Same here. Even if accepted Paterno’s version, though, I think he had a responsibility to more than he did.
I wasn’t addressing Paterno’s specifically, but the wave of posters who say that “well if I’d been in that situation in 2002 I’d have done X Y and Z!”
BTW you’re wrong about Sandusky interviewing at Virginia and not getting it in 1999. Sandusky didn’t interview there until 2001, and was passed over in favor of Al Groh. (And at that comment every man, woman, and child connected to the University of Virginia breathes a huge sigh of relief.)
I’m not convinced that JP necessary had to know about the 1998 incident. But if he did, I would think this tends to work in his favor, not against it.
Because the 1998 incident was definitely not covered up. It was investigated by police, and the police decided that it did not rise to the level of child abuse, that it was a “boundary” issue, as someone quoted earlier. So JP would know that Sandusky has a boundary issue with kids, involving inappropriate behavior in showers. Now comes the 2002 incident, also involving inappropriate behavior in a shower - and JP has a vague description of what happened. Knowledge of the prior incident would make JP more likely to assume that this too was a “boundary issue” versus assuming that there had been an actual rape. And this would be reinforced if he reported it to his supervisors and saw nothing drastic come of it - he would naturally assume that it must have turned out to be more of the same, and was not anything truly drastic.
Whatever it is you’re smoking, I want some.
The point isn’t about whether Joe broke the law, it doesn’t look like he did.
The point is whether Joe had a moral obligation to do more than just report it up the chain.
It’s possible Joe and you and Starving Artist just have different morals than most people (based on the responses) - you don’t feel that a possible child predator is important enough to follow up on it and make sure it didn’t get “lost in the shuffle” somewhere - clearly most people do feel that it’s important enough to double check that it was taken care of.
Only being able to relay what he has been told is not a problem at all. Even in the Clery Act documentation it specifically explains that “hearsay” is something related to evidence in a trial - but from the perspective of reporting as possible crime, either to campus police or local police - the bar is set very low, just a reasonable expectation that the information could possibly be true.
I am one of those breathing that sigh. I was off by a year, but Sandusky was reported as the front-runner for the UVa job in late 2000 (Groh was hired in December 2000).
Sandusky was his friend.
I don’t get this. McQueary’s testimony of what he saw was detailed. You think he told Paterno and Paterno doubted the story?
When Paterno heard something about inappropriate activity with a young boy in the shower (no matter how many details he actually had) , he should have known that as the head of the program at Penn State he needed to get in front of this thing. I think even he acknowledges that now by saying he wished he would have done more. He may have, at the time, genuinely thought he was doing the right thing. But that still makes him guilty of executing very, very poor judgment.
You changed my words to make your case. (ISTR that you’ve done this type of thing in the past as well). I said "“what most people would otherwise consider a reasonable course of action”.
I guess it’s your prerogative to just ignore what I’ve said and respond to something else. Especially if you don’t have anything better to respond with …
People have harped on this, but I don’t see why this is so significant. Sandusky wasn’t victimizing PSU students.
This appears to be a factually incorrect statement, and I think the GJ report says otherwise. What’s your source?
He didn’t say thing.
He would have thought the investigation concluded that nothing more was necessary.
Strange, I saw a site saying that Groh had been hired in 2001. Either way, Sandusky had retired (or “retired”) from Penn State for some time before he interviewed at UVa…he didn’t leave Penn State for that reason.
As you note, we’re discussing the moral aspects, not the legal.
If you’ve seen the incident yourself you have a better sense of whether the procedures that were followed amounted to neglect or coverup, since you know what happened. If you’ve only heard about it, you’re not in as good a position to do that, since your knowledge is secondhand. Once JP went to his superiors and set them up with McQeary, they knew whatever he knew and more. It’s not comparable to a case of an eyewitness, where you know what happened.
Willful ignorance is no excuse in this case. JoePa was the head of the football program, he could do anything he wanted with respect to his staff, former staff, and players. He consciously made a decision not to do much of anything about it. He passed some information on, but as the caretaker of the football program he hada moral responsibility to know exactly who was in and around the program. What’s crazy is you know damn well that if he heard inklings that an agent was snooping around campus he probably would have gotten the state militia on the case. I fhe heard gamblers were somewhere nearby he would have done whatever he could to find out if it was true and have it handled. JoePa is not evil, but his inability to give a shit about this is what has most people upset. He did the barest of minimums, and then acted as if nothing was wrong. He deserved to be canned. Fuck him, he lived his life, 80+ years, much of it being the biggest fish in a small pond. The victims have their whole life in front of them, emotionally scarred by the fucker who did this to him and those around who did far too little to stop him.
“All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke
Very true. But because of the seriousness of the issue, even being told by the eyewitness still rises to the level of “need to follow up”.
It’s one of the most serious of crimes against that young person - again, the majority of people have a moral compass that recognizes that, and people are angry because they thought/expected Joe to share those same moral values.
He doesn’t, everyone is upset - pretty simple.
I understand that position (though I disagree with you).
But in the post you were quoting, some used the analogy of an eyewitness: “If you were at work in an office and saw one co-worker raping another …”, and my response was that the analogy is not valid, for this reason.
Would you do that for a friend? More importantly, would you be complicit in a scheme with such a high likelihood of blowing up in your face?
Yes, I do. But you are ignoring that McQueary is alleged to have told different versions of the events to Paterno. The Paterno version was less explicit, and less unequivocal.
Agreed, but I think we disagree on how big a moral failing his bad judgment was.
Oh, well I guess that’s okay then. You said yourself that it might be different “if [you] saw the perpetrator continuing to hang around”.
Read the indictment. Paterno himself testified that he told Curley the graduate assistant saw Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” (p. 7).
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Why is the “otherwise” significant? What changed circumstances are you proposing?
The only way out of this for Paterno is if he can honestly say that a) ‘I followed this up, and was told (by Curry & Schultz) that it was all a mistake/understanding’ (i.e., McQueary was mistaken) or b) ‘Curry & Schultz assured me that it had been turned over to the proper authorities for further investigation’.
If he can say any of those things, I might consider cutting him some slack. But I’ve heard nothing that suggests he was told either of those two things.
The key word in there is “allegedly.” I guess we’ll have to to take the word of two people arrested for perjury that they actually notified The Second Mile.
I’d even cut him some amount of slack if he went to Sandusky and asked him if it was true. Sandusky worked for him for 30 years, and regardless of whether it’s fair, we’re all probably guilty of taking a friend’s word for things now and then.
As far as I can tell, however, he didn’t even do that.
That would be an awkward water cooler scene. “Hey Jerry, the scuttlebutt around here is you are running around buttfucking kids in my locker room showers. Whats the deal man?”
Scuttlebutt: poor word choice.