Yes, seriously. He was not accused of any wrong doing when PSU won the championships. PSU “allowed him to retire” at the first sign abuse. He was not longer working for the program, or helping them win after that date. I am not sure why you think his presence as a emeritus affected their on-field competitiveness.
There are emails where everyone was ready to turn the evidence over to the cops, then they talked to Joe Pa who convinced them that he would handle it internally. He over-ruled the administration and their legal obligation to report. And Sandusky was allowed to continue to rape little boys.
No, the entire culture of Penn State is built around the football program and the deification of Paterno. He could do no wrong. He hand picked his AD, he over ruled the campus police and the administration. He was the most powerful man at the college. That is what needs to be torn down.
Paterno *was *the athletics program. Everyone there served at his beck and call. If you believe otherwise you are naive. It permeated to all levels of the program.
I don’t buy this for a second. He knew, he didn’t care.
Before I read this thread, I just wanted to say that I think this is probably the best possible solution. No death penalty, but still rather punitive. Now let’s see if I change my mind by reading the thread.
Also, surely it goes without saying that I no longer support Paterno based on the new evidence, as I did previously–thinking there was no active malice.
I don’t think this is correct. I believe Curley changed his mind after thinking it over and speaking with Paterno. Then he speaks to Spanier and Schultz, and convinces them. Paterno wasn’t even directly involved in the later part, so how did he “overrule” anyone? That is just editorializing. These are grown adults who decided to do something another grown man advocated. Likely because, at that point, continuing the coverup made more sense that admitting significant wrong doing. Just the fact that you can impute some power imbalance when the only reason the other two were involved is because Paterno willingly told them is kinda weird. Does you boss confess things to you he is trying to keep secret, then overrule you when you suggest a course of action? All these people, who by your account are doing Paterno’s bidding, are independent enough to consult outside lawyers, email each other, investigate the '98 case, meet with Sandusky, and devise a plan of attack, all without Paterno’s involvement. What makes you think Paterno is pulling the strings?
Even if we accept all this as true, there will always be a “most powerful person on campus”. Why does the fact that he was afforded that power as a result of being a football coach instead of a dean, or a president, or a provost mean that the program he ran must suffer? Would you shut down an engineering dept. if the dean was too powerful?
Then why did he voluntarily involve other people? Again, the picture you paint of this dastardly tactician drunk on power and indifferent to human suffering just doesn’t match the actions he took. He certainly made significant mistakes, but he was, at best, a cog in a larger machine.
And now that I’ve read this thread, I have to say that, assuming you can transfer without losing your scholarship as someone said, I don’t see how the kids are affected, and they are the only ones who don’t deserve to be affected at the school
As for the claim that bad actions don’t undo good ones, I think that’s ridiculous. Good and evil is a balancing act. We don’t commend the serial killer for the old ladies he helps across the street. Winning some football games does arguably have some good to it, but there’s no way it balances out covering up rape. It is perfectly just to treat remove acknowledgement of Paterno’s wins.
The problem here, BTW, is not just that Paterno didn’t turn anyone in. It’s even that other people allowed themselves to be convinced by Paterno not to turn people in. We’ve got to make it where the downside to not turning people in is worse than the downside of doing so. If anything, this punishment is way too lenient to do this, but going any further hurts others.
One more thing–the analogy to buying stolen goods is flawed–because there’s actually a reason why not compensating people for the stolen goods is a bad idea. If you discover something you have purchased is stolen, there is now a big disincentive to turn it in. This really isn’t the case here–there’s no way the whistleblower on a rape case would wind up in worse shape than if they hadn’t whistleblown. If they can’t handle it any other way, putting it out in the press would cover it.
So USC, tOSU, Alabama and others shouldn’t have been penalized recently either?
When the most powerful person on campus is the football coach, you have a culture that is corrupt. He’s not supposed to be that important because football shouldn’t be driving the university; it should be other way around. I understand that you don’t acknowledge Joe Paterno’s power on the Penn State campus but you’re simply wrong. He and the football program were supreme. The engineering dean is supposed to be powerful over the engineering department. The football coach isn’t supposed to be able to overrule the college president in legal matters.
Paterno was the head of the beast. He wasn’t a cog in a machine, he was the machine. I don’t consider him a dastardly tactician, he was an ego driven man who knew that people would defer to him.
Actually, Joe Paterno WASN’T God at Penn State lately.
Oh, he ONCE was, but he’d had several bad seasons in recent memory, and his job was NOT secure. The administration had been TRYING, behind the scenes, to ease him out of the coaching job. Joe just refused to make it easier for them by retiring, and they didn’t have the balls to fire a legend.
People on these boards seem to think “Joe was an arrogant bastard who thought his word was law, and that HE ruled the whole university, and that’s why he covered up Sandusky’s crimes.”
I’d argue that it was just the opposite. Paterno knew that his program had gone downhill, that he was noi longer untouchable, and that he WOULD be fired if things didn’t go well. He couldn’t afford scandal OR more losing seasons.
Penn State USED to be known for recruiting kids of “good character,” and that WAS true for a long time. But over the past 10-15 years, there were a lot of troubling incidents involving players. What that suggests to me is that Joe was getting desperate and had started recruiting problem kids he would have shunned earlier.
Everyone else thinks Joe was on top of the world and COULDN’T be fired. Joe himself knew better. If a big scandal had happened when he WAS on top of the world, he might have done the right thing. But it happened when he was on thin ice, which may have convinced him that he COULDN’T do the right thing.
The first evidence we have of this coming to his attention was 1998. Penn St went 9-3, 9-3, and 10-3 in 1997/8/9. In 2005 they went 11-1. While the administration did want him out they knew they couldn’t touch him if he didn’t want to go. He hand picked his AD, a former player of his, to ensure he remained in charge. He continued to override administration officials and ruled over his program with no interference.
Yes, he was no longer the untouchable deity he had been, but he still wielded enough power to protect his legacy and allow the rape of children to continue under his watch.
No, but the lack of a scandal did. In other words, had it come out in 1998 that Sandusky was a rapist (and had been for much of the period during which Penn St was winning if recent reports are to be believed), then what effect might that have had on the program going forward? What if wins were vacated then? What if the program were put on probation? What if it just lost some reputation due to having had a predator working at the highest levels of the program (Sandusky was, after all, considered the heir-apparent at that point)?
Granted the penalities and such would have been unlikely in 1998 had the issue come right out, but the problem is that we’ll never know because they covered it up.
Further, the vacated wins was designed to be punitive. In particular, it’s really the only effective way to impact Joe Paterno’s legacy - by stripping him out of the record books.
I am more than okay with schools being punished by the NCAA for rules violations typically under the NCAA’s purview.
Why? Leave aside your bias against football. Assuming a coach does not gain his power through skullduggery and corruption, what is the problem? Why is it bad if people objectively decide they value football, or any other portion of a university, more than other areas? How does it signal corruption in any way? If anything, it’s the market speaking- people making independent choices on what they like and value. Why is that a bad thing?
Again, you have every right to feel that way, but your value judgement is uninformed by context and reality. It’s like saying movie stars shouldn’t make so much money because all they do is play make-believe. Even if there is a good argument that coaches should not be as well-compensated, or as powerful as they are, it does not really address the reality that they are treated that way solely because the public implicitly or explicitly wants them to be.
I don’t deny his power, I just think you are overstating it to make it seem as though he was orchestrating an elaborate coverup by fiat. That is simply not the case. Everyone here seems to be arguing by anecdote and emotional appeals. How about explaining how you think the role Paterno played, and the power he wielded, comports with the facts as we know them? Why is this all-powerful guy allowing outside DAs to investigate his coach? Why isn’t he present at the meeting with Sandusky or others? Why does he inform others nominally higher on the chain of command if he is really pulling the strings? Is all that conduct consistent with a man as powerful as you suggest? Or course not.
He didn’t overrule anyone. You keep saying that, yet there is no evidence or any credible allegation that such a thing happened. That he likely suggested a course of action to Curley, who then convinced two others to go along with it does not indicate he was overruling anyone. Why are you making excuses for people? They were not tools of Paterno, they were just short-sighted, selfish people who got caught trying to take the easy way out.
Again, more editorializing. Let’s look at how this supposedly omnipotent elderly man wielded his power. First, in '98, he “allows” his coach to be investigated by several people, including outside authorities. There is no evidence he attempted to affect the outcome of these investigations. In '01, he is told by McQueary about the shower incident. He tells Curley and Schultz the very next day. The next day, Shutlz consults the outside counsel. The next day Spanier, Curley, and Shultz meet to discuss the matter WITHOUT Paterno. They plan to investigate 1998 incident, and have Curley speak with Paterno, and Sandusky (separately). At no time do they plan to inform the police, only DPW and 2nd Mile. Their initial plan, untainted by Paterno’s perspectives, was to inform the Second Mile board chair, report the incident to the Dept. of Welfare, and tell Sandusky to avoid bringing children alone to the Lasch building.
After Curley spoke with Paterno, he changes his mind, telling the other that he feels it’s better to talk to Sandusky, and offer him professional help. They say that, if he is cooperative, they will work with him to handle informing the charity, but if he doesn’t cooperate, they will essentially revert back to the first plan. There was never an agreement to turn him over to the cops; nothing Paterno could subvert in “service to his ego”.
That is basically the extent of Paterno’s efforts to actively mastermind a coverup. How you think these are the actions of “the most powerful man on campus” is beyond me. Can you think of any other person so powerful you acted in such an impotent and subordinate way?
It would have likely had very little impact. The scandal would be fairly contained to one guy. Especially since, in 98, there is not evidence Paterno was aware the allegations prior to being told of the investigation. There is also no evidence he interfered with the investigation, or was involved in any way. Why do you think the program would suffer if they threw Sandusky to the wolves?
If you want to argue that they would have vacated wins regardless, than you can’t argue the NCAA’s current sanctions are a deterrent against covering up crimes since the sanctions would have been for having employed a criminal, not enabling, remaining silent about, or covering up crime. That said, your argument that turning him in would have made them less competitive on the field is less than compelling. Absent significant sanctions by the NCAA, I doubt the players would care much. Even after the Freeh report came out, PSU was not losing recruits or having trouble attracting talent. It was only when they were knee-capped by the NCAA that you started to see players leave.
By what logic would they punish PSU had they fessed up in 1998? Also, what do you think fessing up would have entailed? Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigated the incident. The county DA investigates, determines there is not enough evidence of a crime, and declines to press charges. Should PSU have notified Second Mile? Yes. but beyond that, what should they do? Are you supposed to have a news conference? Do you publicly accuse a guy of a crime that law enforcement has investigated, and found insufficient evidence for? What should they have done in your estimation?
Why does it behoove anyone to artificially impact Paterno’s legacy? What happened happened. Even beyond the fact that it wasn’t just Paterno winning those games, why does this make sense to you at all? By your logic, should be take away some career yards and TDs from OJ? Should we make a habit of denying bad people any place in the history books?
I have no bias against football; I love the sport, both at the professional and college level. My bias is that student athletes should be students first, and athletes second. I know that is difficult to accomplish with the way NCAA Div 1 football is currently set up but it’s not impossible to keep it in check.
Penn State had a complete lack of institutional control; where the college administration is required to exert control over the athletic programs. They are supposed to hold the coaches, staff, and athletes to rules of conduct. That clearly didn’t happen here; the football program told the administration what was going to happen and prevented the administration from following legal course of action. Yes, individuals hold the majority of the responsibility, but the culture that allowed the individuals to exert that control needs to be dismantled and rebuilt with the proper priorities.
You ask what is wrong if people set values this way? The problem is that a child rapist was allowed to go free and continue raping children because of those choices. Those kids are the only true victims here, everyone else is merely inconvenienced.
Please cite that last claim? Please note when the football program told the administration what was going to happen, and/or prevented them from any course of action? Just saying it was so doesn’t mean it happened. You presumably have access to the Freeh report. Please show me any evidence that supports your conclusion.
People liking football didn’t prevent a child rapist from being brought to justice. Sandusky’s victims are not the only victims either. It’s not a contest.
Yes, there are other victims. The parents and families of the victims, the people who worked at Second Mile because they wanted to help children and didn’t know they were providing free range victims for a pedophile, the people whose accomplishments at Penn State have been tarnished by all of this, the people who were betrayed on one level or another by the crimes and the coverup. But having your football team sanctioned does not make you a victim. At worst it’s a bummer.
Yes. Yes. Yes. And this is the issue with the sick culture problem. If there is also a sick culture at several other big-time football schools, then hitting Penn State hard is very, very important, to get them to realize that having a winning college football team should not be so exceedingly high in their list of priorities.
It’s important to make sure school administrations don’t grant outsize importance to their sports programs. I don’t think this is intended as a wake up call to fans, nor should it be. I think you and brickbacon may have been talking past each other on that issue.
What about about all the business people who now will not be able to afford their mortgage or their tuition? What about all the scholarships they lost? Yes, no need to feel too pad for star players who have other options, but when you knee-cap the lifeblood of a town, there are going to be innocent victims.
When I see evidence that actually happens, I’ll feel sorry for those people. I also won’t blame the NCAA since there was likely to be some dropoff in fan support anyway since the leadership of PSU and its football team covered up the actions of a child rapist, which I think might’ve made some think twice about buying Penn State sweatshirts.
They’ll go somewhere else. Nobody is being forced to leave Penn State, nobody will stay without knowing the score, and I believe it was cited elsewhere that players who transfer out won’t take scholarships away from anyone else.
Listen, I completely agree with you in the abstract. I think people value sports, particularly football, too much. I think it’s far too intertwined with what many colleges and universities do. But that has nothing to do with the present situation.
Football was incidental to this story. It just makes for visible targets of people’s ire. That’s why this story is getting much more press than the scandal at the Citadel or the one at U of M.
Please explain to me why you think something like this would not have happened absent the existence of a powerful football program? Please feel free to link to evidence from the Freeh report that supports the notion that this coverup was done to protect the football team, or that it was orchestrated by Paterno. The evidence that exists is scant, and does little to support the notion that the football program was corrupt, or that they were a necessary condition to allow this to happen.