If I remember correctly, in the documents that Freeh release one was the request by Sandusky to have access to all the facilities. On the paper, in what has been identified as Paterno’s writing, is something to the effect of: Sandusky yes, Second Mile no, liability issue.
This is speculation but they probably gambled if they didn’t let Sandusky bring children on campus then they would be in the clear. Don’t forget, they treat Sandusky like he was the victim in all of this. They never gave a seconds thought to the kids beyond the liability problems they might pose for Penn State.
Barring him from campus also poses problems, when they bar him people are going to ask why he doesn’t have access to these places. After all it was clearly normal for former Penn State officials to have the use of the facilities on campus after they retired. It would raise a lot of uncomfortable questions. The campus is a public place, to really bar him they need a court order and to get that order they’d have to give a reason why. The best solution for the Penn State gang of four was to pretend nothing was wrong and that Sandusky retired because he was just too caring a guy who dedicated too much of his time to helping under privileged kids to be head coach and hope the whole thing disappeared until they were dead and gone.
I don’t really agree with the second paragraph, once they made the decision to cover up the crimes the damage was done. Their university in general and Paterno specifically would be wearing future assaults no matter where they occurred. The gambled that the assaults would only become public long after it was possible to prove that they took place and that they would have deniability.
If I may I ‘d also like to comment on your Paterno serial killer analogy. For that analogy to be correct, Paterno would have to be killing star players on other teams just before they had a big game against Penn State. Spanier, Curley and Shultz would have to have helped plan and carry out the killings. And of course the reason they did it would have to be to protect Penn State’s football industry. Other lower ranking people in the Penn State organization would have to know about the killings but they would have to remain silent about them out of fear of what Paterno would do to them.
Nothing any other team has ever done is 1/1,000th as vile as this. If any program ever deserved to be shut down it is this one. If anyone on the Penn State board had a shred of decency they would have killed the program or they would be resigning and announcing that the reason why was the other board members refused to shut down the team. If Penn State fans had a shed of decency they would demanding that Paterno’s name removed from anything associated with the university and they would be doing a lot of soul searching about what kind of cult has been created at Penn State. That none of that has happened, that Penn State fans and students are tired of hearing about the rapes and want to get on to important matters like next years football season and celebrating the wonderfulness of Jopa, clearly shows that attitudes that lead to the cover up are alive and well at Penn State. That alone is reason enough to end their playing days.
Sorry that my reply is so long
No problem with the long post. People who stay around after the initial brief responses are usually willing to read them. Otherwise they would have moved on. There’s no way to get into the details without writing long posts.
I don’t think the first accusation alone (1998) was enough to prove that Sandusky was guilty. That one was just for inappropriate touching, which could have been misinterpreted (or it could simply have been a false accusation, though in retropect I think it was true. I recall that a bishop or archbishop in Chicago was accused, and later his accuser admitted that he made it up.) “Horseplay” with a naked boy in a shower is irresponsible behavior at best, though, so he was in a position in which he should have been willing to agree to anything the university demanded.
You’re right that banning him outright would have been difficult to explain without creating a scandal. You mentioned a publicly acceptable reason for not bringing boys there, though, the liability one. As for Sandusky himself, if he wanted to keep his good reputation, he should have thought of a reason for not being on campus — a personal conflict, whatever. Especially after the second accusation (the one from the graduate assistant McQueary in 2002), he was in a position in which his alternatives should have been nothing but bad or worse. Here Sandusky was, again in a shower with a naked boy. No innocent person with a grain of sense would put himself in that situation again after the first accusation.
That’s where I think Paterno and others definitely went wrong. Whether Sandusky was innocent or guilty, Paterno and others were fools to allow things to go on unchanged at that point — as events proved. I agree that this was much worse than ordinary sports infractions. I just don’t think the NCAA is the proper organization to handle it. The courts themselves have enough trouble doing so.
Penn State is going to be punished plenty. Almost any family who had a boy who was around Sandusky is going to be able to make an accusation against him and get a large amount of money from Penn State (and, in effect, from persons who had nothing to do with it).
I still think my serial killer analogy holds. Any bad news about a university can harm recruiting, I agree, but I don’t think everything bad is the business of the NCAA. If Sandusky had been a serial killer — and his good buddy Paterno suspected him but said nothing — that would have been much worse than a sports infraction. It wouldn’t give them a competitive advantage against other teams, though (unless he were killing the other team’s players, and Sandusky’s victims had nothing to do with other teams).
On the other hand, if Sandusky had been kept on the staff, and his ability used to win more games, that would have fallen within the NCAA’s jurisdiction. That didn’t happen, though. He was forced to retire when he first came under suspicion.
It’s not a matter of bad or worse, but of who should be judging it. I think what Paterno and some others did — or failed to do — especially after 2002, was inexcusable, but in my opinion that should be handled in the courts (and, as far as reputation goes, in the metaphorical courts of public opinion). The NCAA has no power of subpoena, and isn’t in a position to handle really serious accusations. I think having it jump in and make judgments about things not directly related to competition would trivialize them.