I am trying to make some sense of the sad and infuriating story of child rape and cover up at Penn State. What is astonishing is that a man who by all accounts I have seen was a model of integrity and concern for young men could have dropped the ball so badly. Or how a 29 year-old graduate assistant could see a child being raped and not immediately call 911. Instead both decided to tell their bosses and let them handle things "internally". Their first thought was for Penn State football, not for the victim. That kind of loyalty to an institution is corrosive and leads to tragedy.
Sad as it was, the trustees did the right thing. In contrast, not one Catholic bishop has lost his position in the Church. In fact, some of the worst have been promoted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not sure why this is news. Loyalty, like all virtues can be twisted into a vice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, there is likely nothing about the human condition that is exactly "new" but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't examine things when they are brought to our attention.
How do we defend against this kind of loyalty? Is the contain and control response only this string when it is about sex or rape? Is it more peculiar to male institutions?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for being dismissive. We can't possibly know the motivations of all the men involved, we can only speculate. The man who walked in on the rape, told the coach about it, expecting it would be handled. When it wasn't he likely had to make a choice between continuing to press the point and possibly lose his job, one many men his age would kill to have, and who knows if anybody would hire somebody who blew the whistle in the manner he did?
Maybe the coach told him flat out that he would handle it, and he needed to drop it if he wanted to keep working. Perhaps he told himself it had been handled internally, that it had been settled out of court with the victim's family.
As for the first thought being for Penn state, not the victim's family, it's not that surprising. Penn state is an institution filled with people all working together, their lives all affected by a scandal like this.
It's easy for us, outside looking into immediately focus our attention on the plight of the unknown harmed child, rather than the unknown pedophile/coach/witness.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. I am thinking about why this is.
BlackBlade, you say that the witness had a job men his age "would kill for". Now that is hyperbole but he did have a job that he was willing to overlook the rape of children to keep. I don't think that he was an evil young man, but I can't, for example, imagine you making the same choice every day for years. If Joe Paterno threatened the guy's job, it seems out of character from him. Why would he cover up this criminal activity?
Settling out of court is not really an option. Raping a child is not only a civil matter; it is a criminal one. They had a legal as well as a moral obligation to report this crime to the police. An obligation that otherwise upstanding men shirked.
The same with the Church. Men who are supposed to be all about morality enabled child rapists rather than expose the Church to scandal. How is this not mind-boggling? How can one fail to focus on the plight of a 10 year old child being held against a wall in a shower while a man rapes him - just imagine that for a moment - unless something is twisted in how we approach such things?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: I had to go back and read just what happened because I needed a better handle on what went down. Having done that, the only thing that really strikes me is that for many people they don't realize that even small things like, stealing, to say nothing about sodomizing a 10 year old boy, are prosecuted by the state even if the victim doesn't wish to press charges.
My parents while moving into their new home had several very expensive pieces of jewelery stolen by one of the members of the moving crew. My parents knew the theft had taken place within an hour of it being done and talked to the crew and the crew boss. They indicated that if the robber gave the pieces back to the crew boss so he could give it back to them they wouldn't press charges. Nobody stepped forward. The crew boss submitted the names of the crew to the police, and a background check showed one of them had a record.
They came to his house to ask questions, and he broke down and confessed to the theft. They retrieved the valuables, and asked my parents for written statements about what happened. My parent's insisted they didn't want to press charges, but were surprised to find out the state was doing so, and that the man was going to be charged for grand larceny with or without their cooperation.
Many people think they need only notify somebody senior to them, and that these sorts of things will be handled out of court. Perhaps Sandusky pleaded with Paterno that he was sorry, that he was ill, that he would seek counseling, doesn't he believe in forgiveness? Perhaps Paterno prided himself in never throwing his friends under the bus.
I don't know. It's a horrible tragedy, and I can't imagine how the boy victimized for four years is coping. Having known a little boy in a similar situation, who was 17 when the whole sordid affair came to light, and was brainwashed into believing he was in love with his abuser, himself married to my next door neighbor. She divorced him immediately, and the two men eloped together.
To my knowledge charges were not filed, I don't think they ever will be. Spouses who are being beaten often refuse to press charges and that is the end of the matter. For many people they think that's how all these matters are handled. You only go to court if somebody wants to press charges against you.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
As far as I'm aware, Sandusky has neither been accused of nor charged with rape. I take that term seriously enough that I don't like seeing it misapplied. That is NOT to make light of what he IS charged with, which I find downright monstrous.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Was rape not one of the charges? It appears you are correct. The closest thing he is being charged with is involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't understand how that's not rape (based on the definitions I've found) especially since his charge ended with "with an underaged". Can anyone explain what exactly he is charged with?
[EDIT: The charge clearly isn't rape, as it comes with a maximum of 40 years, I'm not debating that, I just don't understand what it is since it's not rape]
Hobbes Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Perhaps Sandusky pleaded with Paterno that he was sorry, that he was ill, that he would seek counseling, doesn't he believe in forgiveness? Perhaps Paterno prided himself in never throwing his friends under the bus.
Sandusky did "promise" the police that he wouldn't shower with children again - in 1998. McQueary saw the alleged shower assault in 2002 (then went home, told his dad about the incident, and told Paterno about it the next day).
Quite frankly, this entire situation is disgusting. I hope every other institution - whether academic, athletic, or private sector - is taking a fine-toothed comb to their personnel right now to prevent this sort of continued abuse from happening again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The graduate assistant walked in to find a naked Sandusky holding a naked 10 year old against the wall and subjecting him to anal intercourse. He was sodomizing a child against a shower wall. How is that not rape?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I don't know anyone who wouldn't call that rape.
I read parts of the Grand Jury report. I skimmed the rest, just looking for the parts that involved Paterno. I wouldn't recommend reading that report. I'm hoping that the nauseating feeling I've had all day will go away with a full nights sleep.
The part I'm having trouble with -- and perhaps it hasn't been made clear enough -- is whether or not Paterno reported the situation to a legal authority. The media is treating the situation as though he covered it up. The grand jury report says that he reported it to the school Athletic Director and the Vice-President, Curley and Schultz, respectively.
Was Schultz vested with enough authority to have the campus police force start investigating? (It's an actual police force, with the legal authority to conduct investigations and make arrests.) I'm actually more interested in what happened at the VP level, because it seems to be central to what happened to the case.
To be fair, I'm also quite disgusted at the young upstart who witnessed the incident and failed to go straight to the police. He's currently an assistant coach at Penn State. If Paterno goes, I can't see how it would be fair or just not to fire this guy, too.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Failed to go to the police? How about failed to jump in there and put a stop to it immediately?!
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: If Paterno goes, I can't see how it would be fair or just not to fire this guy, too.
[ November 11, 2011, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Failed to the police? How about failed to jump in there and put a stop to it immediately?!
Well, that too, obviously. I was accounting for him finally recovering from the shock of seeing such a thing...which might vary for different people. My bad.
That was a good read, Icarus. I disagree with the author on one point, or rather, I feel like he omitted a key point. On points 2, 3, and 4, I feel like involving a lawyer would also be a good option to include. Hypothetically, if I were put in those situations, I would want legal advice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Icarus: Just reading the extension in your link was all I needed to read.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod* That was a perfect connection, wasn't it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Except at Penn State, more than one child was sacrificed and saving them would hardly have brought down civilization. And, as usually happens, they did more damage to what they were trying to protect than they would have had they done the right thing in the first place.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The graduate assistant walked in to find a naked Sandusky holding a naked 10 year old against the wall and subjecting him to anal intercourse. He was sodomizing a child against a shower wall. How is that not rape?
I'm sorry. Were you there? How do you know what the GA saw? Oh, right, from what he said he saw. And from THAT, the DA obviously didn't feel like he had enough evidence to pursue charges for rape, and so Sandusky wasn't charged with it. So, if under the Pennsylvania jurisprudence system, Sandusky is not being indicted for rape, I certainly don't feel like *I* have enough evidence to bandy that term about. Given that I was not there, haven't read the grand jury transcripts, and am not licensed to practice law in the state of Pennsylvania.
If you feel you DO have enough evidence to make that determination, then that's your business. But I'm not going to feel bad for pointing out, correctly, that what you've accused him off is NOT something he's been charged with.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It might not be that he didn't have enough evidence to charge him with rape, but that rape is not the legal term used in the law in that state. Some laws might use "forced intercourse" in which case no one would ever be charged with rape, they'd be charged with forcing intercourse.
If he either confesses or it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court that he forced anal sex on a ten year old I'm comfortable calling that the rape of a child whether the law in Pennsylvania categorizes it that way or not.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I would be, too. But that hasn't happened yet, so I'm not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, I'm confused. When looking at
quote:Section 3121. Rape
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant: 1. By forcible compulsion. 2. By threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution. 3. Who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring. 4. Where the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance. 5. Who suffers from a mental disability which renders the complainant incapable of consent. 6. Who is less than 13 years of age.
(b) Additional penalties.--In addition to the penalty provided for by subsection (a), a person may be sentenced to an additional term not to exceed ten years' confinement and an additional amount not to exceed $100,000 where the person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant and has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, any substance for the purpose of preventing resistance through the inducement of euphoria, memory loss and any other effect of this substance.
versus
quote:Section 3123. Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when he or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant: 1. by forcible compulsion; 2. by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution; 3. who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring; 4. where the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance; 5. who suffers from a mental disability which renders him or her incapable of consent; 6. who is less than 13 years of age; or 7. who is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and person are not married to each other.
(b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "forcible compulsion" includes, but is not limited to, compulsion resulting in another person's death, whether the death occurred before, during or after the sexual intercourse.
I'm not sure I see the difference except for point 7 and the additional penalties for rape. Are the victims between 13 and 16?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Mucus, The difference (by my reading) is between "sexual intercourse" and "deviate sexual intercourse". I'm guessing that the definition of "sexual intercourse" requires vaginal penetration and that anal and oral sex are considered "deviate sexual intercourse".
I'm sure both terms are legally defined somewhere. If a cared enough about the distinction I'd look it up.
If my guess is correct, it's a rather appalling injustice since the outcome is that raping boy children is penalized less severely than raping girl children.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
In a good way. I wasn't expecting any popular columnists to have something insightful on this subject.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And, as usually happens, they did more damage to what they were trying to protect than they would have had they done the right thing in the first place.
Kate, Have you considered the possibility that what they were trying to protect wasn't a football program or a University but a friend and colleague?
While I don't think it changes what they should have done, in my mind at least, it heightens the difficulty of the dilemma they face if I think of it as loyalty to a person rather than an institution.
What would you do if you witnessed a close friend committing a serious crime? I'd like to think I'd turn them in but its heart rending to even imagine the situation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: *nod* That was a perfect connection, wasn't it?
Indeed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm guessing that the definition of "sexual intercourse" requires vaginal penetration and that anal and oral sex are considered "deviate sexual intercourse".
This is a reasonable hypothesis. However, the definitions are available further up the page and I'm not sure it works. Both seem to include oral and both seem to include anal. The latter does include some other activities that I don't feel like describing except to say that they don't seem to fit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In a good way. I wasn't expecting any popular columnists to have something insightful on this subject.
Thanks for the link.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I can't defend the GA. You walk in on a kid being raped, you save the kid. You call the police if you can't physically intervene. That is open and shut. However, the head coach is in a different situation. A GA comes with a very nasty story about a man he respects. Is it possible the GA made it up in retaliation for something? Is it possible it is true? Thinking about it, he knows the response he is legally obligated to do is call his boss. My job at the university I was told never call 911. If you call 911, you can be dismissed because the university wants to control the response and if you call an outsider, they aren't. When my husband worked in a public high school, he was not allowed to call CPS to report abuse. He documented and gave to counselor, who would deal with it. When a student assaulted him in the classroom, he could not call the normal police or anything. So, the head coach reports the story and hopes it wasn't true. His boss says they took care of it and he assumes they investigated and the GA was perhaps confused or misinterpreting things.
The head coach's response is actually the one I get the most. The GA, I don't get. The higher ups who did nothing, I don't get. But the coach trusted the people around him and the policy in place. Clearly, he shouldn't have, but that reaction is not monstrous to me. In that situation, based on what we have been told, I probably would do the same.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The graduate assistant walked in to find a naked Sandusky holding a naked 10 year old against the wall and subjecting him to anal intercourse. He was sodomizing a child against a shower wall. How is that not rape?
I'm sorry. Were you there? How do you know what the GA saw? Oh, right, from what he said he saw. And from THAT, the DA obviously didn't feel like he had enough evidence to pursue charges for rape, and so Sandusky wasn't charged with it. So, if under the Pennsylvania jurisprudence system, Sandusky is not being indicted for rape, I certainly don't feel like *I* have enough evidence to bandy that term about. Given that I was not there, haven't read the grand jury transcripts, and am not licensed to practice law in the state of Pennsylvania.
If you feel you DO have enough evidence to make that determination, then that's your business. But I'm not going to feel bad for pointing out, correctly, that what you've accused him off is NOT something he's been charged with.
That was from the indictment.
quote: As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant but the sneakers on his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate student left immediately, distraught.
Plenty of reasons he might be charged with a lesser offense. A likely possibility is that it is a plea agreement to save the victims the pain of a trial.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Scholarette, I can see the logic behind what you're saying and I would completely agree with you except for one thing - Sandusky had already been investigated for a similar incident in 1998 and all indications are he was let go from his coaching job at Penn State in 1999 due to that investigation. So they knew there had been prior concern over his conduct with young boys, and the 1998 incident also included him being discovered in the showers with a boy.
So, that means when the GA tells Paterno what he saw there is every reason to believe him. It adds tons of credibility to what the GA said.
I don't for a second Paterno was not aware of why his coach was retiring in 1999 (a move that shocked most people, because he was at the height of his career and was considered to be a candidate for future head coaching jobs.) I also don't believe that Paterno wasn't involved in the decision to give Sandusky emeritus status which let him keep an office and access to all facilities. He was given that office and access after Sandusky ADMITTED having inappropriate contact with a boy on those very same facilities.
I see plenty of blame for Paterno in this. I see plenty for other people, as well. Lord almighty, how could that GA sleep at night when he didn't go in there, pull Sandusky away, and rescue that child??!??? And, how can the Penn State officials live with themselves when they allowed this man to retire and continue working with a children's charity? They notified the charity of the 2002 incident...which is four years after the first incident was discovered!
Scholarette, this is part of what I was trying to get when I started this thread. At what point does being a decent human being trump policies that are in place to protect an institution? I work at a University, too, and am outraged at the idea that I would hesitate to call 911 in an emergency. Honestly, if there were someone in danger, would you really track down an university official before calling the paramedics?
The situation is not unique to Penn State. Certainly we have all heard about the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and the cover up by the Vatican and the bishops. Those bishops were following policy. We are all trained to follow policy but when policy conflicts with reason and humanity, how do we break that training?
Rabbit, I don't care how much of a buddy the guy is, you don't let him keep abusing kids.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mucus, the only other difference I note between the definitions of rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse is that the second includes the word "deviate". So maybe this is not so much a lesser charge but one where the sexual intercourse is not "normal" heterosexual intercourse.
Still rape, though. Just deviate rape.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Belle- I haven't read that extensively and so far all I had heard about was the GA reporting it to the head coach. With all this other evidence, it does seem more likely there was a cover up going on.
At my university job, you called campus police if there was an emergency. So, you didn't ignore it. If I reported something and believed there was then a coverup, I would take advantage of whistle blower laws and report.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
University police make more sense than what I thought you meant. That is still calling the police. I would have no argument had the GA called the university police.
Belle, I don't know that there was an organized cover-up. I think the PTB at the University just decided their asses were covered if they stopped Sandusky from using University property for his assaults.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:What would you do if you witnessed a close friend committing a serious crime?
Redefine our relationship from "close friend" to "child rapist" and then put them in the hospital with my fists. But I'm rather violent when it comes to rapists, it's not a position I advocate for others, or even claim to be fully reasonable or decent.
It makes more sense to me that someone would try to avoid publicity by going through internal channels to try and stop the rapes out of concern for the institution that they themselves belong to, so, in an effort to not hurt themselves.
That this guy told several people who he felt were authorities, in my mind, qualifies him as a decent human being, but just barely, just barely. He should have instantly called the cops and stepped in to stop the abuse himself. But it is hard to know how one will react to such an abnormal situation until they are faced with it themselves.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But aren't we, ourselves, authorities when it comes to knowing right from wrong? Why are human beings so ready to defer judgement/action to someone higher up the ladder. We are responsible to our own consciences before our bosses.
I know I am making it sound simple. I know it is not. What I want to know is why it isn't simple. And this particular case really highlights that. Joe Paterno is a legend. He is tough and powerful. A leader. Not some Bob Cratchit shivering in a corner having to take Scrooge's crap in order to feed his family. What is the worst that could have happened to him had he gone to the actual authorities? Can you imagine the riots had the University tried to fire him for going to the police?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The GA, I don't get.
I don't, either. From what I read, he went home and later called his dad for advice that night? Is that indeed what he testified to doing?
If he saw what he says he saw, I can't wrap my head around that course of action. A 10-year-old boy would make him about 4th grade level. Think of the 10-year-olds you know, the grade school pageants, of a kid (generally speaking) 2 years too young to go to junior high. 2 years too young for junior high.
And you walk in after hearing the sounds of what you believe to be sexual activity (this is what he said, yes?), and you see a little child held against a shower wall with a grown man, [reportedly] naked, sodomizing him?
What the hell?
What do you expect your dad to tell you, anyway?
[ November 11, 2011, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
kmboots, I don't know what to think about any of this. Shamefully, I am only getting to know the story now.
I currently can't get past what the initial witness himself is saying what he did. I don't know what Paterno knew (or says he knew) about the truth of the allegations, but if he believed them to have truth, I'm having a hard time understanding his actions, too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Apparently Dad didn't tell him to go to the police. That may go a ways to explaining some of it.
Added: I mean that the GA was brought up by a man who also didn't know the right thing to do.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Jesus. Seriously, the least of these.
---
Edit: kmboots, gotcha.
And my comment above was not meant as a slam on religion, but rather the opposite. In times of great stress, the faith of my childhood ghosts me.
I really wish that as a world we abided by the teachings of Jesus of Nazarene.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Still rape, though.
Yeah, I dunno what's going on with the legal part. I was just kind curious how the system picks between the two.
But "in real life" you bet.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: And you walk in after hearing the sounds of what you believe to be sexual activity (this is what he said, yes?), and you see a little child held against a shower wall with a grown man, pants down or naked, sodomizing him?
Hmmm, reading through the timeline it looks like there is at least one janitor (maybe two) who also walk in on sexual activity without attempting to stop it.
Edit to add: To be clear, that's an observation. I'm not even going to attempt at explanation.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Christ have mercy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But aren't we, ourselves, authorities when it comes to knowing right from wrong? Why are human beings so ready to defer judgement/action to someone higher up the ladder. We are responsible to our own consciences before our bosses.
If there was a possible way to avoid hurting the institutioin AND stop the abuse/punish the abuser by going through internal then it helps explain his actions...if indeed that was his goal.
The way he handled it was a c- at best, but at least he did -something-. I imagine that there are plenty of people who have done less in his situation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, I don't care how much of a buddy the guy is, you don't let him keep abusing kids.
I don't think you read what I wrote.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: Hmmm, reading through the timeline it looks like there is at least one janitor (maybe two) who also walk in on sexual activity without attempting to stop it.
Yes, I saw that in the grand jury report, too. You did note that the guy is now in assisted living, with senile dementia, right? I thought that was a weird postscript to that section.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I didn't notice that in the timeline (the Huffington Post one that was linked), but that would help explain things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, I know there are people who have done and still do less. Even now, I am combing through my own life to see if there are occasions where I have "done less". I have not discovered any but I suspect that is because I have been lucky.
What action do you imagine would punish/stop a child abuser without bringing in the public authorities? If we have learned anything from the Church scandal it is that nothing short of jail is going to stop a pedophile.
Rabbit, I read again what you wrote and still don't see how I am misunderstanding you. How do you "protect a friend" and still stop him from hurting children?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
When did I say anyone should "protect a friend"?
Note I said that "I don't think it changes what they should have done".
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Olivet posted this link to a timeline elsewhere (thanks to C. C. Finlay). It has a bit more detail and represents Finlay's read of the grand jury transcript.
I don't know if it is accurate, but given the source, I suspect it is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When did I say anyone should "protect a friend"?
Note I said that "I don't think it changes what they should have done".
quote: Kate, Have you considered the possibility that what they were trying to protect wasn't a football program or a University but a friend and colleague?
This is what I answered. I did not suggest nor think that you thought he was right to do so if that was the case.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What action do you imagine would punish/stop a child abuser without bringing in the public authorities?
Sometimes it's the manner in which the "public authorities" are brought in that can help mitigate the damage done to the institution. Had the Dean/President marched up to this guy with campus PD and had him arrested, they could easily put a pro Penn State spin on the circumstance...where as if the non campus police rush in and arrest him, it looks like the school didn't know/didn't care (even if that is true in the first case).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course what they did was neither. And Joe Paterno knew that they did neither. Even if his going to the university officials first could be justified, how do we justify his silence afterword?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We don't. Simple. He failed utterly. As did those he told who did nothing.
It is a moral obligation of all decent human beings to take all reasonable steps to ensure that child rapers are stopped and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And we all know that in the abstract. Yet, so many otherwise good, brave people - even legendary leaders - fail just as utterly when it comes to child sex abuse.
Could part of it be our reluctance to talk about it at all much less publicly to police? A man in his 80s is not likely to be comfortable talking about something like this. Perhaps paralyzingly uncomfortable?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If that's the issue, then those people have surrendered their virtue to weakness.
I praise you for your search for a reason why, but personally, I don't care much...there are a million reasons why someone wouldn't choose to do the right thing, and most have some validity, but none of them matter even a bit to me. Protect our children or you are complicit in the crime of molesting them.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Sexual abuse is icky. And makes people feel dirty and disgusting just hearing about it.
That's a serious deterrant to discussing it. A lot of people prefer to pretend it just didn't happen. That's, in my mind, and to my personal experience with those who have suffered childhood sexual abuse, how mother's who find out keep funcitoning - They deny it ever happened. Not all people do this. But of those that do, I think the very earth-shattering nature and stigma of the abuse acts as a serious reason to not do anything to stop it. Because to act means to acknowledge it exists - And to know it exists, up-front, no longer in the abstract, is a terrible terrible thing. Some people can't, or won't, deal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't understand why Paterno is the focus so much when local and university police and Department of Public Welfare people were already involved and failed utterly. Shouldn't those cops and Welfare people be the ones who are dragged out into the public spotlight? Don't they have a much higher responsibility than a football coach? Even the GA, who should have done more, is still less at fault than the cops, DA, PSU attorney who investigated things previously. Why do we expect more from football coaches than we do from the police? or a DA? or the Department of Public Welfare? This isn't to excuse actions but shouldn't we be looking much more intensely at the police detectives who investigated the crime and ended up letting it go? or the DA? and on and on... If we are going to condemn Paterno for being silent, shouldn't we first loudly condemn the local and university police who investigated previously? Where are the cries about their silence? Paterno's job is not to arrest people for sexual abuse but it is the police's job and they KNEW what Sandusky had done! What about Ray Gricar? Why isn't a manhunt on for him since he is the one who could have done the most to stop this? Gricar hasn't even been mentioned in this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My guess is because Joe Paterno had more clout that all of those people put together. But, yes, they absolutely should be held accountable as well for the 1998 non-investigation.
Edit to add: Ray Gricar was declared legally dead this summer.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
It's not Paterno's responsibility to arrest and prosecute criminals, regardless of his clout level. The people whose responsibility is to arrest, prosecute,and convict criminals and the people who are supposed to be protecting children all knew about Sandusky before Paterno did. They are so much more at fault than the football coaches. Why didn't they tell Paterno? or Second Mile? or anyone and everyone else? Why isn't there a full blown investigation into the utter failure of the Department of Public Welfare? Edit: Why isn't there a large investigation into the 'death' of Gricar?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is Joe Pateron's responsibility as a human being to do anything he could to stop what was going on. He has a tremendous amount of power and with that power comes responsibility.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Paterno is not more powerful than the Dept of Public Welfare, nor the police, nor the DA. He is more well known but not more powerful. I am still shocked at the outrage at Paterno as opposed to someone like Roman Polanski. Polanski is still out there winning awards while Paterno is having his name removed from Big Ten Conference titles.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DarkKnight, if you knew what was going on would you have stopped with telling your boss? The allegations in 1998 were, in my opinion, damning but not as damning as what McQeary witnessed later.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Why didn't they tell Paterno? or Second Mile? or anyone and everyone else?
If they did not have enough to convict him on, that would be not only a libel lawsuit waiting to happen, but could also compromise the later ability to get criminal charges to stick.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
KMB I would be doing what I could to get McQeary to go to the police with what he knew before I told my boss. I would 'encourage' McQeary to act outside of the education institution and go straight to the police. I didn't see anything so I would only have second hand info of what someone says he saw, so I would make sure McQeary knows the responsibility to the truth lies with him. McQeary must act on what he knows, and can remain anonymous if he fears retribution. If I was as well known as Paterno, I would tell McQeary I will speak in total support of him if things get turned around and he is punished but I would want him to go to the police and start a report before I inform my superiors. I'm also pretty biased as our local school district allegedly had an elementary school student rape at least 4 other elementary school students and the district was very successful in covering it up. No one lost a job, or was even reprimanded. Plus at colleges something like 20-25% of women have experienced attempted or have been raped so I imagine colleges all over cover it up too. rivka Wouldn't the same be true of Paterno?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A comparison to Polanski? Really?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Really really.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Who was covering up for Roman Polanski?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: rivka Wouldn't the same be true of Paterno?
Wha?
Going to the cops with suspected illegal behavior is so far from broadcasting said behavior to the general public that I have to question your sincerity in making these arguments.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
I'm going to state this very simply- every single God damned person who knew that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile who raped little boys and did nothing about it is a horrible human being. Anyone who would prefer to cover up child molestation in order to avoid scandal and protect their career is a coward.
I'm glad charges are being made against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. I'm glad Graham Spanier resigned and that Joe Paterno was fired. In fact, I hope every single person in the Penn State football program and The Second Mile who had any dealings with Sandusky gets shitcanned at the very least, because there is no way it wasn't an open secret at this point.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Part of me wonders about the grad student. The grad student ended up being hired as a coach there. If Paterno had any doubt that the GA was wrong about what he saw, why would he hire the guy? I mean, telling your boss you saw someone rape a kid, if that's not true, you would be a pretty untrustworthy person. And if you believe the GA is telling the truth, who sits there and watches a child be raped and does nothing? Why would you hire someone who could let that happen unless you are already letting it happen?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Who was covering up for Roman Polanski?
I don't know about 'covering up' but he's received a lot of protection from various wealthy people over the years.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I get that he was escaping jail and that was wrong. But his crime was quite public. It was also a different kind of rape. Pedophilia is a compulsion to prey on children because one is sexually aroused by children and by "children" I mean prepubescent children. Pedophiles almost always continue to offend until they are stopped. Jerry Sandusky is charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse that went on for years. Polanski, also a rapist who should have been punished, was not a pedophile nor a repeat offender. While he did avoid punishment (and that is bad) he was not allowed to continue raping children in secret.
I think that the differences between both the kind of sexual abuse and the kind of protection given to the rapists are important differences for this discussion. It doesn't mitigate Polanski's crime, but it does mean that we are talking about apples and oranges.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate:
quote:Polanski, also a rapist who should have been punished, was not a pedophile nor a repeat offender. While he did avoid punishment (and that is bad) he was not allowed to continue raping children in secret.
What makes you so sure he didn't seek out opportunities in Europe since moving there?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, it is a different pathology to start with. While Polanski has a somewhat creepy preference for younger women (his current wife is only 46 to his 78), he is not a pedophile. Also, everyone knew what he had done. Europe has newspapers and TV and stuff.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure I understand the argument.
Is it, "based on our level of outrage at Paterno, we should resurrect a thread and equalize our outrage at Polanski" or is it "based on our level of outrage at Polanski, we must be careful to not use more than our allotted quota of outrage at Paterno?"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: Pathology? Pedophiles universally acting on their impulses until they are stopped, while men with a taste for nubile women only do it one time seems to be an extremely weak argument.
As for there being newspapers n' stuff in Europe, so what? There are child prostitution rings in Europe, he could also just fly down to Thailand and indulge in that sort of thing without any newspaper being privy to it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. Pathology. There is nothing necessarily pathological about a taste for nubile women. In fact, "nubile" means basically that they are mature enough to be married. Also, women. It is creepy (IMO) but not a disease.
Pedophilia which is attraction to prepubescent children is a psychiatric disorder. Part of the disease is a compulsion to abuse children. Children are their primary, if not only, sexual attraction.
Does that make it clearer?
Edit: Regarding newspapers. Polanski is a famous rapist. He committed a rape that got huge publicity. No parent is going to be sending their daughter off on a camping trip (or photo shoot) with him. He would, as you suggested, have to fly to Thailand to indulge. Sandusky's crimes were kept secret by the people at Penn State that knew about it. Young boys were left available to him for years, because people were helping him hide what he was doing.
I can't believe that you don't see the difference.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: That's not my point of contention. It's your statement that pedophiles are generally always repeat offenders, while guys who prefer their women young are just creepy one-timers. Polansky did in fact rape an underaged girl. Unless you know him personally I don't see how you can even approach stating how often he has done that sort of thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, you are not reading what I am writing.
One is a psychosexual disorder. The other is not.
One man had people helping him hide (or at least not revealing) his crimes. The other was the focus of huge publicity.
Nobody really knows what anyone does but we are still talking about apples and oranges here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: I'm not saying they are the same thing. I was just taken aback by your statement that Polanski never did what he was convicted of doing again after fleeing the country. How can we possibly know that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not saying that I know his whole history. What I am saying is that recidivism is not necessarily a component of Polanski's crime - and indeed we have not heard that this very famous man has committed such a crime since. Recidivism is a big problem with pedophiles. It is a disease for which there isn't really a cure. Also, if I recall, Polanski was arrested very soon after he committed his crime. Sandusky was not and, rather than one victim, had at eight boys (that we know of) that he molested over and over again for years.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm not sure I understand the argument.
Is it, "based on our level of outrage at Paterno, we should resurrect a thread and equalize our outrage at Polanski" or is it "based on our level of outrage at Polanski, we must be careful to not use more than our allotted quota of outrage at Paterno?"
We should ask darkknight to clarify. This is important!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
South Park, as anticipated, goes to town on the material provided by penn state
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: my husband worked in a public high school, he was not allowed to call CPS to report abuse. He documented and gave to counselor, who would deal with it. .
I just want to interject here: this would be a crime, possibly a felony, in many states. In California, where I was a mandated reporter for 7 years as a city employee, I read and remembered the legal statutes that were provided to me to read when I was hired and trained. A mandated reporter, including such people as teachers, counselors, cops, and other local staff, are required, by law, to report personally to CPS in cases of suspected abuse and endangerment. Informing a supervisor does not fulfill this obligation, and the school cannot, by law, ask that an employee not contact CPS. I wish your husband had reported his employers.
That is just my recollection of my training, from 10 years ago. I was told, by my boss, and by the assistant city manager, that no beaurocratic process outside of CPS was to be allowed to handle child endangerment cases.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah. I can see that a school might require such things to be reported internally, but to require that to the exclusion of reporting to the police or CPS? Seems nuts.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
rivka my response to you was about your comment of
quote: If they did not have enough to convict him on, that would be not only a libel lawsuit waiting to happen, but could also compromise the later ability to get criminal charges to stick.
I meant couldn't Paterno be sued for libel or whatever if he went around telling people they have to ban Sandusky from PSU?
quote: Is it, "based on our level of outrage at Paterno, we should resurrect a thread and equalize our outrage at Polanski" or is it "based on our level of outrage at Polanski, we must be careful to not use more than our allotted quota of outrage at Paterno?"
Or it could be neither choice but I think you knew that already. I'm pretty sure you understand the point I was making. However, I will give you more information. Shortly after I read about Paterno's name being removed from the Big Ten conference title, I read about Harrison Ford accepting an award on behalf of Polanski (I was googling about Harrison Ford's accomplishments and awards). It just struck me as fundamentally wrong that someone who is guilty of not reporting secondhand information to the police is stripped of his accomplishments while a man who drugs and forcibly vaginally and anally rapes a 13 year old girl, is still earning awards while escaping any punishment.
quote: We should ask darkknight to clarify. This is important!
I hope this satisfies as a clarification? Actually I don't care if you think it does or not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So do you think that Polanski should be ineligible for awards or do you think that a man who allowed his former assistant coach to keep molesting children should get to keep the rather unique honor of having the trophy named for him? No one is taking away the championships that Paterno's team won, just like Polanski's films can still win Oscars (that was the award that Ford picked up since Polanski can't accept it himself). I think that if AMPAS decided to name the Oscar the Polanski trophy, it would be a very bad decision.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: rivka my response to you was about your comment of
quote: If they did not have enough to convict him on, that would be not only a libel lawsuit waiting to happen, but could also compromise the later ability to get criminal charges to stick.
I meant couldn't Paterno be sued for libel or whatever if he went around telling people they have to ban Sandusky from PSU?
Where did I suggest that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For going to the police? Sandusky would have to have sued him (thus going public) and proved that Paterno was lying.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: Olivet posted this link to a timeline elsewhere (thanks to C. C. Finlay). It has a bit more detail and represents Finlay's read of the grand jury transcript.
I don't know if it is accurate, but given the source, I suspect it is.
If true, that's absolutely outrageous and unconscionable.
I don't see how Paterno and others aren't also tried for criminal negligence of some sort.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: my husband worked in a public high school, he was not allowed to call CPS to report abuse. He documented and gave to counselor, who would deal with it. .
I just want to interject here: this would be a crime, possibly a felony, in many states. In California, where I was a mandated reporter for 7 years as a city employee, I read and remembered the legal statutes that were provided to me to read when I was hired and trained. A mandated reporter, including such people as teachers, counselors, cops, and other local staff, are required, by law, to report personally to CPS in cases of suspected abuse and endangerment. Informing a supervisor does not fulfill this obligation, and the school cannot, by law, ask that an employee not contact CPS. I wish your husband had reported his employers.
That is just my recollection of my training, from 10 years ago. I was told, by my boss, and by the assistant city manager, that no beaurocratic process outside of CPS was to be allowed to handle child endangerment cases.
Here, too. At the university where I work, we were reminded recently that teachers and school administrators meant US not just K-12. I checked the PA statues and they are mandatory reporters as well.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am a mandatory reporter. I have also been told that we should report first to a counselor, but the only reason for that was so they can facilitate the contact with CPS and also so they can be involved in any counseling or actions that have to take place at the school. I was told that the counselor would call CPS, and we would then talk to them, since we were the primary witness of what needed to be reported. At no time was it ever indicated to us that we should just tell a counselor and forget it. We were told we HAD to be present when the report was made so we could give them our first hand account.
If I reported something to a counselor and no report was made I would then feel it was my responsibility to make it myself.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A rather sad update
quote:Victim One, the first known alleged victim of abuse by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, had to leave his school in the middle of his senior year because of bullying, his counselor said Sunday.
Officials at Central Mountain High School in Clinton County weren't providing guidance for fellow students, who were reacting badly about Joe Paterno's firing and blaming the 17-year-old, said Mike Gillum, the psychologist helping his family. Those officials were unavailable for comment this weekend.
Man, I simply don't understand people who care so much about football, they would harass a victim of child abuse...because he exposed it? It's mind-blowing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Bullying a rape victim...there are no appropriate words which don't violate the TOS. Suffice it to say I hope they fall down and break their faces.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A rather sad update
quote:Victim One, the first known alleged victim of abuse by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, had to leave his school in the middle of his senior year because of bullying, his counselor said Sunday.
Officials at Central Mountain High School in Clinton County weren't providing guidance for fellow students, who were reacting badly about Joe Paterno's firing and blaming the 17-year-old, said Mike Gillum, the psychologist helping his family. Those officials were unavailable for comment this weekend.
Man, I simply don't understand people who care so much about football, they would harass a victim of child abuse...because he exposed it? It's mind-blowing.
*Angry thoughts*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Bullying rape victims (or perhaps more accurately accusers) is so common I almost expect it to happen. It's a tragic truth that if you come forward and accuse a popular person of rape or sexual harassment you will be vilified by a lot of people. Its one of the reasons that sexual harassment and rape are so under reported.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I thought about making a new thread, but honestly I couldn't quite stomach it. Sandusky was found guilty, in case you've been living under a rock these past few months. I wish there was a spitting face, since that's what even thinking his name makes me want to do.
Now, with the publication of the Freeh report, the conversation has swung to whether or not Penn State should even be allowed to have a football team. Joe Paterno's legacy is pretty much completely destroyed, and that seems right to me. While he did great things, the horrible things that were perpetrated under his knowing watch (insert spitting face again) certainly outweigh those in my mind.
In terms of the football team though, I'm torn. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine Penn State not having a football team. Is that fair to the current players and coaches, most or all of whom had absolutely nothing to do with the scandal? And it honestly seems a bit frivolous to say, "You fail to report something like this, you lose your football team!". The truth is that if you fail to report something like this, you lose your right to be called a decent human being.
But on the other hand, there is certainly precedence for punishing institutions who put football over player welfare, much less the welfare of underprivileged children. Could the NCAA get away with saying that this transcends football and is not under their jurisdiction? From what I've read, it seems like they are poised to act and are only waiting to see what the University does first. But I can't imagine them doing something as minor as handing out a postseason ban (which is major for most cases). If the NCAA does anything, it almost has to come down with the death penalty. There really is very little worse then what happened at Penn State. Recruiting or improper benefits scandals certainly pale in comparison.
Thinking more about it, I'm leaning more towards axing the whole football program. That is a lot of collateral damage for people who were not in any way involved in the scandal, but it just doesn't seem like there is any other appropriate response.
Thoughts?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'd have to mull that one over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd be fine with it just for the broader benefit of a nice, stiff dose of, "It's only freaking football, you idiots!" to our culture at large. Not because I dislike football-I love it, actually-but because when stuff like raping children is put on the table, football becomes so utterly trivial that it really is a trivial matter, a bunch of guys running around after a ball. Whatever gain there might be to us at large from the sport, these other things just totally overwhelm it.
I would love love love for us to reach a point where 'has a prestigious job' isn't a reason to adopt a negligent attitude towards preventing child abuse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Could the NCAA get away with saying that this transcends football and is not under their jurisdiction?
I wonder how much of this sort of negligence and indifference can be traced back to the sort of deference and respect we attribute to the attractive and physically powerful. I'm trying to think of other professions where this sort of leniency applies without either money or power existing in some other way, but coming up blank. If someone is an exceptionally skilled accountant but does something wrong, the companies they directly benefitted might want leniency, but otherwise disinterested outsiders wouldn't. Be a brilliantly skilled football coach while also being a terrible human being, on the other hand, and many will *still* insist on leniency.
In trying to understand why, I come back again to that allure sports draws to society. That and the other things that allure brings are what invokes the leniency, but the cause of that allure is, at heart, just that way we love athletes and are taught to do so from an early age.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At the very least it seems more than fair, if not absolutely necessary to gut the entire management and administrative staff of the program. Get rid of EVERYTHING except the players.
Hurting the players doesn't really seem fair, even if I think football is dramatically overworshipped to a dangerous degree in college. But there's no evidence they knew what was going on is there? Keep the kids, axe the adults.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To what extent would the players be hurt, really, by ending the program? Also to consider is that other programs have been killed for far, far less. Jaywalking in comparison, but apparently their real crime was not being a powerhouse program.
Frankly, I'm pretty skeptical that top tier athletes that have already gotten a place at Penn State wouldn't land on their feet if the program were ended-and sometimes, these things just happen when there is rampant corruption, incompetence, or criminality at the top-the jobs aren't there anymore. Help them shift to other programs, that is surely in the collective authority of these major football playing colleges, if that's what they wish. If not, help them to stay at the university, subsidizing as necessary those who choose to stay but will have lost their scholarships without football. As you say, it's not their fault.
But even if you completely gut the program, at the end of it, Penn State will *still* have a college football program. I think that would be pretty infamous, myself. I think stripping the college indefinitely from this enormously lucrative and prestigious program is both appropriate, and useful to the rest of them in that it sends an unequivocal message.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:To what extent would the players be hurt, really, by ending the program? Also to consider is that other programs have been killed for far, far less. Jaywalking in comparison, but apparently their real crime was not being a powerhouse program.
Potential damage to their careers, to say nothing of many probably losing crucial scholarships.
quote:If not, help them to stay at the university, subsidizing as necessary those who choose to stay but will have lost their scholarships without football. As you say, it's not their fault.
I have far less of an objection under these circumstances. I think tossing them out is overly harsh, but if you make considerations to ensure they can still finish out school with help, then it's less a big deal. As you say, the top tier athletes who were going to have careers anyway will likely move on to other schools.
quote:I think stripping the college indefinitely from this enormously lucrative and prestigious program is both appropriate, and useful to the rest of them in that it sends an unequivocal message.
It's a big step, a dramatic one...but I'm at a point where I think college sports, football especially, are so messed up, and the severity of this crime is so rampant and hideous that that sort of step is both justified and necessary to send a message to the rest of the NCAA. It sucks that a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire, but not everyone gets to come out unscathed when something this awful happens.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Potential damage to their careers, to say nothing of many probably losing crucial scholarships.
As you allude to below, statistically few of them will actually have professional athletic careers, that is NFL careers. And we both agree that their scholarships should either, through NCAA power and influence, be upheld at Penn State or be permitted to be shifted elsewhere. Hell, the NCAA could pay for it themselves and it would be less than a drop in the bucket.
quote:I have far less of an objection under these circumstances. I think tossing them out is overly harsh, but if you make considerations to ensure they can still finish out school with help, then it's less a big deal. As you say, the top tier athletes who were going to have careers anyway will likely move on to other schools.
Can they be said to have been tossed out, if the program is gone and nobody remains? Little quibble, really.
quote:It's a big step, a dramatic one...but I'm at a point where I think college sports, football especially, are so messed up, and the severity of this crime is so rampant and hideous that that sort of step is both justified and necessary to send a message to the rest of the NCAA. It sucks that a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire, but not everyone gets to come out unscathed when something this awful happens.
Likewise. I wish I had hope that it would work, though. When fan condemnation and support for such a move is far ffom universal when *child rape* is on the table, I don't really know what it would take. Every single athlete murdering toddlers in uniform on video, it would seem.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To what extent would the players be hurt, really, by ending the program?
Football is really the only sport I care about but I have to admit that it is a brazenly exploitative institution. I want Penn State to go down to further an overall collapse and potential rebuild of what has become an industry of corrupt profits.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Gabbing about this with my old man over fish and chips, I wondered aloud-taking his agreement for granted-what it would take for people to come to the conclusion, "Penn State doesn't get to have a football program for awhile." He seemed surprised and replied, "Well I don't think that's called for."
The more I encounter that point of view, the more it seems that it is simply a given: these major football playing colleges just get to have football programs, and there isn't anything that ought to take that away. It's down at the facts of life level, I guess, like rights you get even when you're in prison.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So the way I had opposition to the NCAA death penalty explained to me went a few ways. One, fans of Penn State are remarkably good sports and a pleasure to be around, and there are a lot of folks who really love, and make it part of their lives, Penn State football. He loves college ball a good bit more than me, but I can appreciate the impulse to stick up for good fans, even if in this situation it seems to me to be totally irrelevant. My (not spoken) response was to think, "Alright, but who gives a s*%t?")
The second part of it was that the key figures in this scandal are going to face criminal and civil justice (well, not Paterno), and that it was a group of individuals, not the institution, which transgressed. That seemed like serious nonsense to me, but I couldn't manage to make myself heard on that. Prior to this, there would have been many people who said without irony that Paterno *was* Penn State football, aside from the other three figures, including a president.
Also in the list were that other programs that have gotten the axe did so for football-specific rulebreaking, and that that was why they got the worst penalty, but Penn State shouldn't. That seemed plausible at first before I remembered: college football and the NCAA are most definitely *not* in the business of claiming they're only there for the football. You don't have to watch a game very long at all to hear talk about sportsmanship, student athletes, good works, so on and so forth. A substantial part of the culture's image appears, to me at least, to involve good people, not just good athletics.
The most compelling and paradoxical opposition came from the idea that Penn State will be hit with massive financial penalties, and if their program is axed they won't be able to pay. I have no idea if that's true or not. If it is, I suppose there is some merit, but I suspect that there would also be opposition to the program netting zero dollars for at least several seasons, if 'think of the fans' comes up.
Talk about trying to curb the power of coaches and athletic departments was met with blank-faced surprise. It would seem there is nothing beyond civil penalties that universities need to listen to, and because that power stems ffom popular adoration, there isn't anything to be done.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am very conflicted about this. On the one hand, it is a criminal and civil matter and the court system is at work, so you could say the NCAA has no reason to get involved. On the other hand, the football program, through its leaders, allowed this to continue. Some of the assaults took place on the premises using football facilities. How does that not meet the NCAA's definition of "lack of institutional control?"
The University of Alabama faced sanctions and was put on probation because some football players sold back their textbooks at the end of the semester. The NCAA found that the football administration should have done a better job keeping up with what players did with their books. If we're concerned about what some 19 year olds do with a history textbook, surely to God we should be concerned with a program that allows a suspected pedophile to continue to bring young boys onto school property and abuse them there. If that's not "lack of institutional control", I don't know what is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Gabbing about this with my old man over fish and chips, I wondered aloud-taking his agreement for granted-what it would take for people to come to the conclusion, "Penn State doesn't get to have a football program for awhile." He seemed surprised and replied, "Well I don't think that's called for."
The more I encounter that point of view, the more it seems that it is simply a given: these major football playing colleges just get to have football programs, and there isn't anything that ought to take that away. It's down at the facts of life level, I guess, like rights you get even when you're in prison.
The only problem I'm trying to reconcile with suspending the program, is that it effectively punishes the entire school for a handful of individuals actions.
The income generated by the football program goes towards things like college expansion, new professors, better facilities, etc. The program provides jobs as well as scholarships for students, jobs for members of the community, programs for prospective students and even non-students, as well as attracting talent from around the country.
As near as I can tell, the only people who did anything wrong were those who intentionally concealed these crimes. The coach who didn't do enough is dead, the administrators who failed to notify the police are being prosecuted. The perpetrator has been convicted. Near as I can tell, the only thing the school should probably be doing is attempting to make things right with the victims and their families. Whether that be paying for counseling, or just a monetary settlement.
While I am sympathetic to the idea, football *isn't* untouchable, I'm just not sure this is really the correct situation for going that far.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The only problem I'm trying to reconcile with suspending the program, is that it effectively punishes the entire school for a handful of individuals actions.
The income generated by the football program goes towards things like college expansion, new professors, better facilities, etc. The program provides jobs as well as scholarships for students, jobs for members of the community, programs for prospective students and even non-students, as well as attracting talent from around the country.
The thing is, at what point does 'a few individual actions' turn I to 'actions of the institution' if those individuals are the highest members of that institution, take actions over years and even decades, and support or retaliate against other members based on how they go along-or don't?
These individuals would certainly have had the prestige of the institution rub off on them when it was time for awards, press coverage, politics, power in the workplace, so on and so forth. It seems to me that it's too late to say they weren't 'the institution', because in large part they were viewed as such when good things happened before.
Now, if there was some way to ensure that the money the football program brings in went overwhelmingly to court settlements and funding the actual university first and foremost, I'd be very interested in that. But that's almost never how it works. People say that football is great for schools because of all the money it brings in, and forget how very much of that money doesn't leave the hands that brought it. Which is fine, they bring the crowds, but they're not being charitable.
quote:As near as I can tell, the only people who did anything wrong were those who intentionally concealed these crimes. The coach who didn't do enough is dead, the administrators who failed to notify the police are being prosecuted. The perpetrator has been convicted. Near as I can tell, the only thing the school should probably be doing is attempting to make things right with the victims and their families. Whether that be paying for counseling, or just a monetary settlement.
I think it's safe to say the university as a whole did something very wrong by fostering, with enormous financial incentive, the sense of entitlement and ruthlessness among the men who actually took specific actions that went a bit beyond simply not telling police, to knowing it was going on and giving Sandusky tacit permission-just so long as it wasn't there. Now, it's certainly true the university as a whole didn't make that specific decision, but I'm enormously skeptical that there weren't so many little things over years building up. I mean, for example, those janitors and that guy who talked to his father...they saw children being raped (regardless of the legal definition), and they were worried that reporting it would cause trouble or cost them their jobs.
I don't think they just imagined those fears. I don't think that sort of culture is one which comes from the bottom, but rather from the top.
quote:While I am sympathetic to the idea, football *isn't* untouchable, I'm just not sure this is really the correct situation for going that far.
I can sympathize with that. To me, though, if we're going go suspend programs because of tattoos for autographs, textbooks sales, gambling, cheating (and I'm actually fine with the latter two), it seems an awful injustice not to do so for this sort of thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To me, though, if we're going go suspend programs because of tattoos for autographs, textbooks sales, gambling, cheating (and I'm actually fine with the latter two), it seems an awful injustice not to do so for this sort of thing.
Holy geeze. If that report is accurate, and Caltech self-reported violations that never would've been found, then punished itself and the NCAA still gave them the chair, so to speak...man. I can't help but wonder what is being said behind closed doors to prompt such a stupid, petty exercise of power if it happened like that.
On another note, in listening to Talk of the Nation, there was a lengthy piece on whether or not to give the death penalty to Penn State. Several callers and letter writers remarked their opposition on the grounds that it punishes students.
The more I think about this, the more baffling it is. Not only are whole slews of innocent students caught up in NCAA punishments because of trangressions by coaches, recruiters, professors, or other students and no one regards it as especially foul, but punishing the group for the infractions of a few isn't exactly unheard of in team sports either. Anyone who has played team sports has run laps, done drills, suicides, and all sorts of other exercises because someone or some few people screwed up. That being one of the components of team sports, but suddenly with Penn State (but not athletically awkward but academically brilliant Caltech) suddenly everybody's an individual. When a professor forges grades or a recruiter pays money, they're not just individuals. They're punished, and then the institution is punished too-all of it, not just the guilty, but literally the guilty-by-association.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Holy geeze. If that report is accurate, and Caltech self-reported violations that never would've been found, then punished itself and the NCAA still gave them the chair, so to speak...man.
That is my understanding. But Caltech is one school where the honor code really MEANS something (and honestly, the athletic programs really don't).
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Don't most NCAA sanctions punish a bunch of people for the actions of a few? It seems like this would never have gone on so long if the people involved weren't important to the football program.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, that's what the article made clear to me too, Rivka. The emphasis at Caltech places student at a much higher premium than athlete. With the big, multi-million dollar football programs, I don't think anyone serious would claim that the emphasis isn't switched. Despite all the talk about role models and good work and student athletes you'll see briefly portrayed during the television coverage of a game between two big programs.
Hell, I remember (it's been awhile, and someone more updated on NCAAF can maybe correct me) a time when a player was mentioned as excelling at double-majoring as well as being an effective big program player. Which is pretty impressive, but the double major only ever got lip service. Which is fine, since we really really really love football in this country, highlighted by our college athletics in and of itself, but frankly it seems to me the whole moral shine and coating to the big programs hasn't been anything more than b*#%£it for quite some time, at least in terms of the upper levels. Which is also natural, given how much money is involved.
--------
Well if you want to say what I did better in about a quarter the words, Shigosei... Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
4 year postseason ban Loss of 10 scholarships per year for next four years $60 million in fines
In addition, the Big Ten added a ban for the Big Ten championship game for four years, and an additional $13 million fine.
Penn State signed an agreement and will not contest the penalties.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
That seems really harsh. The real people being affected are the students of Penn State who had nothing to do with the scandal
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not harsh enough by half. Penn State should no longer have a football program.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That seems really harsh. The real people being affected are the students of Penn State who had nothing to do with the scandal
No, they're also being affected. But what do you want? You speak as though that university has some sort of sacrosanct right to an enormously profitable football program. Nothing the leadership of the university and its athletics department might do that would be punished wouldn't impact unrelated students at the university. Shall there then be no punishments, ever, for the program and university when it behaves with abject negligence and gross inhumanity?
This set of punishments will likely take many, many years for Penn State's football program, and the university, to recover from. Which is entirely appropriate, given the crime. We don't accord any other institutions this sort of hand-wringing deference. If a private business were found to be guilty of dumping barrels of toxic waste into the local river, we wouldn't just say, "Well the majority of employees had no knowledge of or hand in these crimes, so we can't take any action that will hurt them."
No. College football is not special. If it were actually a haven for the 'student athlete' and placed as its highest priority good sportsmanship, honorable character, and academics blended with athletics it might be special. It's not. It's a damned money farm, with the people generating the money-the 'student-athletes'-being compensated at only a tiny fraction of the wealth their athletics generate.
At first I was unhappy with this outcome. I felt a death penalty was in fact too lenient, but I've been hearing today from various commentators-who had been quite bloody-minded-that this may actually be worse than a death penalty for the program for some period of years, and that's without taking into account the many tens of millions I think will be paid in numerous civil suits.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: The real people being affected are the students of Penn State who had nothing to do with the scandal
Many of whom will transfer to schools that didn't actively shield a pedophile for many years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Many of whom will transfer to schools that didn't actively shield a pedophile for many years.
I suspect he meant students of the wider university, rather than the athletes themselves who have been given that option. To the extent the athletics department funds the rest of the university, which is substantial, he's right, I think.
My response to that remains, frankly, 'tough'. This was not simply the negligence or even criminality of a few select individuals, this was an institutional failing, to put it mildly-the institution is then punished.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Many of whom will transfer to schools that didn't actively shield a pedophile for many years.
I suspect he meant students of the wider university
So did I.
The average college student transfers at least once. If the Penn students don't like the situation at their current school, transferring is an option. It may not be the best option for some of them. In fact, for some who are close to graduation, it might be a really lousy option.
Nonetheless, it IS an option.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
I agree that it is an option for the majority of students rivka but the punishment seems overly harsh to the entire school.
I personally think that the NCAA should stay out of it entirely. Okay, maybe not entirely, but already most of the people responsible for keeping the abuse under wraps have been terminated. i.e. Joe Paterno.
So after the school and its students have suffered more than enough negative publicity from the scandal and having its beloved football coach get fired, die, and THEN have his statue torn down in the obvious display of unfounded contempt the NCAA and general populace still hold for the University.
And above all of that, the NCAA still somehow finds it appropriate to slap down an enormous sanction upon the University. I find that completely inappropriate and unfair.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was mostly satisfied with the punishment. It needs to hurt, but I don't think they should kill the whole program.
Penn State just removed the statue of Paterno from campus, and he lost his legacy as the winning-est coach in NCAA history, heck I don't even think you could say he will be fondly remembered by most people. The school can still play football, and the punishment sends a message that it's going to hurt if you do things like that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I personally think that the NCAA should stay out of it entirely. Okay, maybe not entirely, but already most of the people responsible for keeping the abuse under wraps have been terminated. i.e. Joe Paterno.
So after the school and its students have suffered more than enough negative publicity from the scandal and having its beloved football coach get fired, die, and THEN have his statue torn down in the obvious display of unfounded contempt the NCAA and general populace still hold for the University.
There were more people involved than Paterno and Sandusky. Have you read the Freeh report, or a detailed summary? It doesn't sound like it, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Even if you take into account the four people known so far to have had the most impact on concealing the ongoing rape of children, they still weren't the only ones who need to answer for this. There were also those above and below who, answering to this damnably stupid reverence for college football and its heroes-and I say that as a fan myself-kept things quiet in pursuit of money and glory. Who didn't report for fear of their jobs or damage to the program, or who didn't inquire because they didn't want to offend the big guys.
As to your second paragraph, I'm sorry, but what is this nonsense? More than enough negative publicity? For a number of their most powerful and respected figures concealing and sanctioning dozens (of known) instances of child rape? A few months of negative publicity is enough, huh? Paterno died? That doesn't add to the justice done, it distracts. He very much earned the lengthy humiliation and public revulsion of a lengthy trial. So they lost their beloved coach and his statue? They should have. If he wasn't a freaking football coach, no one of any kind of moral sanity would look at someone who knew children were being raped and did nothing (actually worse than that) without recoiling from them in disgust. The university and especially its leadership, athletic leadership in particular, richly deserve contempt at least.
It is frankly outrageous that you or anyone would suggest that they have somehow suffered enough or that Penn State is somehow itself a victim. For decades the university has reaped the benefits in money and prestige from its football program, even for those who couldn't even tell you how many points are in a touchdown. The flip side of that is this. The only thing that excuses this shameful misplaced outrage is that you're not alone: we're taught that college sports are special or sacred. They're not.
---------
quote:The average college student transfers at least once. If the Penn students don't like the situation at their current school, transferring is an option. It may not be the best option for some of them. In fact, for some who are close to graduation, it might be a really lousy option.
Yeah, that's certainly true, and I'd be surprised if you didn't know more about the migration patterns of college students than just about everyone around here-certainly me! In any event, the collateral damage is to me regrettable, but necessary. When an institution must be punished, unless it's the Neo-Nazi Puppy Kickers Corporation, there are going to be some people harmed who don't have it coming.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Im not saying that the death of joe paterno somehow contributed to the punishment or that all of the people involved in the coverup have been exposed, but what i am saying is that the entirety of Penn State university, namely the innocent students, is being wrongly punished!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: I agree that it is an option for the majority of students rivka but the punishment seems overly harsh to the entire school.
Collective groups often get punished collectively. Rewarded that way, too. When Penn's team was doing great, there were lots of benefits that accrued to students through no action of their own (except maybe choosing that school). In the same way, now that the rot at the core of that shininess has been exposed and rooted out, the students will have negative consequences through no action of their own (except maybe choosing that school).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: I personally think that the NCAA should stay out of it entirely.
What do you think the NCAA's point as an organization is that you think they should just sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing about this whole, grotesque affair?
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
But think about how this will play out for them. For the rest of their lives they will be haunted with the fact that they attended Penn State during the Sandusky sex abuse scandal. There is nothing anyone could have done to prevent this, I know. (except maybe Sandusky himself). But maybe people could be more sympathetic to the situation thousands of young adults now find themselves in. It doesn't help that there was such extensive coverage by the media on the riot/protests after Paterno was fired. Now it seems, that general public views any student associated with Penn State as either a profiteering scoundrel ,raking in cash without any moral fiber whatsoever, or as an ignorant, overly passionate college frat boy. Blinded by a mob atmosphere and a collective love of college football. It's not that they don't think child abuse isn't an issue. They just put that much more emphasis on school spirit and loyalty to their football program
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: There is nothing anyone could have done to prevent this, I know. (except maybe Sandusky himself).
You're KIDDING, right? Several members of the school's administration actively covered for, covered up, and did various other types of covering.
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: It's not that they don't think child abuse isn't an issue. They just put that much more emphasis on school spirit and loyalty to their football program
So if it were a school where football weren't such a big deal, THEN a child abuse scandal would be more important?
It was precisely because football was such a big deal at Penn that the administration had so much incentive to do all that covering. They need to be shown -- and anyone who might consider covering up something in any way similar needs to be shown -- that the consequences of such actions are the football equivalent of salting fields.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: But maybe people could be more sympathetic to the situation thousands of young adults now find themselves in. It doesn't help that there was such extensive coverage by the media on the riot/protests after Paterno was fired.
... what.
What a disturbing idea a product of a larger set of disturbing prevalent mentalities that your reaction to this is to pretty much essentially say "but think of the athletes! think of the student body!" and lament that there was so much coverage of a disgusting institutional coverup of years and years of horrific child rape. As if the most important thing to do now is be more hush-hush about it, I mean, sure, children were raped and all, but penn state's reputation is really important to these students' self image guys, it would be better if the media and the victims just .. you know, got over this more quietly. And that the NCAA should just literally do absolutely nothing, because we really need to be teaching colleges and sports institutions how readily they can just ask to be forgiven of any sort of rape culture.
Really, for serious, dude. Think about what you are saying. Think about it. You are really seriously espousing the sort of mentality being mocked here for good reason. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Zach...you are concerned for the wrong innocent young people. It's the many young boys who were raped who deserve your sympathy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Zach...you are concerned for the wrong innocent young people. It's the many young boys who were raped who deserve your sympathy.
Raped, and then not protected because the responsible adults who were notified decided that it all boils down to football being more important.
I mean think about it, (This is directed more at Zach not you SW). The *only* thing that would have potentially been damaged had they not covered things up in the past was that the school would be viewed as being horribly oblivious to such heinous crimes against children. Instead, they are now guilty of being horribly complicit in enabling heinous crimes against children.
The only motivating factor in their doing something that vile was to protect football's image at the school. Instead of looking at the fact Sandusky was routinely violating the trust and innocence of boys who needed a father figure more than anything, and realizing he needed to be stopped at all costs, instead they gave him tacit permission to continue, so long as he could keep it concealed from the authorities.
Paterno himself, denied knowing anything about it save one instance, which he insists he went to the Athletic Dept about, and then expected they would take care of it. We now know from an FBI investigation, that that was a complete lie. Damning emails show that Paterno was well abreast of the situation, and wanted to know what was going to be done. When nothing was done, he was told that was what the administrators were doing - nothing. Paterno then went back to building his legacy, fully cognizant that Sandusky was free and clear.
Don't get me wrong, the students, alumni, and 99.9% of the faculty, staff, etc had nothing to do with this. But the institution, and those in charge of it did. It was the desire to succeed at football that informed these evil choices. And so the fruits of that misplaced value system are being taken away. Past wins are vacated, money is lost, chances at championship and bowl games are gone for the next few years, athletes who no longer want to play can and will leave.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
I agree that the problem here is the institution that is flawed enough to allow this sort of thing to happen.
BUT... It has already been established that most of the higher-ups in the football program and the athletic dept. knew what was happening with Sandusky. So, what I believe the most appropriate course of action to take is to clean out the football program, and instead of fining Penn State 60 million dollars, have them use that money to overhaul their entire athletic dept and upper management of the school. Also some of that money could be contributed to programs that help exploited children like the ones victimized here. All I'm saying, is that the punishment being dealt here is way to harsh to the majority of the student body, who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. But the punishment is also too lenient on the people who actively covered up the abuse. Sure, they got fined 60 million dollars and their football program is effectively crippled for a number of years. So what? They'll still be there when the punishment ceases and well after. They still have long, lucrative careers ahead of them and this punishment is but a temporary setback.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm unclear why you think the student body is being punished with the absence of football.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
They're being punished with the absence of football because many of them went to that school because they have a good football program, regardless of whether they play or not. Also, the football program is being fined 60 million dollars. DO you think they're suddenly going to cut back on spending because they have been docked a single season's revenue? No. That money is going to be taken from somewhere else. Its probably going to come from other programs that will have to be shut down because of lack of funding. Not just the football program will be affected, in all likelihood, the athletic dept. will be fine. No its the arts and other programs that are going to be cut to fund football that I am worried about.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They're being punished with the absence of football because many of them went to that school because they have a good football program...
Egad. They should be punished for that.
quote:Also, the football program is being fined 60 million dollars. DO you think they're suddenly going to cut back on spending because they have been docked a single season's revenue? No. That money is going to be taken from somewhere else.
They could take your advice and fire all their coaches. That'd help.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:BUT... It has already been established that most of the higher-ups in the football program and the athletic dept. knew what was happening with Sandusky. So, what I believe the most appropriate course of action to take is to clean out the football program, and instead of fining Penn State 60 million dollars, have them use that money to overhaul their entire athletic dept and upper management of the school.
I...so your proposal for how the institution ought to be punished for both being negligent with respect to child rape and actually abetting it is that it shouldn't be punished? Because that's what you're proposing here. That part of their 'punishment' be that they use money fined to revamp their football program. Apparently, when you hear about Penn State as an institution being directly involved in permitting children be raped, your first response is to be concerned that Penn State is not overly punished.
I don't know if you simply don't understand the nature of the crimes committed here, or if th reference for college football nonsense has simply won you over, but here's the thing: even well meaning folks who put their trust and respect in Penn State in some measure because of its football program (however much that shows silly priorities...as it turns out, this trusted and respected institution was abetting the rape of children. People who admired it before should have that admiration turned to grief and regret, because although of course they didn't mean to, they backed the wrong horse.
quote:Also some of that money could be contributed to programs that help exploited children like the ones victimized here..
It says a lot, and none of it good, that payment to victim support groups is an also for you. Think about that, Zach. For over a decade, Penn State's leadership, football and otherwise, was active in covering up and permitting dozens of known acts of child rape. And victim support benefits are second. Second.
You've overdosed on college football, man.
quote:All I'm saying, is that the punishment being dealt here is way to harsh to the majority of the student body, who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. But the punishment is also too lenient on the people who actively covered up the abuse.
For dozens of semesters, the wider Penn State university has reaped many benefits from its football program. As it turns out, though, while they were reaping those benefits, that football program knew about and permitted children to be raped.
So, yes, the wider university has to deal with not having those benefits for quite some time. Not because it's fair or unfair to the students, who frankly ought to be far down your list of priorities instead of first, but because that's simply a natural result.
As for the most active participants, you seem to think their punishment is now over. It's not. Tens of millions in lawsuits will be coming their way over the next decade, and it's not unlikely they'll lose. They won't ever be coaching or administrating again. Criminal charges are not, I hope, impossible.
quote:Also, the football program is being fined 60 million dollars. DO you think they're suddenly going to cut back on spending because they have been docked a single season's revenue? No. That money is going to be taken from somewhere else. Its probably going to come from other programs that will have to be shut down because of lack of funding.
If that were to happen, it would be a shameful decision on the part of the bigshots there. So what you're saying is 'don't hurt 'em too bad, because they're so sleazy they'll hurt other people in response.' Geeze, have they got you drinking the kool aid.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
I am not saying that at all. I have already outlined what I thought a more reasonable solution would be. I do not suggest spending money to revamp the football program for the sake of the football program! No. I'm saying fire all of the people responsible for covering it up and use that 60 million to hire new people and compensate the victims and donate to programs that support exploited youth. The children are my top priority. But beyond preventing this from happening again in the future, there is nothing more that we can do. The best course of action would be what I have already suggested. Instead of fining them. What is that going to do?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, the children aren't your too priority. You may tell yourself that all you like, but nothing you've said you feel ought be done actually points to that-your top concern, if we go by what you've actually suggested, is twofold: punish individuals involved but not the institution, and protect the institution from collateral damage associated with this series of events.
quote:I do not suggest spending money to revamp the football program for the sake of the football program! No. I'm saying fire all of the people responsible for covering it up and use that 60 million to hire new people and compensate the victims and donate to programs that support exploited youth.
Case in point with respect to what I was saying above. No, you didn't suggest the football program be revamped just for its own sake, but the first response you suggested was one designed to protect Penn State football in the long term.-and I don't say that simply because of the order you spoke in, though that was revealing.
quote:The children are my top priority. But beyond preventing this from happening again in the future, there is nothing more that we can do. The best course of action would be what I have already suggested. Instead of fining them. What is that going to do?
This is ridiculous. Almost no other institution would receive this sort of consideration. The institution, at its highest levels and over a decade, engages in some truly hideous wrongdoing, and you toss up your hands and say, "Well there's simply nothing else we can do." Yeah, there is: compensate the victims-in whatever pathetic measure money can for something like this-and punish them for permitting the rape of children. It has to happen. We cannot be a just, decent society and then go to the victims and their families and just shrug our shoulders and say, "Yes, we acknowledge the institution committed grievous harm, but we can't be too strict with them, because what about the self esteem of people who admired Penn State's football program."
Imagine for a moment that you're advocating this proposal to an actual victim, or their parents, of the ongoing child rape this institution permitted. Would phrases such as 'we need to think about the shame Penn State students will feel, and mitigate punishment accordingly' even make it past your lips? Or would you shy away from saying that, out of a realization that it would be a disgraceful remark met with well deserved contempt and loathing, were you speaking to a victim?
No. The victims are absolutely not your first priority. They are a priority for you, but everything you've said on this subject indicates your true first priority is ensuring Penn State's ongoing prestige and profitability.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Zach, the logic you are using here is the same logic that was used to rationalize the cover-ups in the first place. I'm sure a few of the people involved were doing it strictly to protect themselves, but I would bet most of them were thinking, or at least telling themselves, that the scandal caused by going public would hurt innocent people. They rolled it over in their minds and decided that the harm done to players and students and alumni and community businesses would be so great that it outweighed the good that could be done by going to the police.
The NCAA is saying to them and anyone who finds themselves in a similar position that no, trying to protect these things by suppressing evidence of a crime will not protect them, it will only make the eventual consequences worse.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That is well said dkw.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They rolled it over in their minds and decided that the harm done to players and students and alumni and community businesses would be so great that it outweighed the good that could be done by going to the police.
This, and let's not neglect to mention the enormous amounts of money, power, and prestige involved as well that would be lost or at least diminished had it been reported properly. Even if you believe everyone except those directly involved were highly good morally and were highly diligent, very few humans indeed are entirely immune to those sorts of considerations.
Children being molested and raped and the crimes being covered up ought to be regarded as a 'house on fire with people inside' situation. If the house is on fire and people are trapped within, and you think there's a solid chance you might be able to rescue them and put out the blaze without thoroughly wrecking the place...you still thoroughly wreck the place if that's the best, most reliable way to rescue them and put out the fire. Ordinary considerations don't apply in the same ways when the house is burning down and people are going to die. Likewise when you discover children are being raped and an institution is covering up for it.
Your priorities are appropriate for a much lesser kind of crime or infraction, Zach. But this isn't a situation where the smoke alarm is going off-the house is burning down, and people are inside.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The children are my top priority. But beyond preventing this from happening again in the future, there is nothing more that we can do.
Then we prevent this from happening again.
We don't do this by literally having the NCAA do absolutely nothing about this incident, as you propose, letting everyone know that a college football program can be not only Too Big To Fail, but ... Too Big To Suffer Any Real Consequences For Aiding, Concealing And Abetting Serial Child Rape For A Decade.
Because, you know, think of the athletes.
I don't mean to join in on a relentless dogpile, but your proposal is exactly what we would engage upon if we sought only to abet rape culture as readily as penn state abetted actual rape.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Okay Okay. I've had enough of the tongue-lashings. Obviously I have not been communicating clearly enough.
1. I do not believe that the institution should go unpunished. 2. I feel for the families but I realize that beyond monetary compensation, there is nothing anyone can do. 3. Contrary to what I seem to have projected, I have no desire to protect Penn State or its football program. I was just trying to be as rational as possible.
I am going to extricate myself from the discussion now. I feel like I have said enough to convey my point. Anything else would be redundant and just anger you all further (namely Rakeesh).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Zach: I hope you won't feel like we are angry at you. I understand you are advocating for punishing the guilty parties not the peole who happen to like the sport that was used as the justification for evil behavior. I think what people are trying to express is that in the past that's been done before. I mean look at this op-ed in the NYT. The columnist gets one thing especially right. Having football taken away will be useful discipline. The times in my life where I had the things I wanted most taken away because of bad behavior were probably some of the most important periods of my life.
When people in Penn State go back to games they will be reminded that there won't be a bowl game because boys were raped and our football staff hid it from authorities. They will be reminded when the sanctions come off in a few years. Whenever Joe Paterno comes up in football conversation Sandusky will always be at the forefront if not right under the surface. It will take decades before this stigma is shed, which is good. The next time somebody sees a child being raped in a college football facility, there will be a name that comes to mind and that cautionary tale will move that person into making the right decision if not out of a sense of morality, at least out of fear.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: Im not saying that the death of joe paterno somehow contributed to the punishment or that all of the people involved in the coverup have been exposed, but what i am saying is that the entirety of Penn State university, namely the innocent students, is being wrongly punished!
No, they aren't. Their institution not only allowed abuse to occur over multiple years, but they provided the access to those children, and facilities for the program AND the abuse to occur, AND actively SHIELDED the abuser for decades.
They are lucky to still have a football program at all.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I didn't see what you said above, man. Sorry for dog-piling.....
What would you suggest would be a proper punishment, then? I can't seem to think of one that would be proper that doesn't also affect the student body, most of who are innocent of all of this.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was mostly satisfied with the punishment. It needs to hurt, but I don't think they should kill the whole program.
Penn State just removed the statue of Paterno from campus, and he lost his legacy as the winning-est coach in NCAA history, heck I don't even think you could say he will be fondly remembered by most people. The school can still play football, and the punishment sends a message that it's going to hurt if you do things like that.
I'm mostly satisfied with the punishment, but my initial reaction is that four years seems a bit short.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The issue is less one of communication and has to do with that .. you say that 'beyond monetary compensation, there is nothing anyone can do' it's not true; we can disincentivize further abetting. We have a moral duty to.
Paterno put his legacy and his football program ahead of children that he knew were being raped by people he was in charge of. He knowingly let it continue. As did others in control of the system.
Now his legacy and Penn State's football legacy is 112 straight losses, a horrific tale of child rape, and an empty statue bay with the ghost-stains of bronze reliefs.
This is a message not to aid and abet such truly criminal things.
What's the message of the NCAA deciding that they should just butt out and let Penn State decide how to 'punish' themselves?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I heard a report today that had they not accepted the penalties and signed the consent decree, the NCAA was going to seek the death penalty for four years.
So, they basically sat down with Penn State and said we will seek the death penalty unless you agree to this.
It's a plea bargain.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder if that ultimatum was preemptive, or they offered it in response to a Penn State initial balking?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)