There have been several little quips implying that **SA **might like little boys, and I think this is out of bounds.
Starving, I was trying to see where you coming from. I, like you, always looked on JoePa as a good guy who did great things for his University. I, like you, was dismayed at the fact that all the good things he has done will be kind of washed away, or at least trivialized, in light of one thing he failed to do. It is sad that he is being villianized for one point of weakness over what appears to be a virtuous life.
But it seems like that point of weakness is pretty well documented now. He was told something, and as a leader, he should have done a lot more than he did. He did what was legally required of him, but I am fairly confident he wishes that he did a lot more now.
It looks like you are trying to find *any hint of wiggle room *and seizing on it. All I can say is I wish what we have read wasn’t true, but it sure looks likes it is.
I don’t have any evidence he does, but that quip was more to (a) re-emphasize the fact that you can’t go around saying these bizarre things without making people think you are at a minimum a weirdo; and (b) mocking his preposterous (and pointless) attempts to find some distinction between “sexual fondling” (for which 100% of Americans, including doubtlessly Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary, just use the word “fondling”) and “non-sexual fondling.” I think “SA is a pedo” is out of bounds, but saying or conveying that is not my point with that quip, just illustrating the absurdities that his “logic” leaves him stuck with.
The grand jury testimony is linked to on page one. HERE is what McQueary said he saw, when he entered the locker room. This was 9:30 p.m.:
(He was still listed as a “graduate assistant”)
Nothing about “fondling, sexual contact”. While Paterno is saying, “he said something of a sexual nature”, that’s just what he’s DESCRIBING to the media. Chances are, McQueary went into more detail when they talked. He didn’t quote him, just described their conversation.
It goes on to point out that McQueary also informed Curley and Schultz of this, and told them, again, of JUST EXACTLY WHAT HE SAW. Despite this, they denied it under oath. All that happened was that Sandusky’s keys were taken away.
And eye witness to child rape. But somehow calling the cops would be “hysteria”.
Did you read the same reports I did, Starving Artist? Forget Paterno. I’m talking about reporting Sandusky period, after you literally saw the guy raping someone.
I don’t recall having been asked about this before. I’ve read in this very thread that Paterno testified that that McQueary told him that he’s seen either Sandusky or “a coach” in the shower the night before and that this person was fondling or doing something of a sexual nature with a young boy who appeared to be around ten years old. It is my understanding that this is what Paterno testified that he was told. It is also my understanding from information posted to this thread that McQueary’s testimony agreed pretty closely with Paterno’s account and that McQueary has said he didn’t go into graphic detail out of respect for Paterno.
I get what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with it. I do not share the belief that as head of Penn State’s football program Paterno should have done more than he did, even if he had been told everything McQueary saw and believed it wholeheartedly. Yes, Paterno was a leader when it came to the football program, but he was not a leader of any kind when it came to dealing with crime. Investigating allegations of sexual abuse was far outside his area of responsibility, and far outside his capacity as football coach. He had neither the background, the training, nor the authority to do anything more than report what he had heard to his superiors, who did have the authority to look into the matter and whose responsibility it was to do so. All he could reasonably have been expected to do was notify the authorities of what he’d heard. For whatever reason the system had been set up according to law where McQueary was supposed to report to his superiors, which he did, and Paterno was to report to his superiors, which is what he did and was all he was qualified to do.
Plus I utterly reject the notion that the only morally correct thing for him to have done was to notify the local police, for the reasons I stated in post 1676.
Sorry, I somehow lost these portions of your post in answering spooje, so I’ll address them now.
I don’t believe Paterno had a responsibility to seek clarification. Like I said to spooje, he was not an investigator. His responsibility was to forward the allegations that were reported to him to his superiors, which he did.
He failed the moral test. He didn’t call the police.
Even more, he allowed Sandusky to continue using Penn State to find his child victims: he got his victims at camps held at Penn State. He was seen bringing kids to Penn State practices after Paterno was told what happened, and Paterno never followed up. It was a very uncomfortable situation, we all realize that. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be a moral test. It would be a moral cakewalk.
[/QUOTE]
Except that Sandusky was no longer an employee under Paterno at that time and hadn’t been for three years. It was up to the university’s administration to decide what Sandusky could or couldn’t do, not Paterno. And there was no substantive reason for Paterno to get involved anyway as no charges had ever been brought against Sandusky despite the allegations that had been made about him. So I doubt Paterno would have been inclined to try to take action against a guy who had been out of his employ for three years and for whom numerous allegations had gone for naught.
And I’m 100% confident that you couldn’t begin to prove that Paterno knowingly allowed Sandusky to seek out or bring victims of sexual abuse into the camps or onto the campus. Sandusky had not been charged much less convicted of any crime, and it simply wasn’t Paterno’s place to intervene as judge and jury and attempt to override the university’s decision to allow Sandusky access to campus facilities. Big time college football coaches have a tiger by the tail and are exceedingly busy people. Most scarcely have time even for their families. It just isn’t realistic to expect Paterno to spend his time trying to ovderride administration officials and police the activities of a guy who had not in point of fact been charged with any crime, and who was no longer Paterno’s responsibility in the first place.
If we are to assume that anyone should have notified the local police, McQueary would probably be the number one person to have done that. Secondarily, Curley and Schultz would come next.
Starving Artist, is this because you truly believe that Paterno did nothing wrong…or because you deeply admire the man, and don’t want to believe he’s guilty of any wrong doing? Because I’m really sensing the latter here.
Thirdly would be Sandusky’s wife
Fourth: Penn State towel boy
Fifth: Jim at the Quicki-Mart down the street
Sixth: ESPN Game Day crew
Seventh: Jesus
…
Nine Hundred Fifty Second: OJ
…
Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Second: Joe Paterno
How about confonting Sandusky? Asking him a question or two? Like "Why are you bringing boys here to shower, and why were **you nekkid with them? Don’t you think that might seem indiscreet??’
WARNING!!! WAG to follow!!
I think that Paterno and Sandusky were friends. They had a history together. And that history clouded his judgement. I mean, who wants to believe the worst about a friend? Anybody talks smack about your friend, even from another friend, your instinct is to stick up for him. Or at least disbelieve what is being said about him. I get that. I would do that. At least until I saw some actual evidence.
But Paterno was the leader of the Football Program. He still is the most recognizable part of that University.* He had an obligation to protect it.* He should have asked Sandusky some pointed questions in an effort to protect the Program and the University. Because even IF Sandusky is telling the truth (I know, he isn’t), but if he was…it was* still *something that could damage the University. And that was Paterno’s duty. He should have done at least that.
If he had, his sterling reputation would still be intact.
Again, I don’t think Paterno is a bad guy. I think he is a good guy. He is certainly not a criminal. But this was a huge failing.
False premise. We have nothing but supposition to conclude that Paterno ever found out any such thing, so what I would do is pointless.
I pretty much answered this just above in my post to Carmady.
Can you not see what you’re saying here? Essentially you’re saying it’s okay to unjustly screw over members of one group of people who may be innocent because unrelated innocent people in another group often get screwed over anyway.
In other words, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Were you talking about Penn State when you made the ‘tiniest hint’ remark, or as general practice? Since I wouldn’t classify McQueary’s statement as a tiny hint, I supposed you were talking about general practice so I answered accordingly.
Nope, sorry, I don’t think so. Just like the type of person who would insist that there is no room for doubt in a rape allegation, you are insisting that there is no room for doubt in child sex abuse allegations. Plus I was speaking again in general terms as I thought you were.
My general statement are relevant in a general sense, which is how I intended them.
You see what you’re doing here? I never said the Penn State incident was the ‘merest hint’. You were the one who said the police should be called anytime there MIGHT be a suspicion of child abuse, which, since the Penn State issue could hardly be characterized as a slight hint, I assumed once again you were speaking of what should be done as general practice.
How often do you really think that happens? Truly? Do you think it’s fun for children to have to say that someone molested them and go through all the craziness of that? I guarantee you there are a vanishingly small number of incidents of children wrongfully alleging sex abuse.
No children were involved in reporting this incident. McQueary reported it. So there was ZERO chance that this was a wrongful accusation.
There WAS sex abuse in this situation… so the police should have been called, obviously.
Merely calling the police does not lead to an arrest. It leads to an investigation. That would have been fully warranted in this situation.
Again, general practice, etc., etc. You’ve taken a whole slew of comments I made in a general sense and applied them to the Penn State issue, which is a completely different ball of wax. So essentially for this whole post we’re simply talking at cross purposes.
As I do you.
The last time we talked you were a brand-new mom, and I’d been wondering how smoothly or not the transition had been going. Thinking back to the time when my daughter was born, I imagine that ‘pretty busy’ is a bit of an understatement.
Here’s the thing: I don’t believe he did anything wrong. And I don’t believe anyone under similar circumstances who did the same thing would be doing anything wrong. So it especially galls me that Joe Paterno, a man who has lived his entire life as a man of high moral character, has been scapegoated like this just so a high-ranking head will roll.
Well then, let me provide a WAG of my own: I wouldn’t think that Paterno, a guy who lived his whole life in the masculine world of big time college football, would feel particularly kindly toward a longtime friend who he learned was engaging in what amounted to homosexual sodomy with children. Further, he didn’t try at all to get McQueary to sweep what he saw under the rug, nor did he try to sugar coat or play down Sandusky’s behavior when he reported it to the university’s administration. So I don’t really think we can suppose that Paterno was covering for Sandusky out of loyalty as a friend.
With regard to moral failings, no one is perfect. No one. But doesn’t one’s past history for integrity count for anything? I would expect that in a just world, Paterno would be forgiven an error in judgement for not contacting the local police, because we all make mistakes and he undoubtedly thought he was doing the right thing. I am just not of the opinion that people should be excoriated and harshly punished because of unintentional wrongdoing, and especially not when there’s been no precedent set to suggest they should have acted otherwise to begin with
You contrasted Paterno’s testimony (“sexual in nature”) with McQueary’s (“extreme sexual contact”), and you attempted to bolster McQueary’s version, as this one was more helpful to the arguments you’ve been making in this thread. To that end, you noted one aspect that tended to weaken Paterno’s testimony (that it was “self-serving”) and one aspect that tended to strengthen McQueary’s (that he “swore” to it). You did not note at that time what you apparently acknowledge now - that McQueary’s testimony was also self-serving and Paterno’s testimony was also sworn. Had you done that, it would have undermined what you were trying to accomplish, because the “sworn” and “self-serving” aspects would then not have been a reason to believe McQueary’s version over Paterno’s. That’s what I referred to as “nice footwork”.
Of course, by the standards of this board in general and this thread in particular, this is no big deal. There’s far more dishonesty being perpetuated by those eager to find justification to condemn others to whom they smugly feel so superior. But in the context of your ongoing spittle-dribbling attacks on Starving Artist’s integrity, I found it amusing. Starving Artist is one guy taking on an entire gang, and if he misses this or fails to respond to that he needs to get cut some slack on that account. You, on the other hand, are the leader (at least in post count) of this gang of bullies. You can afford to adhere to a higher standard.
Paterno can be forgiven. However, that doesn’t mean that he should continue to get paid $1,000,000 a year to be the coach of Penn State and be the single most recognizable person affiliated with the school.
His error may have allowed numerous little children to be victimized. Contrast that with any one of a number of NCAA violations that coaches are justifiably fired over, or fired over the simple idea that the team does not perform as well as the boosters demand.
It’s been said earlier in this thread, by PSU alums and other seemingly knowlegable people, that JP and his football program were the largest force in building up PSU from a small time institution to a major state college. If this is correct, then PSU owes JP quite a lot, and shouldn’t be ditching the guy the second it becomes expedient to do so.
There’s a fundamental difference - in terms of whether one should keep one’s job - between a failing in the area of one’s core job responsibilities and a failure in an area that is at best ancillarily related to it.
