Originally Posted By RoadTrip I am not minimizing the horror of what happened at Penn State. I hope the investigation and prosecution continues and goes as far as it can. But Paterno had no first-hand knowledge of the abuse, and he DID report what he was told to his superiors. I wish he had been allowed to resign (as he planned) rather than being fired after all of his years of service. This has nothing to do about football... I have no interest in the college game in general or Penn State in particular. I just wish he could have died with some dignity intact.
Originally Posted By mele Legally, he might have done what he needed to do. Big deal. Morally, he failed big time. He was an incredibly powerful man (arguably more "power" than some of his superiors) and yet did nothing to stop Sandusky from having any future contact with children...whether he had first hand knowledge or not. He definitely could have stopped any abuse from happening once there was an accusation. Focusing on his being fired vs. retiring is so bizarre, imo. He got plenty of years of glory. PLENTY! I would think a man who could work with someone who'd been accused of raping children just might have the ability to push bad thoughts very deeply into the recesses of his soul. I'm sure he was able to do the same with his "tarnished" legacy disappointment.
Originally Posted By mele Considering thousands of people are still fawning all over him (and literally rioted when he was fired), I wouldn't exactly say that he died without "dignity". Clearly keeping the status quo and the dignity and fame that came with it was most important.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I'm in complete agreement with mele on this one. Paterno did what was required of him legally, but nothing else. And oftentimes in life, we are placed into situations where greater action is morally required, going beyond the minimum needed to simply keep one's butt out of jail. That is all Paterno did. His actions regarding Sandusky were very far from heroic and nothing to celebrate. If the man died in disgrace, he did it to himself.
Originally Posted By mele I don't hate Paterno. I don't see what he did as a one time mistake. Everyday that Sandusky was allowed near a child was a mistake. That's a multitude of mistakes. I can't guess what his reasoning was...I think he probably convinced himself that it wasn't really going on. People believe what they want to believe, truly. I can't say what his motivations were. I didn't hate the man and have no feelings about his death. (Mike McCreary, is another matter!) If *I* had a hand in giving Sandusky access to children to victimize, I'd be devastated. I would have quit my job, not wait to retire or be fired. I personally would happily give up my "legacy" because I would know what happened under my watch. I would never cling to it the way Paterno and his fans do. I wouldn't be able to separate the two. His legacy IS tarnished; not because people choose to tarnish it but tarnished because child abuse was a part of it. By definition, there are parts of it that are rotten, and to ask that his legacy not be tarnished is just trying to sweep it under the rug and ignore it. It is tarnished because it happened, not because people are talking about it. He made the wrong choice because it was the wrong choice; the hindsight isn't what makes it wrong. Ironically, people want to ignore it just like Paterno chose to ignore it; that's not going to ever happen. A most excellent example of karma, no?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Paterno could have done more, probably should have done more. But who knows what kind of pressure he was under to not make waves. No matter how powerful a coach may be, look at how often they are fired when they make the school look bad. Woody Hayes, Bobby Knight and many others are examples of that. I'll never be in his position so I'm not sure I can judge. But how do you choose between protecting your family and hoping that those you report to do the right thing? As far as I know Sandusky was banned from the campus, so Paterno undoubtedly felt those he was responsible for were protected. I'll admit I probably don't see this clearly. I've seen several people I love die of cancer, and have seen how terribly they suffer. I just hate to see them suffer a burden greater than what God has already put on them.
Originally Posted By mele No, Sandusky wasn't banned from campus, he was banned from bringing children from the campus but, according to the grand jury report, that was unenforceable. The report is unclear whether or not Sandusky was even TOLD that children were to be banned. In fact, he was still given access to numerous areas of the campus even after he retired. Paterno was/is still thought of in God like tones by people, not some nameless pleeb. The idea that he was protecting his family doesn't pass the logic test in this situation. Although, clearly, many people at Penn participated in covering it up. Protecting a child rapist because he might lose his job IS the morally bankrupt part...not something to give him a slight pass on. Paterno wasn't some powerless, fragile, weak old man like people are trying to make him out to be here. Absolutely mind-boggling. He was the head coach, not Sandusky. He had the power. Also, while reading the grand jury report, one might be able to make a case that he coached McCreary to waterdown his accusations. It wouldn't be a huge leap.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You obviously feel very strongly about this; I won't argue. It might be interesting to see what others think, but they are probably scared off! ;-) I don't know enough about what Paterno knew, what he did or didn't do, what he thought others would do, etc. to judge him so strongly. If I suspected (but had no absolute knowledge or proof) that a neighbor was abusing his/her kid and had reported it to police, would I pursue it further if no action were taken? Probably not. My bad.
Originally Posted By hopemax > If I suspected (but had no absolute knowledge or proof) that a neighbor was abusing his/her kid and had reported it to police, would I pursue it further if no action were taken? Probably not. < There's a little apples/oranges here. The actual police are the authority. I think most of us if the actual police chose not to pursue would not pursue it. But Paterno didn't report to the actual police. Your "what if" would be closer to saying you reported it to your HOA president. So if you reported it to your HOA president, and they did nothing, would you at least call the actual police? However, since your "what if" involved the actual police, I'm guessing if someone had told you they saw someone raping a boy in the shower, you would have called the actual police and not got caught up in a "I followed the chain of command." That's what I can't get over. Robbery, assault, murder there is a short list of things where you call the actual police, "do not pass go." You don't go to someone else. Sexual abuse of a child is on that list. Especially, thanks to the Catholic church when you KNOW there exists a culture out there where this type of thing could be buried by a "good old boys network." You have to make sure the proper authority is notified so it CAN'T get swept under some rug.
Originally Posted By ecdc Also at the risk of enduring some wrath, I wonder how much of this is generational. I had no idea Paterno was eighty-five. The attitudes around this sort of thing we're seeing play out are fairly recent; involve the authorities immediately, tell anyone who will do anything about it, etc. Not that long ago, this sort of thing was supposed to be hush-hush, handled with as little attention as possible. Like RT, I'm not a Penn State fan (or fan of much of any sports team), so don't mistake me for a Paterno apologist. But I am wary of the frequent rush to judgments we see in our culture around sexual violence and cases. In a very right attempt to protect women and children and not make these situations hush-hush, we excoriate anyone often remotely connected to the situation. Everything seems so obvious...until its not. See also, Duke lacrosse, McMartins, and Dominque Strauss-Kahn (who knows what happened there). I am not arguing that no one is guilty or that Paterno is free of wrongdoing. But a grand jury indictment is not necessarily the whole story.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip My understanding is that the police were informed (not directly by Paterno) but no further action was taken. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I am not arguing that no one is guilty or that Paterno is free of wrongdoing. But a grand jury indictment is not necessarily the whole story.>> Living in Minnesota at the time, I witnessed this nightmare: <<On October 15, 1984, R. Kathleen Morris, the Scott County Attorney dismissed charges against twenty-one citizens accused of child sexual abuse in Scott County. In dismissing those cases, the County Attorney made reference to a court-ordered release of documents in a case concerning "an active criminal investigation of great magnitude." The County Attorney went on to say that "prejudice would likely result to this ongoing investigation by release of this information at this time." This "investigation of great magnitude" referred to allegations of homicide made three months earlier by some child victims in the sex abuse cases. The County Attorney also noted the need to protect and safeguard the children from further victimization. She indicated this could best be done by these cases proceeding in family court rather than a criminal setting. Finally, she noted that it had become increasingly clear that many children would not be able to testify in the criminal proceedings without great emotional distress or trauma. She concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the victims and the further interest of justice to continue with these criminal proceedings. During the week of October 15, 1984, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI) began investigating the alleged homicides, pornography and child abuse in Scott County. On October 11, 1984, Hubert H. Humphrey III, Minnesota Attorney General, sent a letter to the Scott County Attorney, urging that she provide a more detailed public explanation of why the criminal charges had been dropped against the twenty-one defendants. On October 19, 1984, the Scott County Attorney requested that the Minnesota Attorney General assume responsibility for the pending family court matters and any criminal charges which might arise out of the FBI/BCA criminal investigation of the alleged sex abuse, pornography and homicide cases. During the course of that investigation, over a dozen state and federal investigative agents focused on what happened in Scott County. Many of these agents had substantial experience in investigating child sexual abuse and pornography. The main case agents and others from the BCA had successfully overseen the Children's Theater sexual abuse investigation. The FBI effort was overseen by the supervising agent in the FBI St. Paul office. Among the FBI personnel working on this case was the agent responsible for training other agents and law enforcement personnel in the Midwest region in child sexual abuse. Investigations. The Jurisdictional focus of the FBI effort was on allegations of homicide and pornography. Metropolitan area county attorneys, including Dakota County Attorney, Robert Carolan, Hennepin County Attorney, Thomas Johnson, and Ramsey County Attorney, Tom Foley, also provided assistance by assigning staff attorneys to handle the child neglect and dependency cases arising out of the sex abuse allegations. In addition, eight attorneys and tour criminal investigators from the State Attorney General’s Office participate in this effort. At the conclusion of their investigation, the FBI/BCA agents submitted their investigative findings to Attorney General Humphrey. Those findings are as follows: * There is no credible evidence to support allegations of murder, which arose during the sexual abuse investigation. * There is insufficient evidence to justify the filing of any new sex abuse charges.>> Source: <a href="http://www.a-team.org/scott_county.html" target="_blank">http://www.a-team.org/scott_county.html</a> Basically, the whole thing was an overreach by Kathleen Morris combined with mass hysteria. Many families were permanently damaged forever for nothing.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Finally, a brief note regarding the City of Jordan. It is accurate to state that the City of Jordan should also be listed among the victims of the so-called sex-ring cases. Over sixty of its citizens were either charged with or suspected of abusing over one hundred children. State/federal investigators simply do not believe that accusations of such wide-spread abuse were accurate. The citizens of Jordan, most importantly the children, both those who were abused and those who were not, have suffered as a result of these public accusations. The impact those accusations have had on the community may well be extensive and far-reaching. At the same time, the precise nature of the impact will likely be difficult to discern. * State officials, the universities and colleges, the churches, leaders in Jordan and Scott County, the therapeutic community, law enforcement, the medical community, and private foundations should undertake a combined effort. 1. To identify and analyze the impact on the Jordan community, 2. To develop and implement ways to meet the needs of the community, and 3. To insure that there is greater public understanding of the short-term and long-term effects of "community trauma." We have an obligation to the citizens of Jordan to help address, treat and learn from these unfortunate events. This is an opportunity to develop a positive conclusion to this story for the citizens of Jordan and for the citizens of Minnesota.>> Same source as indicated above.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This has been discussed at length in another thread. <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-122075-P-1.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-1.asp</a> Here's my first post in that thread, post 69: I agree that Paterno should retire. He should have retired long before this, because he really hasn't coached that team in years, his assistants do all the work. Paterno's been a figurehead for a long time. Here's some real world input- in most, if not all workplaces, once Paterno reported what he was told, sexual harassment protocol dictates he no longer gets to know ANY of the follow up, unless he was an eye witness, and even then it's need to know. If Sandusky remains there, he MUST assume the matter was investigated and resolved. If Paterno were to ask what happened with the investigation, he is not allowed to know. If he persists, despite the nature of the allegations, he could be opening himself up to defamation claims, among other things. He is trained and it likely has been deeply ingrained in him for as long as he's been around, to follow the policy. No exceptions. Granted, what Sandusky is accused of doing is horrific. Problem is, people make these exact kinds of allegations all the time out of whole cloth. Unfortunately, I have personally been involved in several investigations over the years when incredibly specific claims were entirely fabricated. Some people can be very vindictive. Moreover, for example, the following isn't an apocryphal story- a divorced woman's kids, otherwise nice, normal teenagers, two sons and a daughter, did not like her new boyfriend. They told the Department of Children's Protective Services he raped the teen daughter and the mom beat all three kids so they wouldn't tell DCPS. He gets locked up, the kids get removed from the home, and all hell broke loose. You guessed it- the kids made it all up just because they wanted the guy out of her life. He was simply the guy that came after Dad and had never done anything even remotely wrong except date their mother. They never anticipated the fall out, and admitted they made it up. It happened to a woman who was in our wedding. I'm just focusing on Paterno here. Sandusky can rot in hell. But no matter how many times Paterno was told, if he followed policy, he's very likely been told NOT to do the "morally right" thing and keep asking around. He's to trust the process. Yes, the process failed here, failed big time, but it's possible he truly felt he had done all he could, whether or not looking in from the outside it seems that he did.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder skinnerbox then took issue with me and I responded: "First off, this was NOT "sexual harassment." This was child abuse, the raping of a minor by an adult. Different situation entirely." Whether or not you choose to believe it, it doesn't make it any different here. He was NOT someone with first hand knowledge. He reported what he was told, no matter what he was told. I'm a mandatory reporter too, and I'm not to report all the second hand information I hear, either. Neither is/was Paterno. And again, I'm just focusing on Paterno. I wasn't addressing anything else you've mentioned. I agree. Had I seen what that coach saw in the shower I would have castrated Sandusky right then and there.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder From post 96 in that thread, where I quote and respond to several reactions: "I'm not sure how well I got it! The part I think everyone ( well except Lisa ann ) is missing is that a witness comes to Paterno. Tells Paterno he saw another coach who works for Paterno sexually abuse a child in the showers in a facaility Paterno is responcible for. And Paterno doesn't think it "might" be a criminal matter? Paterno isn't the least bit surprised that the Police never come knocking at his door or interview him when the witness works for Paterno, the accurded works for Paterno and the abuse occured at a facility Paterno is responcible for? Paterno is suppose to just drop it. And assume the matter has been delt with? I just don't buy it! -Paterno should have had the witness fill out an incident report ( like what the supervisor requested of the janitor who witnessed the accurer abusing a different child ). -Paterno should haved called the police immediately and requested the witness call the police. You mean to tell me that if a University student was sexually abused in the football team locker room the only legal requirement of the Sports staff is to bring it to the attention of the University President and Vice President? Has anyone heard of dialing 911?" Again, despite what people THINK should happen, in the setting Paterno was in and in most companies and public sector work areas, none of what you describe is the protocol. I'm not advocating for Paterno here. Having been in the middle of these things myself however, Paterno did what he was trained and instructed to do, probably trained and instructed for decades. Likely what happens out of this is that the protocol changes, but don't be surprised if it doesn't change all that much.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And finally, ecdc, from post 101 that thread: >>I'm not advocating for Paterno here. Having been in the middle of these things myself however, Paterno did what he was trained and instructed to do, probably trained and instructed for decades. Likely what happens out of this is that the protocol changes, but don't be surprised if it doesn't change all that much.<< This is certainly how it is where I work. If I brought a complaint forward, I would be thanked and told it would be investigated. I would be entitled to no additional information and certainly no information about what the investigation concluded. If the employee was fired (or worse), I could guess the results. If the employee was not fired, I could only conclude that the investigation resulted in no evidence of wrong doing. If I pushed the issue, I would be told it was not my business. If I continued to push it, I would be told I could face discipline myself. And if it was a criminal matter, I would be reassured that the company takes these issues very seriously and will involve the proper authorities. Like SPP, I'm not defending anyone. I haven't followed this story closely (have no interest) and depending on what exactly he knew and when he knew it, I also wonder why he couldn't pick up the phone and call the police (although like SPP noted, he was probably told repeatedly the organizational line present in every company that we take this seriously and blah blah blah). But this is how business and companies and organizations handle things. If you report something, you don't get to follow up. You don't get details. So while I get the outrage, I think people who assume "Well I certainly wouldn't have stood for this!" underestimate the power of organizational cultures and expectations. Studies of behavior in group environments usually don't reveal positive things about the individual's ability to act independently, much as we'd all like to think we're different and we'd stand out. See also, The Catholic Church.
