Posted on 11/11/2011 6:47:52 PM PST by Hoodat
Both got fired for not doing what was MORALLY required, telling the REAL police.
Do you just go 'round exporting opinions that have been carefully shielded from reading the Grand Jury Presentment?
Let's just deal with Spanier on this post. You don't think...that maybe...just perhaps...just who knows...that the Board of Trustees actually read the Grand Jury Presentment??? Why, shock...surprise!
"Curley testified that he also advised Penn State president Graham Spanier of the information that he had received from the graduate assistant and the steps he had taken as a result. Curley was not specific in the about the language he used to in reporting the 2002 incident to Spanier. Spanier testified to his approval of the approach taken by Curley." (p. 8)
And especially this note on pp. 9-10: "Schultz confirmed that University President Graham Spanier was apprised in 2002 that a report of an incident involving Sandusky and a child in the showers on campus had been reported by an employee. Schultz testified that Spanier approved of the decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children into the locker room and the decision to advise the Second Mile of the 2002 incident."
Well, lookee there.
The previously accepted "formula" of Sandusky + kids on campus was no longer sanctioned in College Station...but if Sandusky wanted to use two Penn State satellite campuses for sports camps for 4th graders on up...Penn State Erie (Behrend) and Penn State Harrisburg (Capital College in Middletown) thru 2008...eh, that was "A-OK" by Penn State standards.
ALL: For details, see:
* Penn State assistant coach ran kid camps after ban
* Sandusky led camp at Penn State Behrend ['Snow ball effect beyond State College]
Tell us, Flintsilver: If what Sandusky did with little boys was so "objectionable" @ College Station, why wasn't it also "objectionable" @ other Penn State campuses?
You mean this was all fine & dandy...as long it was away from the epicenter of Nittany Lyin'ville?
The graduate student didn't see 'something' he saw a boy in the shower with an older man.
Normal people would find that disturbing, you don't seem to.
Yes and what does that have to do with these crimes and the justified outrage over them?
Note:
* Penn State Shame From Abuse Scandal Threatens College’s Rise [Huge losses forecasted there in multiple areas]
* Moody's places PSU bond rating on review for possible downgrade [Penn State]
That's not the only thing that's been downgraded.
I've seen several articles over the past two days where Penn State students are genuinely concerned that a potential employer might be put off by where they obtained their degree from.
Hey, world focused on College Station. Quick! Look over there!
This thread is about crimes that were covered up at a major University, I am sorry that it doesn't rise to the level of importance we think it does.
Just a strong case of denial by those who believe in the cult of PSU.
From columnist Scott Ostler: "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more," Paterno said in a statement. That's pathetic. You need hindsight to tell you that you must do whatever you can to stop a dangerous criminal?
Source: Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves
#1 I saw one of those informal polls on Thursday that a Web site will do (can't remember if it was the Centre Daily newspaper or the CBS affiliate out of Harrisburg -- channel 21).
They asked whether the Board of Trustees did the right thing by firing Paterno.
At that time -- and again I'm not claiming it's a "scientific" representation -- but it provides a "glimpse" of an indication...the % breakdown was something like:
50% agreed with the BOT
35% disagreed with the BOT
The other 15% said to wait -- to allow more investigation-wise before acting
I would thereby guestimate then at least 1/3rd of Penn Staters informally sanction the idea that Joe's cover-up was a "good idea."
Of course, if you word it that way, they'd probably say "no way." But the bottom line here is a % somewhere in that neighborhood are still more a part of the initial problem than upholding a spirit of repentance that could lead to becoming part of the solution.
Allow me to summarize what I'm saying here with a Bible passage from 2 Peter (2:6-8):
6 ...if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was DISTRESSED by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was TORMENTED in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—
My "cultural" observation thus far of College Station...and I am by NO MEANS culturally omniscient...so I confess I could be off-base...
...is that so many folks have been more "distressed" and "tormented" (2 Pet. 2:7-8) over JoePa's departure...
...than what the apostle Peter described as the "depraved conduct of the lawless" and "lawless deeds" (same verses) ... which has included the very sanctioning of that conduct and deeds that led to his departure.
It reminds me of how some college students react to the pro-life movement that takes abortion placard trucks and art displays from campus to campus -- with these pictures all depicting aborted babies.
The "pro-choice" students seem inevitably more offended at the people who have brought the pictures than they are over the acts that led to these babies being aborted! How upside down!
These students are essentially part of the "pro-choice cult."
In the same way, Penn State has left the perception that it idolizes the cult personality of JoePa.
There's almost no sense reminding these personality cult members that JoePa has human sinful qualities along with the rest of us. He could ne'er do wrong in their eyes because they have culturally predetermined him to be a "god."
And the Penn State culture has reinforced that for how many decades now?
Hence, this is a corporate cultural matter...a pool of water that ALL in State College have been swimming in for anywhere from one year to decades.
No matter how intentional or unintentional things were in both 1998 and 2002, the fact is it at the very least eventually evolved into a conspiracy...a conspiracy of silence...a "conspiracy of cowards."
["Jay Bilas, the ESPN college basketball commentator, called it 'a conspiracy of cowards.'" Source: Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves]
If you haven't looked at FREEPER NewinTexsas' list of who had prior knowledge of what Sandusky was up to...please review...I'm sure he might repost it on this thread.
The behavior reported by those who failed to take action simply manifests corruption in their souls.
Their perspective is not toward righteousness, but from a perspective of anticipating justice. When they fail to act in the face of such overwhelming criminality, it is because they are attempting to do right in their own eyes from the perspective of a corrupt soul independent of God.
Even if they have no faith in what God provides, the laws for believer and unbeliever alike, established by legitimate authority, will still keep the criminally minded under control for the society.
Here’s a couple of good pieces by experts on the Duke Lacrosse Frame.
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/11/the_penn_state_trustees_react_.html
November 10, 2011
The Penn State Trustees React to the Stench
Posted by KC Johnson
The Board of Trustees acted properly in cleaning house at Penn State, by firing president Graham Spanier and longtime football coach Joe Paterno. The inaction of the duo, along with similar conduct from now-suspended Athletic Director Tim Curley and now-retired VP Gary Schultz has exposed the university to potentially massive legal liability, as well as prompting an extraordinary public relations backlash.
From all available evidence, the quartet undertook what turned out to be a disastrous gamble: that they could handle the allegations about former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky in such a way that would neither risk the university’s financial well-being nor hurt Penn State’s public relations. So when they received word that Sandusky had been witnessed sexually assaulting a young boy, the four interpreted the allegations in the most benign way possible, and then swept things under the rug. By behaving as they did, they sought to protect the Penn State “brand” from the type of fallout we’ve witnessed over the past several days. Their actions were immoral, but not necessarily irrational.
Spanier, ironically, crossed the line from immoral to irrational in his only statement on the charges before his dismissal. He remarked,
“The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.”
“With regard to the other presentments, I wish to say that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.”
“Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately.”
It’s hard to discern what Spanier hoped to accomplish from this statement. Not only did he decline to suspend Curley, as pointed out most passionately by Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel, Spanier’s use of “unconditional support” implied that he would back the two administrators even if they were found guilty. Moreover, the former president was speaking definitively about issues of which he couldn’t possibly have the requisite knowledge at this time (what did a then-graduate assistant actually say to the two administrators when he reported Sandusky’s behavior; what precisely did the two administrators say to the grand jury). It’s entirely possible that the administrators ultimately will be found not guilty of perjury, a tough charge to prove; it’s even possible, on technical grounds, that they’ll be found not guilty of a failure to report. But for Spanier to have asserted that he knew the truth at this stage was anti-intellectual, and his statement alone would have raised grave doubts about his fitness to lead a major research university.
It’s worth wondering how this story might have played out differently had the de facto (Paterno) and de jure (Spanier) leaders of Penn State responded to the announcement of the charges in the way Penn State’s trustees did on Tuesday night—with a forceful condemnation of Sandusky’s alleged acts and a promise of a comprehensive investigation to find out what went wrong—and then again on Wednesday evening, with a remarkably composed and impressive press conference from BOT vice chairman John Surma.
Instead, Paterno less-than-credibly remarked that he was shocked about the charges, and Spanier offered his amateur legal analysis while downplaying the alleged crimes as merely “troubling.” Both statements created the impression that even after the charges were revealed, the leadership of Penn State lacked any understanding of the gravity of the situation.
Over the past few days, quite a few reporters and commentators have referenced the Duke lacrosse case in commenting on events at Penn State, if only as a reminder of the presumption of innocence and the dangers of a rush to judgment. To quote ESPN’s Dana O’Neill, “If the Duke lacrosse case has taught us anything, we don’t know what we don’t know.” And, as any longtime reader of Dorothy Rabinowitz’s Pulitzer Prize-winning work knows, it’s particularly important to demand evidence—rather than wild allegations—when dealing with allegations of sexual abuse against children.
But apart from the fact that the Penn State scandal doesn’t involve some of the other key lessons of the lacrosse case (flawed legal procedures beget flawed results; race/class/gender advocates who dominate most humanities departments care little about due process or impartially evaluating evidence if upholding these ideals might frustrate their on-campus aims), what we know of events at Penn State suggests a very different kind of case than at Duke.
The two most important differences:
First, unlike the Durham Police and disgraced ex-prosecutor Mike Nifong, the authorities in Pennsylvania actually investigated the charges, producing a detailed grand jury report. (Nifong and the DPD, on the other hand, simply accepted whatever story false accuser Crystal Mangum wanted to float to keep the story alive.) Moreover, in at least two instances, there were witnesses to Sandusky’s alleged acts. Again, no such witnesses ever existed in the lacrosse case. And so while it’s obviously premature to speak of guilt or innocence, the prosecution certainly can’t be faulted for a failure to conduct a thorough investigation, or for engaging in the type of horrific abuses of the legal system that Rabinowitz detailed in No Crueler Tyrannies.
Second, the charges against Curley and Schultz—and the possible charges against Spanier—don’t depend on whether Sandusky is guilty or innocent. Perhaps this is all a grand conspiracy against Sandusky, or a massive misunderstanding, and he’s actually innocent. Regardless of the coach’s guilt or innocence, however, the university officials had an obligation to report the charges to police; and, in the case of Curley and Schultz, to tell the truth to the grand jury.
The academy is notoriously accountability-challenged: Richard Brodhead, after all, is still running Duke. But, even in a profession that tends to circle the wagons rather than acknowledge outside criticism, Spanier had to go. That the trustees acted boldly and quickly represents about the first good decision made by the Penn State administration in this affair.
The same authority in which Joe decided to place his faith controlling the situation in the past, is now the authority which cans him.
In neither case did either party decide to respond to inference of criminality by reporting it to legitimate authority and allowing law enforcement and the judicial system administer justice.
The irony.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/higher_educations_transparency_problem.html
November 12, 2011
Higher Education’s Transparency Problem
By R.B. Parrish
Nobody knows at present exactly what happened at Penn State — but it would come as no surprise if a major university, when informed that it had the makings of a scandal affecting its campus, decided to cover the matter up rather than report everything directly and openly, and thereby subject itself to negative publicity.
Openness and transparency are not the ways great corporations — which is what a modern university is — do business.
In the Duke lacrosse case, the very first advice a dean gave to the lacrosse players — threatened with possible indictment on first-degree rape charges — was not to tell their parents. The next advice was not to get attorneys. (And the dean giving this advice was herself a member of the Bar.)
The primary goal was to keep the story out of the news. That would be best for Duke. (It was clearly not in the best interest of the players.) When the university learned the players had in fact gotten attorneys, its displeasure was palpable.
Thereafter, Duke did its utmost to wash its hands of its falsely accused students — the better to demonstrate that it had nothing to do with any possible racism, sexism, hubris, or privileged class status supposedly revealed by the case. The university president, Richard Brodhead, kept an antiseptic distance from the lacrosse players: he never communicated with them; he refused to look at evidence of their innocence; he turned down requests to meet with their parents. They became anathema to him — and it was important that they be publicly seen to be an anathema to Duke. Duke’s reputation before the community required it.
The chairman of Duke’s board of trustees, Robert K. Steel, told one of the boys’ defenders that it would be “best for Duke” if they were tried. “Best for Duke.” It wouldn’t matter if there were convictions, because “it could all be sorted out on appeal.” Blatantly innocent students (proven so by DNA tests two weeks before the first arrests in the case were made) should have to bear the burden of public opprobrium, a vindictive and (in Durham) biased trial, and possible conviction — all because it would be “best for Duke.” As Steel also allegedly said to fellow trustees, Duke was not defending its students because “sometimes people have to suffer for the good of the organization.”
That organization reserved all its animus for its own; it never had a bad word for Nifong, nor for the false accuser. In fact, it cooperated with the prosecutor, handing over private student information in violation of FERPA and then lying about it to the court, not to mention joining with Nifong to initiate a sham motion for the same information in order to make it appear as if Duke was actually following the law.
Contrast this with the response of Donna Shalala of the University of Miami when members of Miami’s football team were involved in a fracas:
[W]e will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the University. I will not take away their scholarships.
It’s time for the feeding frenzy to stop. These students made a stupid, terrible, horrible mistake and they are being punished. They are students and we are an educational institution and we will act like an educational institution, not like a P.R. organization that’s trying to spin and to restore an image that we worked so hard to put in place. (Oct. 17, 2006)
A university can be in the kid business. Or it can be a corporation. The latter seeks to preserve at all costs its name, reputation, and business accounts; the vast sums it accrues from its sports programs; its millions in revenues. Its goal can be its own aggrandizement.
A university can even come to regard students as a necessary but transitory evil — basic to its continued existence, but not the essence of what the school itself is. That essence is made up of the faculty, who prime their own egos; the administration, which does the same; and the balance sheets, donation totals, and new buildings, all of which the university scrutinizes in the same way a CEO spies his profit sheets. Like a corporation, a university can come to believe it has to think only in terms of “the big picture.”
It can be willing — some would argue that it has to be willing — to discard a few insignificant individuals along the way as “collateral damage.” What corporation ever grew great except on the detritus of those it crushed while building its success?
How much was Penn State concerned that it might lose if there was a scandal? Was anyone afraid of being fired if they spoke up? Was anyone afraid of retaliation if they reported something? (Who wants to be the whistle-blower against a great corporate entity?) What was uppermost in the thoughts of those who may have known about the scandal and yet said nothing — or even worse, helped for years to cover it up? Were they concerned with what was “best for Penn State”?
It remains yet to be seen how Penn State reacted, and what decisions it made, and what course it took. And what sort of business Penn State was in.
R. B. Parrish is author of The Duke Lacrosse Case: A Documentary History and Analysis of the Modern Scottsboro.
Excellent. I'm committing "theft" of this for my tagline. [See below for direct eyewitness evidence]
If you don't like it, go call your 'daddy' tonight about this "incident";
...then call your superior the next mornin' so you three can "huddle about it"...
...and then have him call his superiors the day after that.
I'm sure somebody will FREEPMAIL an interview or interrogation or somethin'...
...some day...
...some month...
...some year...
...some decade...
...some century...
But if you don't eventually recover this tagline, hey, it's not a FREEPER conspiracy or nothin'...
It'll be your fault...
'Cause your incident report just got 'lost in translation' or somethin' ...
...and you weren't 'cific 'nough...
...you were just too vague in describing the alleged 'theft'...
...You only said I 'massaged' that post and that you witnessed that 'something of a borrowed nature from a young poster' occurred...
...And of course...we "all know" that having communicated this alleged 'theft' once or twice this weekend, that you'll NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER have a chance to send a FREEPMAIL or POST about it again to your superiors -- or receive any such similar query from them asking you to clarify what I did (or didn't do) overnight!
So, hey. If you don't want to get blamed for 'covering up' this alleged 'theft,' ya better make sure you send ONLY ONE communique to your immediate superior; and only ONE communique to his superiors!
After all, you know in your heart of hearts that your real goal isn't to EVER stop me from goin' round and stealin' posts and converting them into new tagline toys...
Your real objective of keepin' communiques minimal and buried away is to simply provide plausible denial in case this ever goes "public."
{You can thank me for this wise counsel of "How to Distance Yourself from a Tagline Thief in 5 Easy Steps" later...Oh, and hey, if you stay silent after those two communiques...who knows...I may even promote you to head of tagline thief recruits + some "white out" post}
Bingo! Home run! Grand slam!
No wonder antceecee turned tail after this post of yours and started in on the ad hominens! Before he did though, he tried to rely on this argument:
The cover up needs to be vetted in a court of law. [antceecee, post #41]
I do believe in our rights to a trial by jury and not media [antceecee, post #50]
So why are you against a full hearing in a court of law and INSTEAD seeking to string every person you view as part of this up in the nearest tree? [antceecee #46]
ALL: You hear this rapidly-becoming tired ole call for "due process" from Paterno defenders.
We already know that with Sandusky, Schultz, Curley -- and possibly Spanier as well if he is charged -- due process thru a trial awaits them.
But what about Paterno? He (and Spanier as of yet) have not been charged? Neither has McQueary, who will probably turn state's evidence vs. them all.
Shouldn't Paterno have rec'd "due process" like antceecee is repetitively calling for?
Well, the answer is, of course...IF Paterno is ever charged with anything!
But he hasn't been charged; and I don't think he will.
Therefore, it's been a matter of weighing...
...was he derelict in duty?
...did he violate NCAA ethical violations (like 2.4 -- that focuses on the need to exercise "responsibility" even off of the playing field)?
...did he fail to use basic moral and ethical common sense?
So if sweeping away JoePa's job has nothing to do with a court of law or a trial by jury, why do Paterno supporters keep appealing to that?
For that allow me to cite an apt response by columnist Scott Ostler:
Several e-mailers demand, "Have you ever heard of due process?" The due process I've heard of involves a justice system and a legal trial. Paterno faces no legal action or charge. Legally, his rear end is covered. But there was no trial when Paterno was sainted, no jury declared him one of the noblest and finest college coaches of all time. The public decided. It's the same deal on the flip side. We'll take the facts and form them into our personal legacy of Joe Paterno.
Yup, Joe 6-pack, you are right! As Ostler says, "We'll take the facts and form them into our personal legacy of Joe Paterno!" Source: Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves]
Oh, and btw, have you noticed that those who most vociferously defend Paterno in using a "due process" type of argument are the ones who tend to NEVER reference McQueary in that same way?
Why, if Paterno needs "due process," then why is it that when FREEPER Lancey Howard heard the Penn State fans post-firing they were out to lynch McQueary? Why not call for a fair drawn-out "due process" dimension with him?
Why was McQueary then getting death threats?
antceecee uses the word "lynch" on this thread as if anybody has threatened to "lynch" Paterno or the Penn State paycheck gang. [Well, perhaps they have toward Sandusky...who knows?]
Yet, the one person who some Penn Staters have literally threatened to kill is the one they tend to not accord "due process" to...McQueary...
I would thereby guestimate then at least 1/3rd of Penn Staters informally sanction the idea that Joe's cover-up was a "good idea."
I think that’s a bit of a stretch and before you go off on me, here is why.
First of all let me say I’m not in any way supporting Paterno, who I once held in high regard but no more, and I think the BOT did the right thing and should have done it long before the proverbial crap hit the fan. And sure, there are some folks here in PA including I’m sure some PSU students who idolize JoePa and PSU football and think him incapable of any wrong doing (heck, there are a few here as well).
However I saw a few PSU students interviewed recently on local TV. Among some of those who felt the BOT was wrong, they clarified in saying that while it wasn’t necessarily wrong for the BOT to fire Paterno, at least some were upset with how it was handled. They felt that the BOT should have notified Paterno in person of the firing and before making it public and not doing it late at night as they did. Some thought that more needed to be known about Paterno’s involvement in any cover up before summarily firing him in the middle of the night. I'm not sure I agree but I understand their point.
If the poll was worded differently, say instead of “Did the Board of Trustees do the right thing by firing Paterno” and instead asked “If Paterno is found to have covered up for Sandusky…” I think the poll results might be very different. Polls are funny that way and wording is everything and that is why I take them, especially informal internet polls with a big grain of salt.
Again, I think what happened was vile, disgusting, deplorable and inexcusable. A lot of people seem to have known about Sandusky and did very little about it. And all of those people need to be held accountable, JoePa included. Even if some of the PSU officials did what was “legally” required, and I have some doubts that they did do all that was legally required, certainly many did not do what was ethically and morally required.
But I do not want to jump on the lynch mob band wagon either. I think of the Duke Lacrosse Case. There were innocent people smeared in that case in the court of public and media opinion before all the facts were known.
I read the grand jury report and it’s sickening. However there have been some posts on FR calling for Sandusky’s wife to be hauled off to jail because some surmise that she must have known or must have been involved herself. Some have proposed the whole university be shut down as they are; the faculty and student body (or at least a large number of them) all perverts. I think that’s hyperbole.
I hope that now that the GJ report is out and charges have been filed, that there is justice for the truly innocent victims and that Sandusky and anyone who covered for him get all they deserve. But that will be decided in a court of law.
It should also be mentioned that several thousand PSU students last night held a candle light vigil for the victims in this case and for all victims of child abuse.
I seriously doubt that 35% of the PSU students or residents of PA sanction pedophilia and child abuse and any cover up of such crimes.
(a) Those who are repentant of the "culture of cover up" that the Attorney General's statement mentions -- even if they had no direct tie to any overt cover up...
(b) And those who don't think Paterno should have been fired at all...no matter how and when he was told. These, I would say, continue to be part of the "cultural" problem of lack of accountability.
Btw, every major Old Testament prophet engaged in identificational repentance...asking God for forgiveness of sins that Israel committed -- but that they themselves personally were not guilty for...they identified with the sins of their people and pleaded with God to turn His people around.
[I agree with what you said re: the common objection in State College...Paterno being told by the BOT 10:00 at night over the phone]
So the "bottom line" is that you can't tell me there are not a sizeable # in that (b) category.
It should also be mentioned that several thousand PSU students last night held a candle light vigil for the victims in this case and for all victims of child abuse.
I have a Q re: this: I have seen in the Central PA media and one place elsewhere comments from Penn State students who said that their entire student body should not be judged by what perhaps 2-3% of their student population engaged in Wednesday night re: the riot.
IOW don't judge the 100% by the 2-3% Right?
The Media says that "several thousand" students & alumni were @ this vigil Friday night. Considering that a # of these were alumni (+ other members of the community), if we say that up to 2,000 were actual students, then that's 5% of the student body (40,000).
Now tell me: If 5% of the student body was at the vigil, why are you asking us to judge the 100% by the 5%? Especially in light of Penn State students telling us NOT to judge the 100% by the 3%?
Please convince me as to why we should consider the vigil "more representative" of the Penn State student body than the riot on Wednesday night?
So disappointed to see so many Freepers defending Paterno. Ths story has captivated my wife and I. We are HUGE college football fans, I am an attorney and she is a child therapist. If you’ve read all the facts and articles, and know how PSU and college football operate, there is no way you can gave Paterno a pass on this and would not demand his termination.
And BTW, I have friends in academia close to this situation. They said that all but two of Sandusky’s victims are black. Wait until the media gets a hold of that info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.