I agree, we’re now arguing over parsing emails when everyone else who read them and the Freeh report have all concluded what happened and moved on to the next phase. The facts are in general agreement; the vocal minority that doesn’t agree aren’t very interesting to me at this point.
Penn State was rotten to the core and deserves the punishment they are getting. Some students-athletes will be affected, and that’s unfortunate, but they are being given options. Fans and businesses in the area will just have to suck it up; the football team and the culture at Penn State are to blame, not the NCAA. This could happen at other schools with similar cults of personality and the football mentality; this serves as a warning to them that football isn’t above the institutions.
Because you’re saying that Paterno could have just kept it to himself, and that somehow by telling others instead of keeping it to himself, it’s proof that he was trying to do the right thing or something.
I am saying that there are good, self-serving reasons to justify telling the other bigwigs, so that argument doesn’t hold together well. It’s also not like they were the only witnesses to Sandusky’s abuse.
Around 2008, the mother of one of the victims called her son’s high school to report a possible sexual assault by Sandusky on her son. The school administration called the authorities. The authorities contacted the GA’s office which convened a grand jury. It’s not like McQueary really had a choice.
Seriously I don’t really know what you’re trying to argue. It’s like you haven’t been following this case at all and so it’s hard to figure out what you’re trying to say.
People are focused on the fact that Paterno and the other bigwigs abused their power and let sexual abuse occur and then cover it up. I don’t think that’s focusing on the wrong things at all.
Debatable, but if you look at the NCAA rulebook, it technically is within their purview. When you consider that the football program was built up while victims suffered, I don’t think it’s harsh enough at all.
The Freeh report answers this sufficiently and makes it clear that there were malicious, self-serving decisions made that involve Paterno and others.
It seems to be mostly a punitive measure as a message to others: “If anyone in the future thinks they can abuse their power to cover up corrupt motives, punishments will be extreme and you’ll lose wins, too.” Players don’t really care about this because, well, they’re the ones who won the games. All this really hurts is Paterno by punishing his legacy, as he was allowed to enjoy wins and rake in money for the school while victims suffered silently.
Removing the statue is justifiable too since he no longer represents what he once used to. There’s no way to talk about Paterno anymore without this incident coming to light, and keeping Paterno’s name in place generates more harm than possible good. That’s why he’s being erased.
Very untrue. This was a football problem, and it was also more than a football problem.
Why? We know he played an active role in the coverup. That’s more than sufficient reason to vilify him.