Replies

You're confused. The policy you're citing was revised in 2013. Gee. Wonder why. Prior to that, emeritus status continued under the same rules as tenure.

But in any event, it doesn't matter, neither the old nor the new policy would apply. Sandusky wasn't an emeritus professor, he negotiated an exit contract which entitled him to the same privileges as an emeritus professor. That's right: a contract. Not governed by any then existing PSU HR policy whatsoever; but by the contract law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

As for why he was allowed to negotiate such a contract, well, because at the time the contract was negotiated, no one knew anything more about the 1998 investigation than that both the PADPW and the police had cleared Sandusky.

That's right CLEARED. We may know better now, but when Sandusky terminated his Coaching job at PSU all that was known was that an accusation had been made, investigated, and amounted to NOTHING. Like Freeh, you're trying to hold people responsible for failing to be clairvoyant.

As I said: the usual feeble nonsense by someone who doesn't know anything about Penn State, its policies, or the history of this case.

The policy you're citing was revised in 2013.

And could have been revised at any time prior to 2013, with no grand-father clauses (since that's what the terms say now).

As for why he was allowed to negotiate such a contract, well, because at the time the contract was negotiated, no one knew anything more about the 1998 investigation than that both the PADPW and the police had cleared Sandusky.

How many schools would award a retiring assistant coach the specific, written privilege of bringing young boys onto campus and into the athletic facilities, a few months after an investigation was conducted by the police into whether the coach had sexually molested a young boy on campus, in the athletic facilities? Does it really require clairvoyance to see the irresponsibility and potential dangers of such an act?

by someone who doesn't know anything about Penn State, its policies, or the history of this case.

The facts are easily obtainable, one doesn't need to be a PSU alum or supporter to get them. And as I said before, your argument is with those facts, not with me.