, what else do you want him to do?”. The problem with that, of course, is that you can’t simply escalate and then wipe your hands of a situation. Even upon escalation, the moral obligation to ensure that the proper steps are being taken to handle that situation remains.
by hailtogeorgia on Nov 10, 2011 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What would you have done?
People readily cast stones but have no idea how they would have reacted in similar situations. I find this deplorable. These are not easy situations to navigate except for those who have never faced them.
But let’s address your point on escalation. Paterno escalated it to the person who was in the best position to investigate the matter and bring it to the authorities. Curley had the duty and obligation to do so; he also had the authority to do so. He failed.
Did Paterno have a moral obligation to follow up or report it to the police? Sure, when looking at it in hindsight. It’s sure as hell easy to say that now—and Paterno has even expressed his regret that he did not follow up now that he knows more details.
The point I am getting at is that Paterno should not have been fired—not this way. It is nothing more than a washing of the hands by the board. They cannot even articulate why they fired him. They did not even give him a chance to air out the reasons he took the steps he did.
This does nothing to help the victims. If anything, it takes the spotlight off the wrong that Sandusky has done and the harm he has caused the victims and it has shifted it to the errors by the board and Paterno. This is a disservice to the victims.
What the board should have done was to take the time to make the right decision—which I tend to believe might have been Paterno’s resignation or firing—while being capable of articulating it.
There have been many eloquent arguments as to why Paterno should go, and go immediately. There have been many impassioned arguments.
You know who had neither? The board.
The board’s decision was the wrong decision as much, or more, because of the way it was made. It was made out of cowardice, out of an unwillingness to face the issue squarely, and a desire to move on and wash their hands of a difficult situation.
The board has acted shamefully, and I feel terrible for the victims, Happy Valley, the university, and Paterno. The board’s decisions will only make it take longer to pick up the pieces and heal.
Agree and disagree
First of all, I agree that the board could have treated him with more respect, but I also think they should have done it in a way that he was not allowed to coach on Saturday.
Second, I think that Hailtogeorgia would have called the police immediately. I would have called the police immediately. The difference is that Hailtogeorgia isn’t an 84 y/o man who has been working in a military-like system for decades. Paterno reported an allegation to his superiors, its their job to do an investigation. If the investigation found nothing was really wrong and it was a misunderstanding, it would never have been any of Paterno’s business. That’s a generational thing. You can’t easily project that onto a 30 y/o (I have no idea how old Hail is). I don’t have any excuses for the GA that actually saw it.
Bottom line: its all just a big mess.
I agree with you
This is a big mess. Worse, it is easy to cast stones and thereby hit the people unfairly.
And, for the record, I did mention the board could have suspended Paterno and done a more full investigation of the situation. Hell, they’d have more power to investigate him if he was still employed.
As for the generational thing, I think you’re right. I genuinely believe Paterno tried to do the right thing, but did not understand what the right thing was. In hindsight, I believe he does (and I believe he hurts all the more for it, and for his failure to do more).
It is a sad, sad thing—all of it.
The investigation began in 1998
it’s continued with a full grand jury and plenty of facts added on top. How much more “investigation” do you need?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 10, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
Based on the record available today
More information can and should be sought about what Paterno did and did not do.
Then again, I believe in due process, and I believe in the power of airing out the dirty truth.
The board’s actions allow for neither.
Bullish
this doesn’t stop the investigation into the actions and cover up of this matter. This does nothing to stop any of that investigation or subsequent findings from coming to light.
The only thing the “board’s actions allow” is stopping someone who at best enabled multiple children to be heinously violated from coaching a stupid football game. Poor Joe Pa, he can’t bow out like he wants in front of a stadium of adoring fans. If only that were the ultimate issue, instead of the disgusting acts of multiple individuals.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
separate investigations
the 98 investigation was dropped by prosecuting authorities. A new investigation was opened in 08 after a new report and concluded in this full grand jury report.
As a side note, it’s not at all unusual in my experience for a first report to be either dropped or end with reduced charges an minimal sentence. In one case I’m familiar with, initial report resulted in reduced charges, no jail, 5 yrs probation w/therapy. Second report resulted in 10 yrs in prison plus 5 yrs parole and life time sex offender registry. That individual has now served the entire sentence and walking free.
Housemother & Editor at Dawg Sports
I can bake like a demon.
I know podunk...
but if you hear the investigation in 98, and then have this come up again in 2002, how many times do you have to smell smoke before realizing maybe there’s a fire burning.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I'm simply saying
it’s not that easy. Molester are exceptionally good at making you believe things even when you know they aren’t true. It’s astounding, but it’s true, I’ve seen it.
Housemother & Editor at Dawg Sports
I can bake like a demon.
If we were talking about almost any other topic, I might agree with you, Jwnelson.
But the issue remains that in this instance, we were talking about the sexual abuse of young boys by a man 40 or 50 years their senior.
To some extent, it doesn’t really matter exactly what Mike McQueary told Joe Paterno. All Paterno should have needed to hear was “Coach Sandusky,” “10-year old boy,” and “inappropriate contact.”
You say that it’s difficult to know what we would have done in that situation, but it’s not difficult for me at all. I can possibly understand why Paterno escalated the matter to his superiors without calling law enforcement immediately, but I can see no possible situation in which I would just “let the matter go away.”
Joe Paterno might have fulfilled his legal obligations in terms of reporting, but he had an unquestionable ethical obligation to follow-up when it became clear at some point over the ensuing 9 years that no law enforcement officials had been involved and no steps had been taken to address the situation.
In fact, to some extent, it doesn’t even matter whether Paterno knew about this activity or not. A decades-long pattern of child molestation occurred under his watch, perpetrated by his right-hand man, with whom he had literally daily contact. He should have been terminated, and he was. Everybody up the management chain should have been terminated, and they were.
It’s the only choice, because fundamental organizational changes were clearly needed.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Especially when you do this math...
1998 Sandusky investigated for inappropriate conduct with young boys
+
To some extent, it doesn’t really matter exactly what Mike McQueary told Joe Paterno. All Paterno should have needed to hear was "Coach Sandusky," "10-year old boy," and "inappropriate contact."
=
Do more. Plain, simple, unequivacol.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 10, 2011 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You say it's not difficult for you, but have you actually faced it?
I know a number of people who have been in those situations. It is not as easy as most seem to think it is. Some rise to the occasion, others wilt under it. Some come back to it later, some sweep it under the rug.
To crucify someone out of self-righteousness without walking in their shoes is a dangerous thing.
The emotions surrounding this, and the feelings so many hold, are examples of why these kinds of crimes are so powerful and so harmful. It affects not just the victims, but the victims’s parents, the victims’ community, and everyone who had contact with those involved.
As to whether Paterno should be fired—I do not necessarily disagree. The actions of the board, however, were cowardly and only serve to wash its hands of this mess.
Firing him now, rather than suspending him and investigating the situation more deeply, does little to resolve this and will only make it harder for the victims and the community to heal.
I will not be drawn into a battle of competing hypotheticals.
It doesn’t matter what my life experiences have been. If one of my subordinates at work came to me and said he had seen my best employee in a shower engaged in inappropriate contact with a 10-year-old, I would not simply report it to my superior and forget it.
That shit is not something you forget.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
Competing hypotheticals are a problem
And I agree, they provide no solution.
All I am trying to express is that it’s not as clear cut as people like to believe. These are hard situations to handle.
This isn’t intended to absolve wrongdoing, or failures, but to provide some context.
I strongly believe Paterno’s intentions were good, even if his actions were insufficient. Many appear to equate insufficient actions with poor intentions, and I do not believe it is fair in this case based on the facts we currently have.
It is one thing to pay for a terrible result based on your actions; it’s another thing to be painted as someone who desired that terrible result to occur.
At some point, it doesn't really matter what the intentions were.
Insufficient actions are insufficient actions. Frankly, I don’t care what Paterno’s intentions were, I care about what his actions were, and his actions were insufficient and morally reprehensible.
by hailtogeorgia on Nov 10, 2011 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that Paterno's intentions were most likely good.
I don’t know if anyone is trying to make the case that Paterno actually didn’t care about the allegations against Sandusky, and if they were, that would be a pretty untenable position.
He clearly cares. One needs only to see his reaction over the last few days to see that.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
You don't have to have faced it!!!
They get paid to do the right thing in these cases. It is what being an upper administrator is all about—Paterno too! What if it was one of his players? It don’t matter. You have to act. HAVE TO.
Come on, man, that is NO EXCUSE.
Ban the guy! Tell the police!
There are policies and procedures about this. It is a large organization that has sexual harassment as a possible problem every day of the year with professors and college students. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE. They didn’t do it. Lives are ruined.
And you think they should not have been fired????
Firing him is sweeping it under the rug
By firing Paterno, the board is trying to wash their hands of responsibility.
By suspending him, and investigating him, they could meet their responsibility and provide a way forward for the victims’ and the community so that the healing might begin.
Firing the way they did was cowardly. Suspend, investigate, and then fire if necessary—that’s what should have been done.
Jumping to conclusions before the full facts are out, and convicted people before they’ve had a fair chance to respond, is simply mob justice—and mob justice provides little lasting value.
What is the course of action you would have had the Board of Trustees take?
It seems like you’re arguing throughout this thread that it was ok for them to fire him, but they shouldn’t have fired him.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
If you read a bit more closely
The actions I believe the board should have taken were to suspend him, investigate him, and be capable of articulating their reasons for firing him.
Knee-jerk reactions in these situations do little-to-no good. They are cowardly and serve to shift responsibility from one group to another. (Here, from the board to the police.)
Clearly you are passionate about the matter, and understandably so. But passion can, and should, be tempered with reason and fairness.
It is fair for Paterno to be suspended. It is fair for him to be held accountable for his failures. It is fair for him to even be fired for those failings.
It is cowardly of the board to skip all those steps instead of facing the difficult task of meeting this mess head on.
Isn't McCreary, Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley the real cowards here?
by pseudonymion on Nov 10, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think it's that simple.
I am more than a little acquainted with someone who has dome very similar things. I can tell you with absolute certainty if you met that person on the street today you would NOT know. If you knew them for very long and then heard similar accusations you would at beast have trouble believing it could possibly be true.
Molesters in particular are extremely good at fooling people. They are very charming, personable, nice people, it is a large part of how they are able to do what they do.
Housemother & Editor at Dawg Sports
I can bake like a demon.
I read an article from Sally Jenkins yesterday in the Washington Post.
She spoke with a child molester profiler from the FBI who said these people (like Sandusky (if found guilty)) are usually outgoing, gregarious and very good at winning trust. I don’t doubt that if you can coach and motivate young men to be as successful as the PSU defense was over several years, you’ve got to be a “magnetic” person.
The problem is with the extent of the eye witness account from 2002, more must have been done. Certainly they would be hard pressed to believe it (although there was an incident in 1998….), but they should have done more. It would appear they were “protecting the brand” as opposed to protecting children.
My “coward” comment is that it’s easy to do the easy “wrong” (by my definition; doing nothing) than the hard “right” (investigating this through a law enforcement agency and not some university “swipe” job). In the end, the lack of action caused the opportunity for more children to be molested. To me, that’s cowardice.
by pseudonymion on Nov 10, 2011 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
I understand your point
I’m merely trying to tell you it’s not as simple as it seems – I have seen Federal Agents have trouble knowing whether to believe a victim or a perpetrator when the perpetrator was at the time sitting in prison for essentially the same crime with a different victim – that’s HOW good a child molester is at convincing you he’s innocent.
Housemother & Editor at Dawg Sports
I can bake like a demon.
Well, as you say, it's difficult to know exactly what would have been the right thing to do in this situation.
We don’t know all of the dynamics at play for the Board, and there was clearly a mob mentality developing among the general populace at Penn State that needed to be addressed.
I really don’t think there was any perfect solution. It could have been handled more neatly, that’s for sure. Perhaps it would have been better to suspend him first, not allowing him to coach on Saturday, pending further investigation. But maybe the board were concerned that the mob mentality would then demand Coach Paterno’s exoneration instead of actual justice, whatever “justice” turned out to be. It’s difficult to say what their full motivation was, and they are prevented from really elaborating on it due to the pending legal matters.
But, then again, all those reporters in the press conference could have chosen not to be unprofessional jackwagons, as well. There were poor reactions all around.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think they need much more investigation in order to
articulate “reasons for firing him”. Those reasons should be pretty clear right now, and a suspension only delays the inevitable, allowing for more excuse making and saying “we’re gonna investigate” is a part of the reason this mess continued for as long as it did.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
They don't have to articulate anything.
This is not a court of law. In their view Paterno did not properly fulfill some aspect of his job. That’s all they need.
How is firing him sweeping it under the rug?
It doesn’t make an investigation end, and it doesn’t end the criminal matter, or likely several media reports soon to follow. So how does this “sweep” anything “under the rug”?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I think we're arguing two different things here.
Regarding your point on the board, yes, perhaps they should have handled the situation differently. Ultimately, I don’t think they really had a choice, but yes, it should’ve come with more eloquence than it ultimately did.
Having said that, to tell me that I don’t know how I would react in that situation is a bit short-sighted, and it’s kind of a cop-out. Yes, you’re correct that I can’t ultimately say what I would do, because it’s a hypothetical situation, but, in that same vein, you can’t tell me what I wouldn’t have done either. I know myself, and I know how I feel about the topic at hand, and I can tell you that, it’s my belief that I would have called the police. Immediately. There are times you escalate issues, and there are times you call authorities, and a sexual assault on a child does not call for escalation, it calls for action.
Did Paterno have a moral obligation to follow up or report it to the police? Sure, when looking at it in hindsight.
How is hindsight even a factor here? This isn’t a youthful mistake like underage drinking, or even drinking and driving, that hindsight makes more clear. This is blatantly not following up on a sexual assault that you have knowledge by a first hand account occurred…by someone who already had a history of sexual assault that Paterno knew about! There’s no hindsight to it, you take the appropriate measures. Is one of those measures escalation? Yes, but if that escalation doesn’t do anything, you don’t sit on your hands for another NINE YEARS and then, after all pieces of information come to light, state your regret and how you would have handled it differently in hindsight. I do appreciate your viewpoint, but it just doesn’t compute in my opinion.
by hailtogeorgia on Nov 10, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
I don't intend to imply I know what you'd do.
What I am trying to express is that those faced with these difficult decisions in the past have a greater context with which to view those in Paterno’s situation.
As for why hindsight is a factor, every sexual predator leaves behind scores of people who realize, in hindsight, perhaps they should have figured it out. Hindsight is relevant because it can be difficult to sort out where that feeling ends and where the absolutes of knowledge begin. It is a fuzzy gray line in many cases, and without more facts it will only remain fuzzy and built upon conjecture.
Absolutely, those who have been in the situation before...
have more insight as to how they’d act. However, that doesn’t discount my statement that, knowing myself, my morals, and what I feel to be my ethical obligations, I wouldn’t have taken the same actions JoePa took.
As for why hindsight is a factor, every sexual predator leaves behind scores of people who realize, in hindsight, perhaps they should have figured it out. Hindsight is relevant because it can be difficult to sort out where that feeling ends and where the absolutes of knowledge begin.
Here is where we differ. This isn’t the normal situation. This isn’t someone who simply spent a lot of time with the predator and felt that they should’ve picked up on it sooner, or should’ve figured it out earlier. This is a man who was told by a subordinate, in no uncertain terms, that Paterno’s right-hand man (who had already been accused of innappropriate behavior with children and resigned for it!) was seen IN THE ACT of sexually assaulting a ten year old. This isn’t a situation of “I should’ve known and wish I could’ve done more”; rather, this is a situation of “I knew, and should’ve done more, but didn’t.” There’s simply no excuse for it.
by hailtogeorgia on Nov 10, 2011 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And this "we don't know for sure"
let’s wait on the facts to come it, is a huge part of what ultimately led to this problem spiraling as far down as it did. At some point, someone needed to quit waiting and act.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 10, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This walk-a-mile-in-his-shoes line of thought is bullshit (sorry).
I don’t need to be in that exact situation to know that if someone reliably reported to me that they saw my friend and coworker raping a boy in a shower that I would follow whatever protocols are required to have the police arrest that person and investigate. And he would no longer be my friend or coworker. He didn’t embezzle money or some other serious but understandable crime. He raped boys. There is no grey area here. Covering for him is reprehensible and Paterno deserves and will receive far worse than being fired.
by Biggus Rickus on Nov 10, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry, the senior leader that he was should have done more, much more.
The firing is appropriate along with Spanier, Curley and Schultz and the investigation may determine even more. McCreary better not show up on Saturday, either.
Not a travesty; the only course of action.
by pseudonymion on Nov 10, 2011 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Joe is not a victim here
What if he witnessed Sandusky killing a boy or somebody? Anyone that witnessed such an event is morally responsible to contact the police asap, as McQueary should have done. When McQueary came to Paterno and told him he hadn’t contacted the police, he should have but if even if he choose not to because it had already been a couple of days and instead contact the the AD, Paterno should have known it was swept under the rug and he was complicit not to confront his superiors after not seeing any consequences come down from the report – having Sandusky step down but remain in an emeritus is not consequences, it is covering up the matter.
To some the analogy of murder and raping a child may not square but I think the molestation is worse. At least in a murder, the innocent victim is put out of their misery and their life, particularly their childhood innocence, is not shattered. There is not a adequate punishment that can be served upon Sandusky other than for him to know what hell has in store for him.
PSU forced Sandusky out the door in 1999...
Now if they truly believed he was on the side of angels, there was no reason to do that. These accusations go back to 1994, there was apparently an internal investigation in 98 and Sandusky was forced out in 99. That tells me that PSU knew enough to want to distance themselves from Sandusky at THAT time and still did NOTHING to prevent him from continuing his predations, including giving him access to their facilities leading up to the 2002 incident. If you read the grand jury testimony of what Paterno knew and when he knew it and still think he didn’t deserve to be fired than you need help. Anyone who could listen to a description of those activities and not immediately call the police is practically without a conscience.
by PhanofPhilly on Nov 10, 2011 10:49 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
The investigation will probably uncover information more sinister than is even known right now.
Right now, we have an administration that just “seems” to have done “nothing.” However, reported in a column by Mark Schlabach on ESPN:
His son, Scott Paterno, told the Philadelphia Inquirer on Wednesday that his father never even asked Sandusky — his assistant coach for three decades and who was once considered his heir apparent — about the incident. [incident referred to was the 2002 shower incident witnessed by McCreary]
So you work with a guy for 30 years, someone tells you they saw them having sex with A LITTLE BOY and you never even mention it. That’s not doing the right thing. That’s turning away from a situation. The ostrich has buried his head.
In the end, Paterno will probably be found guilty of much more than is known now.
That's a pretty significant accusation, pseudonymion...
… especially since Paterno hasn’t been charged with any legal crime of which to be found guilty.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Paterno gets sued as part of a civil suit, but that’s not the same as being found guilty of a criminal offense. It seems that from the evidence at hand, Paterno’s shortfalls were ethical, not criminal.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
I can see why he didn't confront Sandusky
Number 1, Paterno had reported it to his superiors, and maybe he trusted that the investigation was theirs to handle. In that case, there would have been no reason for Paterno to confront someone who is no longer a member of his staff.
Number 2, according to Paterno, he never knew the graphic details of the incident. Per Paterno’s statement, “It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report.”
Number 3, imagine that your next door neighbor was accused of something like this, how would you even begin to approach that conversation? “So, Jerry, I hear you like little boys”?
I’m certainly not trying to make excuses for any of those involved, all I’m saying is that on this one subject, the matter of Paterno not confronting Sandusky, I can understand why he wouldn’t.
Even after the 1998 incident that was investigated by ...
the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare where Sandusky “showered naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.”
2002 was the second incident, not the first. Why would it have to be “graphic” at all. It occurred,…..again. Doesn’t matter if it’s a neighbor or not; now you’ve got to be actively aggressive.
Anyway, Paterno’s out. There will be investigations by multiple agencies (university, state/county, and apparently federal — due to the lack of reporting a potential sex crime). Even worse details than are known now will come out (not necessarily law-related (see other posts)).
I’m Paterno’d out………..
by pseudonymion on Nov 10, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Except he was still in your weight room
around your program, using your facilities. So #1 is a cop out and he had every reason to confront a man on his campus, in his building, accused multiple times of such behavior.
#2, the nature of that conversation will never be known. But it sure doesn’t seem like Paterno wanted to dig deep on this issue despite his witness being distraught.
#3, it was Paterno’s “house”. His campus, his facilities, his building. This isn’t a neighbor, this is someone inside your building, talking with your team, using your facilities, and continuing to bring around young boys while he did it.
Yes, you are making excuses.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I'm sorry you see it that way, Mr. Sanchez
And I’m sure many other people would agree with you, but I don’t see it as making excuses. The overall point I was trying to make is that I understand why Paterno didn’t confront Sandusky directly. He informed his superiors, then trusted them to take the appropriate actions. That his superiors failed to do so, and that Joe Pa failed to inquire about it further, is a separate issue from the one I was addressing. But even if Sandusky had been arrested, charged, tried and convicted in relation to the 2002 incident, it’s unlikely that Joe Pa would’ve ever confronted him directly. It’s the lawyers and police officers who would’ve confronted Sandusky, just as they are now.
And it's that sort of passing the buck
the “it’s not my responsibility, let someone else handle it” that is part of the enabling that allowed his predatory actions to continue and harm more children.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
As I said above
I’m not saying that Paterno shouldn’t have done more. Should he have followed up on whether or not an investigation was being conducted? Absolutely. Did he have the clout to say to the AD, “This isn’t the first time this guy has been accused of something, I don’t want him anywhere near this campus”? Almost certainly. But even if he had done those things, it’s very likely he still wouldn’t have confronted Sandusky directly.
Imagine for a moment that Paterno had confronted Sandusky INSTEAD of going to the AD. Would the outrage at Joe Pa be greater or lesser?
To put it another way, if one of my employees thought someone at our company was doing something wrong and they told me about it, I’d inform my boss and then both of us (my boss and me) would go and question the suspected employee. I would never go in alone in that situation, so to sit here and say Joe Pa should have personally questioned or confronted Sandusky, who was no longer on his staff in 2002, doesn’t make sense to me. And to specify, I’m only referring to the 2002 incident, not the 1998 one, because that’s the incident that was referenced in Scott Paterno’s quote above.
Semantics
confronting him along with the AD, and confronting him alone, either way, he “confronts” the man directly, no? But yes, a confrontation would have been better served if it wasn’t alone.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I didn't say criminal, just "sinister."
Perhaps the use of the word guilty led some to believe that I was referring to breaking the law. I think Coach Paterno has already been found “guilty” of doing too little. Based on available information known thus far is enough to fire Coach Paterno (and let’s be honest, the call to fire him has come from throughout the nation by plenty of senior writers and sports figures — to include former PSU graduates).
I think the lack of ever confronting Sandusky about the situation (if what is reportedly said by the Paterno’s son accurate) shows an “attempt” not to actually know the truth. You now move from a lack of action, or more appropriate, a feeble(?) action in response to the situation to an almost deliberate attempt to not determine the truth. To me, that’s another level entirely. And I think if the investigation determines that PSU leadership “looked the other way,” there will even more hell to pay. It’s one thing to make a weak attempt at finding the truth. It’s another to look away and not want to know the truth.
I’m not a lawyer and can’t say what a person should or should not legally do. I was an Army officer and most definitely believe I understand what leaders should and shouldn’t do.
I don't understand...
Joe Paterno is, or rather was, arguably the most powerful man at Penn State. He was asked several times to retire over the years and he refused, essentially daring those technically in a superior position to fire him. They didn’t.
Did Paterno use that power to put an end to the tragedy? Nope. I don’t know why. He doesn’t know why (or isn’t saying his true thoughts). The rape of another human being is a horrible act, infinitely worse when perpetrated on a child. Jwnelson has argued that Paterno should’ve been suspended so he can be investigated and that his removal was cowardly. Why? All of this will be investigated fully – regardless of Paterno’s employment status.
It’s my opinion, and it’s just a hunch, that Paterno knew for a long time prior to 2002, and prior to 1998. To come forward in 2002 would’ve brought all that out then instead of now. He didn’t want to deal with it. I can’t think of another logical reason why, considering the gravity of the situation, he wouldn’t have gone further than what he did.
Paterno the football coach deserved a better, more respectful send off. Paterno the person, despite his previous deeds, in my opinion, did not.
FWIW, I will be shocked if McCreary is on the sidelines at any point remaining this season, possibly ever.
FWIW.. I listened to Bradley's presser on the BTN at 11:00 this morn...
He was asked by a reporter about McQueary coaching sat. & Bradley said he would. A follow up question asked if he would be on the sidelines or the booth & he said that hadn’t been decided yet… here’s a SI link on it…
That doesn't make much sense to me...
Still a distraction, still should’ve come forward sooner, still didn’t do what needed to be done, especially considering he was a 28 year old graduate assistant. 22 y.o. grad assistant will get more leeway on simply reporting to Paterno, but 28? He should’ve done something, he should’ve followed up, just like Paterno should’ve. Woulda shoulda coulda.
He’s going to be let go, the program’s going to have to get new blood, it’s a train wreck, why keep him around for a few more weeks? Penn State has really no idea.
by AttyinDuluth on Nov 10, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
I don't want to derail the conversation, which I hope will continue, . . .
. . . but I do want to thank everyone for the tenor of this thread. Though some comments have been (understandably) impassioned, and sometimes a bit heated, the disagreements have not become overheated, and I am grateful to everyone for displaying the maturity to express themselves in a civilized manner.
Carry on, and thanks.
Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!
Yes, just reading in the background
I’ve gotten the same impression. Not the same at some other places, but this place is, thankfully, different.
/Too many commas comma police?
1-0 Against Florida in the last 11 months.
Howdy Uga,
I’m a DC dawg fan myself (well, northern VA).
Paterno aside; go Georgia, beat Auburn.
[Insert Squidbillies “Auburn S___” video.]
by pseudonymion on Nov 10, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
Great, Kyle...
Now what am I going to do with my shiny new pitchfork I purchased on my lunch break? Lift hay?
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
by Jman781 on Nov 10, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You can join me in my quest to overthrow this hate filled lie machine!
And replace it with a kindler, gentler, fuzzier, more subservient Georgia blog!!!
VIVA LA RESISTANCE!
Editor, Dawgsports.com
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
While I agree Joe had to go as well as all above him
I find it a bit troubling that we (society) seem to be holding a football coach to a higher standard than we do the clergy.
I know the rules but I still am puzzled................
We have a very haphazard history of punishing those we perceive as guilty. It goes back to Wounded Knee – The Bataan Death March – My Lai – history is full of double standards which was my point. If it was missed I apologize – my intent was not to open up a political / religious debate. That being said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat past mistakes.
We're good, JRL.
I’m really trying to keep this debate from descending to the level it has at other blogs. And while I’m sure the intention behind your statement was benign, I think it came across as more inflammatory than you meant it.
As it relates to this issue, I think it would be prudent for everyone commenting to generally avoid discussing the catholic church scandal. I know there are similarities as it relates to institutional ignorance of the abuse of children… but still. Passion and anger are running high on this issue, and making statements referencing religion and clergy are generally only going to make it worse.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
Tip of the iceberg
I think we are only seeing the very tip of the iceberg here. I don’t care what Paterno’s track record shows…he has proven he is a man of little integrity. What I find terribly confusing and incomprehensible is that the grad assistant (who was 28 yrs old at the time) did not take a dumbell or a 2×4 to Sandusky’s face and help that child. Or the janitor that saw a similar situation in 2000. Wouldn’t most people with a conscience naturally react that way??? Without hesitation? Was he really thinking “hmmm, if I do anything, will this hurt my career?” in that moment? Why does he still have a job at PSU
Good questions, lj1.
I wish I had adequate answers, but I do not.
Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 10, 2011 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
I don't understand why McQueary hasn't been fired yet either.
The only possible explanation I can think of is that he has information that’ll be even more embarassing for the school. I freely acknowledge that this is all speculation on my part, but it seems likely to me that he was told to “forget” what he saw. And given that he was supposedly “distraught” right after he saw it, perhaps it was necessary to compensate him for his forgetting. If that’s the case, then PSU may be worried he’ll blab if they fire him.
Furthermore, if what we know so far is all true, then complete indifference is as good as this story can possibly get IMHO. I personally don’t find the indifference explanation very plausible, so I think it’s probably going to be all downhill from here as we learn more details.
by MidnightFrost1701 on Nov 10, 2011 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think there's a really good answer to your question, and I find what you say entirely plausible, MidnightFrost1701.
While thinking about the McQueary situation, I went and examined Penn State’s current coaching staff. Amazingly, virtually every assistant on staff (save only 2) was on the Penn State coaching staff when these alleged acts were taking place. Allegations like child rape aren’t going to be kept quiet from everyone, and I don’t see any plausible scenario whereby the entire coaching staff wouldn’t have been aware of the allegations against Sandusky.
Since virtually the entire coaching staff would have likely known about the allegations, once can legitimately ask the question of why none of them acted to make sure someone was investigating these acts of child rape, or at least why Sandusky wasn’t ever prevented by any of them from accessing Penn State’s athletic facilities WITH CHILDREN. So, one can make a legitimate case that every single coach other than Kermit Buggs and Galen Hall (who joined the staff after 2002) should be fired. (I just discovered that Barry Switzer made a similar statement to that effect earlier today, in fact.)
I assume the Board decided that they couldn’t fire everyone on the coaching staff without having to forfeit the rest of the season, so they decided to let the rest of the season be played, then clean the rest of the house.
It really is amazingly disturbing how deep this rabbit hole could go.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 10, 2011 11:55 PM EST up reply actions
So . . . wait . . .
. . . if they fired everyone who was around then (which I agree would be extreme), they’d be left with elevating Galen Hall to the post of interim head coach?
I seem to recall another school letting Galen Hall take over its football program partway through a season after ousting its head coach in the midst of scandal. It did not end well.
Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!
Yep... that's actually the same Galen Hall.
Crazy, isn’t it?
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Nov 11, 2011 9:15 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
