Penn State/Sandusky report is out [merged]

[ace2000]

I didn't look to see if you were the OP. If you are the OP you can request a lock. I just don't see the point in doing so quite yet.

Mods will step in if we get ... unruly.

Not the OP here. When we start going down the path of the Catholic church scandal, it get's pretty close to the edge.

 

[Tia]

Not the OP here. When we start going down the path of the Catholic church scandal, it get's pretty close to the edge.

I see both as powerful organizations that knowingly chose to covered up pedophile sex scandals to protect their own reputation at a high cost to innocent children.

 

[ace2000]

I see both as powerful organizations that knowingly chose to covered up pedophile sex scandals to protect their own reputation at a high cost to innocent children.

And people have strong emotional feelings about both.

 

[Elan]

I'd like to see this thread stick to the Penn State scandal, so that it remains as a forum to discuss related developments as they occur. Yes, much of it is behind us now, but much remains unresolved.
It would be nice if those wishing to discuss other child abuse scandals started new threads. All IMO.

 

[SueDonJ]

Probably more than half of the posts that reference the pedophile priest scandal are mine, I'd guess, so please let me explain why I keep bringing it into this discussion. There simply aren't any other pedophilia scandals of this magnitude that we can reference and compare when trying to figure out how such things can happen to begin with, how they can be unearthed and eventually prosecuted, how they impact the psyches of people ranging all the way from those actually victimized by them to those who have absolutely no connection at all, and, most importantly, how we can all recognize their origins and hopefully stop them from happening again. Everybody stands to learn something valuable from these tragedies. Not discussing them is treading dangerous water, minimally akin to the cover-ups that allowed them to occur in the first place.

I've been involved with discussions that centered on only the pedophile priest scandal in real life. For all the usual talk about how online communication makes people behave more badly than when talking face-to-face, believe me those discussions were infinitely more acrimonious than any of the threads on TUG about Penn State's scandal. The difference, I think, is that the priest scandal forced people to look with wide open eyes, sometimes for the very first time, at people in the institution that they'd entrusted with their souls. To a believer, a communicant in the catholic church, nothing is more important. For many, traditionally, nothing had been considered more immune from prosecution than the priestly hierarchy.

If we talked here about those types of things in detail then I have no doubt that the two scandals should not be compared and contrasted. All of this is only my opinion but I don't think any of us have brought up comparisons that aren't relevant to what happened at Penn State. I also don't think that we've allowed ourselves to turn this thread or any of the others into disrespectful discussions. Until we do turn ugly (which I really don't expect considering how far we've come already) I hope that we can continue on as we have been.

 

[CapriciousC]

I keep forgetting that all of the investigations aren't completed yet for Penn State. The feds are still looking into the scope of violations against the Clery Act. Does anybody know if penalties for those violations can only be monetary fines, or do the feds have the authority to shut down the football program?

Maybe there's still hope ...

As far as I know, Clery Act violations are only punishable by monetary fines. I was an adjunct professor at a state university in California several years ago, and we had a rash of sexual assaults on campus (female students being assaulted in empty stairwells, etc. after dark). The administration was very quick to instruct all of us to tell our classes about the incidences and to encourage the female students to either walk in groups or to call campus security for an escort. They also posted notices, sent out e-mails, put the info in the school paper, etc. Thankfully the assailant was caught (he was not a student), but in the interim the campus really pulled together to protect the female students. I'm sure that there were concerns about potential fines for not reporting and distributing the information, but there was also genuine concern on the part of everyone I worked with to protect the young women we saw every day. It's interesting to me that PSU (which has about three times the number of students as the school at which I taught) was so lackadaisical about Clery Act enforcement when the school I was employed by emphasized the requirements and appropriate actions to all of us at the beginning of each semester.

 

[tfalk]

I'll go on record stating I think Sandusky, Spanier, Curley and Shultz should be behind bars or heading there soon... that being said...

Having read the Freeh report cover to cover, something is still bothering me. Aside from Freeh's opinion, I didn't come away from the report with the belief that there was hard proof that Paterno actually covered up this entire thing. The others, yes, but I haven't seen anything I would consider proof for Paterno covering things up. Apparently, I'm not the only one...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...eak-to-non-existent-on-the-current-record.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-case-against-joe-paterno-part-two.php

I'm certain a number of the more vocal people here will blow this off but I'll reserve judgement on Joe before I join the list of people kicking his corpse.

 

[am1]

Having read the Freeh report cover to cover, something is still bothering me. Aside from Freeh's opinion, I didn't come away from the report with the belief that there was hard proof that Paterno actually covered up this entire thing. The others, yes, but I haven't seen anything I would consider proof for Paterno covering things up. Apparently, I'm not the only one...

He knew about it. Sandusky was still allowed on campus many years after the fact. In a court of law he maybe he would not be found guilty. But he is guilty of failing to follow through at the least. He always expected much more of his players than just staying on the right side of the law. That is maybe why people have since judged him the way they have.

 

[CapriciousC]

He knew about it. Sandusky was still allowed on campus many years after the fact. In a court of law he maybe he would not be found guilty. But he is guilty of failing to follow through at the least. He always expected much more of his players than just staying on the right side of the law. That is maybe why people have since judged him the way they have.

He lied to the grand jury back in November of last year, saying that he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, when there's a fair bit of evidence to the contrary. If he were still alive, there's a chance he'd be up for perjury charges like Schultz and Curley. Also, under the Clery Act, he's considered a mandatory reporter, and he failed in that duty.

 

[markel]

He knew about it. Sandusky was still allowed on campus many years after the fact. In a court of law he maybe he would not be found guilty. But he is guilty of failing to follow through at the least. He always expected much more of his players than just staying on the right side of the law. That is maybe why people have since judged him the way they have.

Agreed.

Morals, morals, morals.

Some may think that it ashame that all of JoePa's years of coaching have basically amounted to nothing with this scandal and his legacy.

D1 college football is a BIG business and I'm sure that many programs violate rules, but it is hard to feel sorry for anyone, even a legend, who had any inclination of this type of abuse and didn't follow through. And when I say follow through I mean that if I were in his position and was told this I would certainly have called the police immediately, not just my "higher ups".

 

[VivianLynne]

Particularly so as the Clery Act came about due to the rape and murder of college student at another college/university in PA .... in the latter part of the 1980's.

 

[am1]

Still hope yet. Some of the board members have filed an appeal.

Penn State does not have to accept the penalties if it chooses to leave the NCAA.

 

[Ken555]

Still hope yet. Some of the board members have filed an appeal.

Penn State does not have to accept the penalties if it chooses to leave the NCAA.

Hope? Hmm...

 

[Elan]

Still hope yet. Some of the board members have filed an appeal.

After I read the chronology of the sanction "negotiations" on ESPN.com the other day, I figured this was coming.

While I'm supportive of the NCAA's sanctions, they left themselves wide open for appeal/dismissal by not following due process.

 

[Beefnot]

Well well well. So this "consent decree" was never brought to the Board for a vote. So Penn State may have not technically consented to anything? Interesting indeed.

 

[Tia]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/psu-trustee-letter-says-plans-195321552--ncaaf.html

 

[Elan]

Well well well. So this "consent decree" was never brought to the Board for a vote. So Penn State may have not technically consented to anything? Interesting indeed.

This is the OTL article I read the other day that details the chronology of the sanctioning. Quite interesting, IMO:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-brought-penn-state-football-brink-extinction

 

[chalee94]

Still hope yet. Some of the board members have filed an appeal.

Penn State does not have to accept the penalties if it chooses to leave the NCAA.

if they leave the NCAA, who are they going to play in football that will fill up that 100,000+ seat stadium? the robert morris eagles from the NAIA?

if the NCAA takes more time to review the situation, that would put the death penalty back on the table.

regardless, it keeps PSU's scandal in the news.

 

[am1]

if they leave the NCAA, who are they going to play in football that will fill up that 100,000+ seat stadium? the robert morris eagles from the NAIA?

if the NCAA takes more time to review the situation, that would put the death penalty back on the table.

regardless, it keeps PSU's scandal in the news.

That is the boards choice. If they feel they have been wronged then they should leave.

Yes the death penalty would have been a fair penalty.

The board should have been informed of the sanctions before they were official. But they would have been best to take the punishment and move on. This just keeps dragging the school down.

 

[Elan]

What should have happened, IMO:

1) The NCAA should have told the BOT that either they sign a document declaring that they fully accept the findings of the Freeh report, or the NCAA would pursue it's own investigation.

2) Once that was out of the way, the NCAA should have let the BOT determine a suitable penalty and propose it to the NCAA infractions committee for vote. This process could have been iterated a few times until an agreement was reached.

The NCAA had the leverage, but they should have let the BOT lead the process, which would've absolved the NCAA from appearing heavy-handed.

 

[chalee94]

...which would've absolved the NCAA from appearing heavy-handed.

not sure the NCAA has ever cared whether they appear heavy-handed.

there's not much tv money with the NAIA or other affiliations. and their conference would have to kick them out.

the NCAA is the only game in town. if you don't like the NCAA's ruling, feel free to appeal...to the NCAA.

"hey dad, can i stay up to midnight."

"no."

"i'd like to appeal that."

"that's fair enough...

no."

 

[Elan]

not sure the NCAA has ever cared whether they appear heavy-handed.

there's not much tv money with the NAIA or other affiliations. and their conference would have to kick them out.

the NCAA is the only game in town. if you don't like the NCAA's ruling, feel free to appeal...to the NCAA.

"hey dad, can i stay up to midnight."

"no."

"i'd like to appeal that."

"that's fair enough...

no."

That's the point. They may not care, but by coming across as they did they left themselves more vulnerable to legal action. If they'd made PSU lead the process, PSU would have less legal leverage.

"hey dad, can i stay up to midnight."

"why don't you come up with a more reasonable hour?"

"ok, how about 11?"

"why don't you come up with a more reasonable hour?"

"ok, how about 10?"

"why don't you come up with a more reasonable hour?"

"ok, how about 9?"

"That's a great idea. I'm glad you suggested that and that we could come to a mutual understanding. Now, go put in writing that you asked to stay up until 9, and I'll sign it."

 

[SueDonJ]

I am really trying to give the Board some sort of the benefit of the doubt here, trying to figure out how it helps them to challenge the NCAA sanctions. I want very badly to believe that their reasoning is in looking ahead to the civil court proceedings, that they are trying to mitigate the acceptance of guilt that's inherent in the President's consent decree. That acceptance is going to be a factor in the civil settlements. It would make some sense, perverted sense, for the BOT to want to limit monetary damages.

But sadly I think the challenge is more about the arrogance of Penn State's BOT than the money. They've been arrogant throughout the whole process, right up to the disagreements reported in the days preceding the removal of Paterno's statue. It's mind-boggling but there was at least one board member who adamantly stated that the statue would "never" come down. Obviously the "culture of reverence" for the football program is still in play.

I hope the NCAA sticks to its guns. When they announced the sanctions they said that if Penn State appealed them then the Death Penalty would be back on the table. Good. I hope this remedy is still in play.

 

[Beefnot]

This seems like a suicide move by the Board. The punishment they were handed down was essentially a plea bargained sentence. Do you really wanna go there with the NCAA? On g.p., if their maneuver fails, the NCAA oughtta put on the surgical gloves and tell 'em "you know you effed up, right? Now, the punishment we're gonna hand down is really gonna hurt."

 

[Beefnot]

What should have happened, IMO:

1) The NCAA should have told the BOT that either they sign a document declaring that they fully accept the findings of the Freeh report, or the NCAA would pursue it's own investigation.

2) Once that was out of the way, the NCAA should have let the BOT determine a suitable penalty and propose it to the NCAA infractions committee for vote. This process could have been iterated a few times until an agreement was reached.

The NCAA had the leverage, but they should have let the BOT lead the process, which would've absolved the NCAA from appearing heavy-handed.

For every argument in favor of your approach, there is an equally compelling argument on the NCAA-led approach. It is what it is now. Penn State will have no one to blame but themselves if the NCAA gets all up in Penn States a$$ over this.