sickening penn state football allegations

[Dan Gould]

Last comment (I hope) on McQueary:

How did he feel when Second Mile announced in 2008 that he wouldn't be allowed to be involved with their kids anymore?

"You mean, he's been raping little boys since 2002?"

Is that what made him speak to the police on his own? Did he in fact come forward about what he saw then? I am sure he regretted his lack of action or at least follow-up.

[JETman]

Still not seeing the bigger picture. The minute details of this scandal are insignificant compared to the pain and suffering endured by the victims. All who deserve to get theirs WILL get theirs. Maybe now, we can get back to colleges being real colleges, instead of (insert your favorite sport here) factories. Maybe now, these real colleges can concentrate on culturing young minds of conscience which place real value on CORRECT behavior in ALL walks of life.

For now, the NCAA is keeping a low profile in all of this. Once the dust clears, things will really start to blow up. Let's hope they can get their shit together, put things in a proper perspective and finally minimize the negative impact that these sports programs can have on kids going forward.

Edited November 11, 2011 by JETman

[Brad]

With the NCAA and all these athletic programs, at least in the major sports, it's all about money. Did you see all those college presidents jumping that conference or this conference just for the cash? Borders on disgust.

[JETman]

With the NCAA and all these athletic programs, at least in the major sports, it's all about money. Did you see all those college presidents jumping that conference or this conference just for the cash? Borders on disgust.

Is this really all you have to say on the points I've raised?

[Larry Kart]

Another possible factor in McQueary taking what he saw to his father and then to Paterno, not to the police: I've heard lots of talk in the wake of this (especially from sports columnists and on sports talk radio) that what Sandusky did is at once the worst and most unimaginable of crimes -- so much so that it would justify immediate slaughter of the perpetrator, that we'll be delighted when he's eventually slaughtered in prison as a "short eyes," etc. Not at all denigrate the ugliness of what Sandusky did, but if in fact we grant (or demonstrate ourselves, in our response to them) that his specific criminal acts blow all or a good many of our emotional fuses, why then can't we understand that witnessing them as the McQueary did might have blown a lot of his emotional fuses too -- and more so than we at our computers can readily imagine?

Is that a definitive or sufficient excuse? No. But as Big Wheel said a while ago, How about a little empathy (as in understanding)? Also, I think from what McQueary did and didn't do, the concept of "family" (i.e. keeping profoundly disturbing material in the "family -- first his own fathere, then Joe Pa, and of course he knew that Sandusky had been a key member of the Penn State "family") might have been front and center in his mind -- not, again, that that's right or sufficient, just that it doesn't automatically make McQueary a heartless monster. As a wise man one said to me, Most people do the best they can do.

[Eric]

I believe this is worth reading ...

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/11/10/the-end-of-paterno/#more-8533

[Dan Gould]

"Heartless monster" - this is the problem with the push-back from people who don't agree with what I've said.

No one is saying he's a heartless monster. We all reserve that description for Sandusky. But he had a choice in that moment, and for some time thereafter. He had three choices:

1. Walk away and process what he saw, and take action after consulting his father (what he did).

2. Stop Sandusky from raping the child.

3. Walk away (while his brain circuits were supposedly fried), then process what he saw and still put a stop to it. He could have gone back, found them, taken custody of the child, told Sandusky he saw what he did, and get the cops. Even in the presence of the authority figure trying to sweet-talk him, you don't think he'd find the back-bone to say "you raped this child" (not to mention that the kid, in the presence of another adult trying to help him, would step forward and say what was done to him).

So this idea of giving him so much empathy or understanding ... one may understand his actions as a human reaction. It doesn't mean we simply say "he did what he could at the moment" or that he shouldn't have done something different.

[Tim McG]

"Heartless monster" - this is the problem with the push-back from people who don't agree with what I've said.

No one is saying he's a heartless monster. We all reserve that description for Sandusky. But he had a choice in that moment, and for some time thereafter. He had three choices:

1. Walk away and process what he saw, and take action after consulting his father (what he did).

2. Stop Sandusky from raping the child.

3. Walk away (while his brain circuits were supposedly fried), then process what he saw and still put a stop to it. He could have gone back, found them, taken custody of the child, told Sandusky he saw what he did, and get the cops. Even in the presence of the authority figure trying to sweet-talk him, you don't think he'd find the back-bone to say "you raped this child" (not to mention that the kid, in the presence of another adult trying to help him, would step forward and say what was done to him).

So this idea of giving him so much empathy or understanding ... one may understand his actions as a human reaction. It doesn't mean we simply say "he did what he could at the moment" or that he shouldn't have done something different.

The eye witness was the graduate assistant, Dan.

If, in review, we are to believe "Paterno didn't do enough" because he only reported the alleged abuse to his superiors...where is the public outcry over the fact the graduate assistant did exactly the very same thing?

Question: Who, then, is really responsible for Sandusky's continued child abuse?

Answer: The graduate assistant.

But the media jackals go after Paterno because he has the name recognition for splashy headlines and wagging tongues on the evening news, talk shows and blog sites Nation wide. Paterno is the scapegoat. Period.

[Dan Gould]

Your way behind, Tim. Everyone of my comments has been about the Assistant who witnessed the rape of a ten year old.

Try to keep up, huh?

[Tim McG]

The outrage stems from the fact that the accused pedophile rapist was allowed to remain on staff. If Paterno had any knowledge of the accusations, he should have immediately put that individual on leave until the accusation could be either cleared or proven. So we've got a witness who neither attempted to save a child from being raped with physical force or place a call to the proper authorities (hello, the police); an administrator who didn't conduct a proper investigation (involving the police) and the removal of the accused; and a head coach who kept a man on his staff despite the extremest of accusations against that man.

That Paterno offered that he "should have done more in hindsight" is an admission that he knew of the accusations and permitted the accused to remain on his staff. Same goes for the administrator. Hence, both are out.

I have to disagree, Jon.

As I have stated before, any one of us who have had to report on child abuse will tell you the exact same thing: I wish I could do more. The greatest tragedy is nobody is giving credit to Paterno for following reporting procedure and understanding when no investigation is done, the assumption is the man wasn't guilty of anything.

How we can allow ourselves to believe in a dereliction of duty ten years in retrospect is beyond me. Nobody can predict with any certainty if a man like Sandusky, who wasn't prosecuted or charged because the officials who needed to didn't follow through, is or will continue to be a child molester.

Nobody can see the future before it happens and that is exactly what people here expected Paterno to do.

Your way behind, Tim. Everyone of my comments has been about the Assistant who witnessed the rape of a ten year old.

Try to keep up, huh?

Sorry, Dan.

My fault for not reading the posts before this one.

[JETman]

Alas, Paterno's crimes extend FAR beyond what happened in this particular scandal.

[Tim McG]

What sticks in my mind is that the graduate assistant had the greatest personal failure. He heard what sounded like sexual activity in the showers. But Sandusky wasn't boffing an 18 year old cheerleader, he was raping a ten year old, and the assistant could see all of these facts.

How could he not physically intervene and stop it? If you physically stop the assault, restrain Sandusky and call the cops, there are no repercussions. There's no cover up. The kid is scarred for life but at least some adult stopped what was happening. But when the kid tells the cops what was done to him, and you have the physical evidence of sexual assault, its Game, Set and Match. Retaliation by anyone, including Paterno, would never happen.

McCreery failed in the biggest moment of his life. Following up the day after doesn't alter that.

Excellent post, Dan.

Sorry I missed this.

What sticks in my mind is that the graduate assistant had the greatest personal failure. He heard what sounded like sexual activity in the showers. But Sandusky wasn't boffing an 18 year old cheerleader, he was raping a ten year old, and the assistant could see all of these facts.

How could he not physically intervene and stop it? If you physically stop the assault, restrain Sandusky and call the cops, there are no repercussions. There's no cover up. The kid is scarred for life but at least some adult stopped what was happening. But when the kid tells the cops what was done to him, and you have the physical evidence of sexual assault, its Game, Set and Match. Retaliation by anyone, including Paterno, would never happen.

McCreery failed in the biggest moment of his life. Following up the day after doesn't alter that.

Oh for heaven's sake. Like you would be in any way mentally or emotionally prepared for walking into your college team locker room and see a guy you've known and probably looked up to for half your life doing what Sandusky was doing. McQueary's reaction in the moment was regrettable but let's not pretend that it wasn't within the range of "normal" human responses to seeing what he saw.

Well, if we are expecting Paterno to see ten years into the future...why shouldn't the grad assistant "be prepared"?

The idea that McQueary is a personal failure for a split-second reaction is implying that there's some norm of human behavior that goes, "hey, you better do the right thing when you are thrust into an unthinkable situation with no warning." It's like expecting that an untrained civilian suddenly thrust into a combat situation has certain responsibilities that they morally should live up to.

Have some empathy.

Sure.

Right after you show "empathy" for Paterno.

I think its almost impossible to imagine what it would be like to have been in McQueary's shoes at the time he saw the assault.

Yet you expect Paterno to do more than he did? Wouldn't it be equally impossible to imagine what it would be like to have been in Paterno's shoes at the time he was told about the assault?

[Larry Kart]

OK -- I'll go a step further. Seems to me that our culture's seemingly broad response to the grim facts of child abuse is to construct a Gothic and itself near-pornographic horror story of "unimaginable" disgusting crimes that justify (even cry out for) the most extreme/violent forms of punishment imaginable. What lies at the base of this? Our need to at once regard childhood as a state of primal innocence (sexual innocence in particular), the fact that childhood is not in many ways a state of sexual innocence, the apparently increasing need on the part of many of us (at some times and in some ways) to sexualize the image of children and adolescents, and, the icing on this circular cake, our need to find something in this increasingly relativistic world that we can agree on (and virtually feed on) as an absolute, quintessential evil.

Take a look back at the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case and the need/desire of much of our culture to gaze again and again at images of that sexualized and now dead child and the assumption on the part of so many who did that gazing with so much fascination that the parents who sexualized her so overtly must have killed her. Well, it seems clear now that they didn't, but doesn't that circle of intense communal response tell us something?

Again, the above is not meant to minimize the grim facts of child abuse but to suggest that our culture (or much of it) is inclined to take that ball and run with it in a manner that itself borders on the pornographic. As one far from unintelligent sports talk show host in my area has been saying over and over in response to the Sandusky-Penn State affair, "When it comes to child abuse and its victims, the horror never ends." One knows what he means here in one sense, but I think this is also evidence in part of our Gothic desire that there still be a "horror that never ends." As this same commentator also said, "You may feel as I do, wishing you actually believed in Hell." Here, I think, the circle closes.

[Tim McG]

Another possible factor in McQueary taking what he saw to his father and then to Paterno, not to the police: I've heard lots of talk in the wake of this (especially from sports columnists and on sports talk radio) that what Sandusky did is at once the worst and most unimaginable of crimes -- so much so that it would justify immediate slaughter of the perpetrator, that we'll be delighted when he's eventually slaughtered in prison as a "short eyes," etc. Not at all denigrate the ugliness of what Sandusky did, but if in fact we grant (or demonstrate ourselves, in our response to them) that his specific criminal acts blow all or a good many of our emotional fuses, why then can't we understand that witnessing them as the McQueary did might have blown a lot of his emotional fuses too -- and more so than we at our computers can readily imagine?

Is that a definitive or sufficient excuse? No. But as Big Wheel said a while ago, How about a little empathy (as in understanding)? Also, I think from what McQueary did and didn't do, the concept of "family" (i.e. keeping profoundly disturbing material in the "family -- first his own fathere, then Joe Pa, and of course he knew that Sandusky had been a key member of the Penn State "family") might have been front and center in his mind -- not, again, that that's right or sufficient, just that it doesn't automatically make McQueary a heartless monster. As a wise man one said to me, Most people do the best they can do.

And I have to wonder why Paterno isn't accorded the same consideration as the eye witness?

I have witnessed, heard about, seen the bruises from and the emotional fallout in numerous child abuse cases in my line of work. Some where I just had to go outside and vomit. Some which still haunt my memory to this day. Would you give me the same free pass because I was too emotionally distraught to do or say anything about it?

There is absolutely no excuse for an eye witness not to report on child abuse. None. And the minute we say it's OK to not report is the day we continue to push child abuse under ground and out of sight of the authorities who will punish the molesters.

The graduate assistant waited TEN years before saying anything. Just exactly how long do we give an emotionally shocked eyewitness before he should come forward and do his duty?

Edited November 11, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Pete C]

The greatest tragedy is nobody is giving credit to Paterno for following reporting procedure and understanding when no investigation is done, the assumption is the man wasn't guilty of anything.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that since no investigation was done by the vested interests in a case where law enforcement was not involved for so serious an allegation, then the assumption is that Sandusky was clearly innocent? The way your mind "works" boggles mine.

[Tim McG]

OK -- I'll go a step further. Seems to me that our culture's seemingly broad response to the grim facts of child abuse is to construct a Gothic and itself near-pornographic horror story of "unimaginable" disgusting crimes that justify (even cry out for) the most extreme/violent forms of punishment imaginable. What lies at the base of this? Our need to at once regard childhood as a state of primal innocence (sexual innocence in particular), the fact that childhood is not in many ways a state of sexual innocence, the apparently increasing need on the part of many of us (at some times and in some ways) to sexualize the image of children and adolescents, and, the icing on this circular cake, our need to find something in this increasingly relativistic world that we can agree on (and virtually feed on) as an absolute, quintessential evil.

Take a look back at the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case and the need/desire of much of our culture to gaze again and again at images of that sexualized and now dead child and the assumption on the part of so many who did that gazing with so much fascination that the parents who sexualized her so overtly must have killed her. Well, it seems clear now that they didn't, but doesn't that circle of intense communal response tell us something?

Again, the above is not meant to minimize the grim facts of child abuse but to suggest that our culture (or much of it) is inclined to take that ball and run with it in a manner that itself borders on the pornographic. As one far from unintelligent sports talk show host in my area has been saying over and over in response to the Sandusky-Penn State affair, "When it comes to child abuse and its victims, the horror never ends." One knows what he means here in one sense, but I think this is also evidence in part of our Gothic desire that there still be a "horror that never ends." As this same commentator also said, "You may feel as I do, wishing you actually believed in Hell." Here, I think, the circle closes.

Agreed.

But there again, why do we fool ourselves into thinking that this wasn't emotionally draining for Paterno, too?

The greatest tragedy is nobody is giving credit to Paterno for following reporting procedure and understanding when no investigation is done, the assumption is the man wasn't guilty of anything.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that since no investigation was done by the vested interests in a case where law enforcement was not involved for so serious an allegation, then the assumption is that Sandusky was clearly innocent?

Read it again, Pete.

I am saying that if nothing comes of an accusation...any accusation, the propensity of all reasonably minded human beings is to think there is nothing to it.

Edited November 11, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

Wouldn't it be equally impossible to imagine what it would be like to have been in Paterno's shoes at the time he was told about the assault?

So...are you conceding that Paterno was not indeed the Great Leader that he has been positioned as all these years? That he has instead been just another corporate figurehead propped up by image to maximize profits? That his primary mission should have been to avoid as much personal involvement as possible, lest the risk be run of getting the brand involved in a very unsavory situation?

I mean, it really is an either/or here...either you're a "great leader" or you're not. Looks like Paterno was a great leader in the world of college football, less so in the world of corporate ethics. So, let's call him a "great coach" and stop there, lest we hyperbolate.

We see this all the time in business, politics, families, everywhere. Lots of people "lead" when/where it's easy and there's glory and/or drama to be had,but when shit gets truly nasty dirty UGLY, they either back off or run away. And then somebody else steps up and leads, or, as is the case here, nobody leads, and the nasty dirty UGLY stuff just festers until it reaches critical bass and goes BOOM all over everybody.

Explain to me how Paterno's actions in this matter in any way equate to being a Great Leader and not just another Corporate Stooge. I don't need to "understand" why he handled it like he did, I do. What I need explained to me is why I should understand it as the actions of anything other than a Corporate Stooge.

"Doing what is required by law" and "just following orders" may not be exactly two sides of the same coin, but they are two units of the same currency.

[Pete C]

Read it again, Pete.

I am saying that if nothing comes of an accusation...any accusation, the propensity of all reasonably minded human beings is to think there is nothing to it.

You're restating exactly the same thing in different words. To the extent that anybody can understand what you're saying, I have not misunderstood what you were saying. I think your definition of "reasonably minded" might need some reengineering.

[Tim McG]

Wouldn't it be equally impossible to imagine what it would be like to have been in Paterno's shoes at the time he was told about the assault?

So...are you conceding that Paterno was not indeed the Great Leader that he has been positioned as all these years? That he has instead been just another corporate figurehead propped up by image to maximize profits? That his primary mission should have been to avoid as much personal involvement as possible, lest the risk be run of getting the brand involved in a very unsavory situation?

I mean, it really is an either/or here...either you're a "great leader" or you're not. Looks like Paterno was a great leader in the world of college football, less so in the world of corporate ethics. So, let's call him a "great coach" and stop there, lest we hyperbolate.

We see this all the time in business, politics, families, everywhere. Lots of people "lead" when/where it's easy and there's glory and/or drama to be had,but when shit gets truly nasty dirty UGLY, they either back off or run away. And then somebody else steps up and leads, or, as is the case here, nobody leads, and the nasty dirty UGLY stuff just festers until it reaches critical bass and goes BOOM all over everybody.

Explain to me how Paterno's actions in this matter in any way equate to being a Great Leader and not just another Corporate Stooge. I don't need to "understand" why he handled it like he did, I do. What I need explained to me is why I should understand it as the actions of anything other than a Corporate Stooge.

"Doing what is required by law" and "just following orders" may not be exactly two sides of the same coin, but they are two units of the same currency.

C'mon, Jim.

You're reading way too much into what I am saying...besides, that quote was taken out of the context of the discussion regarding why we are willing to cut some slack for the graduate assistant and not for Paterno.

Read it again, Pete.

I am saying that if nothing comes of an accusation...any accusation, the propensity of all reasonably minded human beings is to think there is nothing to it.

You're restating exactly the same thing in different words. To the extent that anybody can understand what you're saying, I have not misunderstood what you were saying. I think your definition of "reasonably minded" might need some reengineering.

It's pretty straight forward, Pete...and in English.

Now, unless you are attempting your classic "Pete Chuches Goads a Poster" into a fit of pique program, I'm really not sure why what I wrote confuses you.

I'll leave that for others to speculate.

Edited November 11, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Pete C]

I'll leave that for others to speculate.

[JSngry]

Wouldn't it be equally impossible to imagine what it would be like to have been in Paterno's shoes at the time he was told about the assault?

So...are you conceding that Paterno was not indeed the Great Leader that he has been positioned as all these years? That he has instead been just another corporate figurehead propped up by image to maximize profits? That his primary mission should have been to avoid as much personal involvement as possible, lest the risk be run of getting the brand involved in a very unsavory situation?

I mean, it really is an either/or here...either you're a "great leader" or you're not. Looks like Paterno was a great leader in the world of college football, less so in the world of corporate ethics. So, let's call him a "great coach" and stop there, lest we hyperbolate.

We see this all the time in business, politics, families, everywhere. Lots of people "lead" when/where it's easy and there's glory and/or drama to be had,but when shit gets truly nasty dirty UGLY, they either back off or run away. And then somebody else steps up and leads, or, as is the case here, nobody leads, and the nasty dirty UGLY stuff just festers until it reaches critical bass and goes BOOM all over everybody.

Explain to me how Paterno's actions in this matter in any way equate to being a Great Leader and not just another Corporate Stooge. I don't need to "understand" why he handled it like he did, I do. What I need explained to me is why I should understand it as the actions of anything other than a Corporate Stooge.

"Doing what is required by law" and "just following orders" may not be exactly two sides of the same coin, but they are two units of the same currency.

C'mon, Jim.

You're reading way too much into what I am saying...besides, that quote was taken out of the context of the discussion regarding why we are willing to cut some slack for the graduate assistant and not for Paterno.

I'm not for cutting anybody any slack, nor do I necessarily know that Paterno is guilty of any actual criminal offense. That's for the Pennsylvania authorities to discern, and god be with them as they proceed.

What I'm not understanding is how anybody can defend Paterno's actions as those of anything other than a Corporate Stooge, and not see his dismissal as anything other than 100% appropriate, not because of any criminal action, but because of a failure to truly lead in a truly difficult situation (which is a function of being a Great Leader), or more likely, a failure to protect The Brand (which is a function of a Corporate Stooge).

If we are in agreement on this much, then we have no quarrel at all.

[Tim McG]

Wouldn't it be equally impossible to imagine what it would be like to have been in Paterno's shoes at the time he was told about the assault?

So...are you conceding that Paterno was not indeed the Great Leader that he has been positioned as all these years? That he has instead been just another corporate figurehead propped up by image to maximize profits? That his primary mission should have been to avoid as much personal involvement as possible, lest the risk be run of getting the brand involved in a very unsavory situation?

I mean, it really is an either/or here...either you're a "great leader" or you're not. Looks like Paterno was a great leader in the world of college football, less so in the world of corporate ethics. So, let's call him a "great coach" and stop there, lest we hyperbolate.

We see this all the time in business, politics, families, everywhere. Lots of people "lead" when/where it's easy and there's glory and/or drama to be had,but when shit gets truly nasty dirty UGLY, they either back off or run away. And then somebody else steps up and leads, or, as is the case here, nobody leads, and the nasty dirty UGLY stuff just festers until it reaches critical bass and goes BOOM all over everybody.

Explain to me how Paterno's actions in this matter in any way equate to being a Great Leader and not just another Corporate Stooge. I don't need to "understand" why he handled it like he did, I do. What I need explained to me is why I should understand it as the actions of anything other than a Corporate Stooge.

"Doing what is required by law" and "just following orders" may not be exactly two sides of the same coin, but they are two units of the same currency.

C'mon, Jim.

You're reading way too much into what I am saying...besides, that quote was taken out of the context of the discussion regarding why we are willing to cut some slack for the graduate assistant and not for Paterno.

I'm not for cutting anybody any slack, nor do I necessarily know that Paterno is guilty of any actual criminal offense. That's for the Pennsylvania authorities to discern, and god be with them as they proceed.

What I'm not understanding is how anybody can defend Paterno's actions as those of anything other than a Corporate Stooge, and not see his dismissal as anything other than 100% appropriate, not because of any criminal action, but because of a failure to truly lead in a truly difficult situation (which is a function of being a Great Leader), or more likely, a failure to protect The Brand (which is a function of a Corporate Stooge).

If we are in agreement on this much, then we have no quarrel at all.

I have no doubt Paterno is a "company man", Jim.

My problem is with the rush to judgment. Leadership is not defined by what he should have known ten years into the future, IMHO. It is defined by what he did in relation to reporting to his boss the allegations of child abuse brought to him by an alleged eye witness. Then allowing those charged with following through to do just that.

His job is to coach football. His job is not to micro-manage the jobs of others or to seek out and punish child molesters.

Think about it, Jim. If your house was ransacked and robbed would you get in your car and go looking for the thieves or would you make a police report and allow the people trusted with that duty to arrest then convict those criminals? That is what Paterno did: He made the report and allowed the people entrusted with that information to do their legal duty. They blew it, not Paterno. That isn't Paterno's fault any more than it would be your fault the police didn't pursue those thieves.

Delegation of authority is what a good leader does. He can't do it all, Jim. No good leader can.

Edited November 11, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Indestructible!]

Alas, Paterno's crimes extend FAR beyond what happened in this particular scandal.

Name them, or this statement is bordering on libel. Please provide some specifics to support the assertion that Paterno is a criminal... I'd be interested to hear them.

[Tim McG]

Alas, Paterno's crimes extend FAR beyond what happened in this particular scandal.

Name them, or this statement is bordering on libel. Please provide some specifics to support the assertion that Paterno is a criminal... I'd be interested to hear them.

As would I.

JetMan? The stage is yours....

[Leeway]

Says Good Speak: Think about it, Jim. If your house was ransacked and robbed would you get in your car and go looking for the thieves or would you make a police report and allow the people trusted with that duty to arrest then convict those criminals?

Likewise, if I was told by someone I thought was credible, that a kid was raped by someone I knew, a co-worker (to put it in in its most basic terms), I would get in my car and drive to the police state and tell them.

It occurs to me that your, "tell your boss, acquit yourself of further responsibility," is the obverse of the, "I was only following orders" defense.

I also think your reading of the factual situation is naive, Paterno IS Penn State football. Has been for many decades. He's not some guy on an hourly wage cleaning up the gym. His authority and consequent level of responsibility is much, much higher.

Thank goodness the Board of Trustees got it right.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Leeway