11/21/24
January 22, 2012
Penn State Coach Joe Paterno Dies: Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno has died after a battle with lung cancer, his family said. He was 85. Penn State's Board of Trustees fired him in November after a grand jury indictment revealed that Paterno was told former assistant Jerry Sandusky engaged in a sexual act with a 10-year-old boy in the team's showers but did not notify police. He was the winningest coach in college football history after 46 years leading the school.
Good.
That sounds cruel, but with him dead, his legacy is going to slowly solidify into "Winningest football coach", with a small paragraph at the end about Jerry Sandusky, rather than a lengthy entry on JS and then a footnote.
posted by Bonkers at 10:53 AM on January 22, 2012
.*
posted by Etrigan at 10:54 AM on January 22, 2012
It's sad that he went out this way, but it was his own fault. If any of the people who knew what Mike McQueary saw had told the police -- even McQueary himself -- it would have been the police's scandal if they didn't investigate.
The one positive out of the situation unfolding the way it did is that Paterno showed what can happen these days if you don't report child sex abuse, no matter how important you are.
The Penn Staters who've been in denial are going to be even worse now. They've been using town halls to yell at school officials about Paterno's firing and the hiring of a coach from outside the program. What should make them mad is the child sex abuse coverup.
posted by rcade at 10:57 AM on January 22, 2012
The confluence of events is surreal -- not to say that he didn't have an inkling he might have cancer prior to all this, or that nature didn't just take its course normally for an 85yo man, but damn. Sad ending, but it could have been a lot more peaceful for him if he'd done what he knew he should do, as a man in a position of great power to effect great change at the institution.
posted by evixir at 11:35 AM on January 22, 2012
A few months after the whole Sandusky thing is finished and settled, regardless of the outcome, we'll get to remember JoePa for the positives he's done: the coaching wins, the impact he made on his players' lives, the legacy he left behind. We as a general public are still angry over what's happened (as we should be).
.
posted by NerfballPro at 12:03 PM on January 22, 2012
While time will lighten most of the black mark that is currently on his legacy, it will never erase all of it.
A sad way for a once proud man to make his exit.
posted by dviking at 12:37 PM on January 22, 2012
While time will lighten most of the black mark that is currently on his legacy, it will never erase all of it.
I agree. This is the worst scandal in the history of college football, and Paterno's role in it will never be forgotten. But he'll always be lionized in Pennsylvania.
posted by rcade at 12:42 PM on January 22, 2012
Think about Paternos legacy had he done the right thing and made sure Sandusky was stopped. Sandusky continued to rape young boys for years after Paterno and the Penn Sate hierarchy should have stopped him.
In the mid 80's I was a big Paterno - Penn State guy, but I will now remember Paterno more for what he didn't do, then what he did
posted by RexZeitgeist at 04:34 PM on January 22, 2012
I'm reserving my angst in the Penn State scandal for the person who actually committed the crime. I don't think anyone who was positively impacted by Paterno over the years is going to regret knowing him because of Sandusky's actions.
At any rate this whole thing reminds me a bit of an old couple where one dies, then the other dies shortly thereafter because somewhere inside, the survivor just doesn't know how to go on. In this case, it was Paterno and the Penn State coaching job. When he lost that, that was it.
Rest in peace, Coach.
posted by TheQatarian at 05:16 PM on January 22, 2012
My condolences for the Paterno family.
I am, however, gleefully awaiting the talking heads as they try and walk the minefield of being respectful for the recently departed, but not TOO respectful because of the scandal, but not TOO blunt because of his prior legacy.
Regardless of what they say/write about him, they'll be getting hate mail from one side or the other.
posted by grum@work at 05:31 PM on January 22, 2012
Regardless of what they say/write about him, they'll be getting hate mail from one side or the other.
Which is precisely why I will not allow myself to comment further. RIP JoePa.
.
posted by Howard_T at 10:35 PM on January 22, 2012
.
posted by BornIcon at 08:23 AM on January 23, 2012
Watching the Penn Staters mourn and cry and hold vigils makes you understand just how strong the PSU Kool-aid is!!
posted by Debo270 at 10:05 AM on January 23, 2012
Most people, thankfully, will view Joe Pa's life in totality: his college football achievements, the work he and his wife did for the school at large, the off-the-field quality of players who graduated after playing for him (very few trouble-makers).
There will come a time for the BS, and it should not be considered the focus of his career.
posted by jjzucal at 04:42 PM on January 23, 2012
What seems to be the trend is that the people who actually knew him see the good in him. The ones who only read about him see more of the bad.
Read a interview with Shane Conlan, who described his feelings for Paterno, but also talked about going to see him at his (Paterno's) home in November. He said with all the craziness going on outside his front door, Paterno only wanted to focus on Conlan, what he was currently doing, and how his family (including his parents, who he asked about by name) were doing. He asked Conlan if he understood why he was so tough on him and his teammates while they were at Penn State, then explained it wasn't to necessarily make them into All-Americans or All-Pro, but to prepare them for the challenges of their live with their families, their friends, and their businesses they pursued.
As has been said so often, there's blame to be thrown at many people, but I will always remember Paterno mainly for the good. I'll blame Jerry Sandusky for the horrible.
posted by dyams at 05:10 PM on January 23, 2012
What seems to be the trend is that the people who actually knew him see the good in him. The ones who only read about him see more of the bad.
But what does that really mean? It could mean that the people that actually knew him see him as a complex individual, as we all are, and so the good isn't hidden by the bad.
Of course, people also tend to make excuses and give the benefit of the doubt when dealing with people they know and like. Emotions can cloud your vision of someone.
He asked Conlan if he understood why he was so tough on him and his teammates while they were at Penn State, then explained it wasn't to necessarily make them into All-Americans or All-Pro, but to prepare them for the challenges of their live with their families, their friends, and their businesses they pursued.
I have no doubt he tried to install those traits in his players, which is why it's so disappointing to see Paterno fail so miserably when he could have made a difference.
posted by justgary at 05:32 PM on January 23, 2012
Not that I want to get back into this, but Paterno never had the benefit of having every bit of information the media, as well as all of us, had when all this went public. We went from knowing nothing about the issue at Penn State to knowing many alleged issues in a matter of days. As far as I know, McQueary went to Paterno, reported (in some way) what he had seen, and, according to Paterno, he (Paterno) wasn't made aware of the severity of what may have been taking place, but also said he felt unable to adequately deal with the situation. He then reported it to his superior.
I realize Paterno is the biggest name in State College, as well as Penn State University, but I'm assuming he still is required to follow procedures at the school. The issue he was told about happened the day before, and if he thought it involved "fondling," not full-blown rape, he probably thought, at the time, that reporting it to his superior was the proper thing to do.
I work at a school where the basketball coach is very well known, a larger personality than anyone else in the area, not to mention the school itself. If he suspected something may have taken place that was obviously wrong, he would be expected to report it to the superintendent of schools. Now, if Paterno was to come upon a crime being committed, like McQueary did, he, like anyone, should have stopped what was taking place and immediately called for police.
I'm not necessarily taking blame away from Paterno, or anyone, but I'm saying he likely had no idea the magnitude of the situation. The rest of the world was bombarded with practically every aspect of it, all at once, a few months ago and that is what created the outrage we felt. Once Paterno found out everything we did, when we did, he obviously felt he should have done more. Who wouldn't feel that way, in hindsight. But not lessening the understanding of who the true victims are in this tragedy, I still feel Paterno was who the University wanted to be seen as the scapegoat, and in a large way, it did. But it's unfair.
If you see your friend spank his child, do you report him to the police, or child protection immediately? If you find, years later when your friend's children are grown, that they were beaten consistently as young children, does everyone in town who knows them throw the blame on you? After all, you knew something happened, so why didn't you act? I always hear stories about people who do bad things, and also about the people who know them who are shocked by what happened, and say that even though they saw some strange things, they never would have believed the person could have been capable, or guilty of such horrible acts.
It's the luxury we have in the PSU issue now of looking back with hindsight at an issue we have a multitude of alleged facts about. We now have all the answers. But we will never truly know what Joe Paterno actually knew, and why he acted (or reacted) in the way he did. But I refuse to think he would purposely choose to ignore a child rapist if he indeed knew the severity of the single issue reported to him.
posted by dyams at 06:10 PM on January 23, 2012
As far as I know, McQueary went to Paterno, reported (in some way) what he had seen, and, according to Paterno, he (Paterno) wasn't made aware of the severity of what may have been taking place, but also said he felt unable to adequately deal with the situation.
He wasn't able to adequately deal with the situation. That's why he was supposed to call the police! Even if all Paterno knew was that Sandusky was seen engaging in some kind of inappropriate groping with a 10-year-old boy at 10 p.m. on a Friday night in the Penn State showers, that should have been enough to alarm and horrify him.
Instead, Paterno put on his somebody-else's-problem glasses and Sandusky continued to have access to the Penn State facilities, running youth football camps there as recently as 2010. And if the charges are true, he kept on raping kids.
posted by rcade at 07:17 PM on January 23, 2012
I just feel it doesn't satisfy most to blame the adult who actually witnessed the act taking place, then walked away without doing anything and waited several hours to tell anyone (then didn't graphically describe what he saw out of respect for the coach) or the bosses of the football coach who the football coach reported it to, because it makes people feel better to take down the big name when something awful happens. McQueary is the one who knows better than anyone what was possibly happening and could have stopped it right then, right there, in a variety of ways, but he doesn't appear sensational enough for society today.
My problem is I like to sometimes look at things in ways others don't want to, and I'm sure I'll get trashed for this, but that's me. Probably get me and/or my comments banned.
posted by dyams at 07:57 PM on January 23, 2012
I just feel it doesn't satisfy most to blame the adult who actually witnessed the act taking place ... because it makes people feel better to take down the big name when something awful happens.
Psychoanalyzing people who disagree with you is an obnoxious form of argument.
Paterno was celebrated for his integrity and held out as a counterexample to all the cheaters in college athletics. This was especially true among the Penn State community, which spread the "may no act of ours bring shame" line from the school's alma mater as if the school and coach were of exceptional and inviolate ethical character.
So naturally, Paterno was expected along with McQueary and the other sorry actors in this scandal to do the right thing. And because he had been raised the highest among them, his reputation fell the farthest.
Want to know what would have made me feel better? Finding out Paterno did more to stop Sandusky than the indictment suggested. But that explanation never came.
Probably get me and/or my comments banned.
Seven years is a long time to fear the banhammer.
posted by rcade at 08:25 PM on January 23, 2012
Probably get me and/or my comments banned.
Wow. Does this place have form I don't know about in terms of banning unpopular opinions? You've jumped in with both feet on a couple of polarizing issues and then complained when people pushed back.
posted by yerfatma at 09:07 PM on January 23, 2012
No, I don't care if people push back. The locker room thread talking about deleting posts makes me wonder about ever offering my own opinion when I possibly know it won't jibe with the opinions of specific members. It runs the risk of making this site more and more bland every day.
I suppose I may be the only person who has noticed how popular media love to take down an iconic figure when given the chance, and that in no way means I agree completely with Paterno's reaction to all of this. It's just sad how people have to now feel like outcasts if they want to say anything positive or focus on the good parts of a person's 85 year life.
posted by dyams at 09:30 PM on January 23, 2012
I suppose I may be the only person who has noticed how popular media love to take down an iconic figure when given the chance
Do you really think you're the only person who has noticed that the media tend to run whatever will sell?
It's just sad how people have to now feel like outcasts if they want to say anything positive or focus on the good parts of a person's 85 year life.
I hope you're not seriously claiming the "outcast" label because some people on an internet forum disagree with you. Really, think about it. If you need everyone to nod their heads in time to your opinions in order not to feel like an "outcast", I think the solution to that problem lies elsewhere than in a web forum's policies.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:38 PM on January 23, 2012
The locker room thread talking about deleting posts makes me wonder about ever offering my own opinion when I possibly know it won't jibe with the opinions of specific members.
This is ridiculous. Please show me one example where anyone has been banned because of a differing opinion to anyone. There comes a point, especially with politics, where it's no longer about sports. In that case, it doesn't belong here, regardless of the opinion. And that thread reached that point.
I suppose I may be the only person who has noticed how popular media love to take down an iconic figure when given the chance
Ever notice how they also build them up? Ex. Tebow? It's the Yen to the Yang, you don't have one without the other.
posted by justgary at 09:41 PM on January 23, 2012
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, llb. I honestly don't care so much if people agree with me, and I'm not intentially trying to make people angry. Like an earlier post said, if people mourn and are upset about the man's passing they're drinking the strong PSU kool-aid. And I'm not only speaking of this site, but reaction everywhere.
posted by dyams at 10:08 PM on January 23, 2012
It's true, dyams. To have a decent discussion, there needs to be some common ground or something productive that can come from it - maybe a new thought, idea, perspective with a genuine willingness to listen/process what the other side is saying in good faith. There just isn't any chance of that with this topic. It is too fraught with emotion on both sides. That is why I refrained from commenting in this thread. Just to let you know that you aren't on an island here, but sometimes the best approach is to just to say nothing or avoid the topic.
posted by bperk at 09:44 AM on January 24, 2012
I honestly don't care so much if people agree with me, and I'm not intentially trying to make people angry.
C'mon, dude. Surely you recognize that comments like "it makes people feel better to take down the big name when something awful happens" and "I like to sometimes look at things in ways others don't want to" are going to make people angry. You're portraying yourself as the only enlightened free thinker in a crowd of dopes.
Before you got into the psychoanalysis, I thought this was a fairly balanced discussion of Paterno's legacy, with several people acknowledging the good.
posted by rcade at 10:24 AM on January 24, 2012
Not to change the subject back to the original thread, but the more thought I give this story, the less I care for Joe Paterno and his legacy.
While I never have been very fond of coaching longevity records, even a bad coach can reach some impressive numbers if they hang around forever, it is obvious to me that if Paterno had left when the rest of us have to retire he would have been long gone before this happened. Did his quest for that "winningest coach" record cloud his judgement, or did old age cloud his judgement? Not picking on senior citizens, I hope to be one someday, but clearly a man in his mid to late 70's might not be as focused on matters outside of his priorities as he would have earlier.
As with others that have fallen in disgrace, he was held up as the pinnacle, so he had a lot farther to fall. Sadly, not the only case of this we've seen in the past couple of years.
Sorry for the interruption, back to banning comments and psychoanalysis.
posted by dviking at 11:16 AM on January 24, 2012
Like an earlier post said, if people mourn and are upset about the man's passing they're drinking the strong PSU kool-aid.
I think the reaction is much more nuanced than that. But I think also that you need to understand the concept of disgrace. This is what it means: that you've done something that people consider to be very wrong, and that (at least for now) cannot be set aside when they judge your character. People can mourn and be upset about the man's passing, and others will understand that (although, as an aside, I have always thought it rang false when people pretend to be deeply moved by the passing of someone whom they did not know personally, and certainly if that person's claim to fame is in an area such as sports rather than curing cancer or something...but I digress). But if someone dies in disgrace, you can't expect people to pretend that the stain isn't present. I really hope you don't expect people to praise Paterno's football achievements while keeping mum about this significant failing, which allowed people to be harmed in ways that no championship loss could ever approach.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:14 PM on January 24, 2012
what lbb said.
posted by dviking at 12:41 PM on January 24, 2012
I really hope you don't expect people to praise Paterno's football achievements while keeping mum about this significant failing, which allowed people to be harmed in ways that no championship loss could ever approach.
However, when we were talking about this story, it was totally different. We were supposed to be saddened about the tragedy b/c he was young and sad for his family. The guy we were supposed to be mourning was a rapist.
posted by bperk at 01:04 PM on January 24, 2012
Err, uhm, that's a long way around to say it's not ok to feel badly for a father who lost a son unless you think the dad was at the party where his son assaulted the two girls.
Look, you guys like JoePa and that's fine. I don't care one way or the other; it's all an unfortunate story to me, but you're going to have to do some serious mental contortions to not see the Sandusky case as a stain on Paterno's legacy.
posted by yerfatma at 01:09 PM on January 24, 2012
I think you're mischaracterizing LBB's remarks in that discussion, Bperk. She was talking about feeling sympathy for the guy's parents.
posted by rcade at 01:13 PM on January 24, 2012
It makes no sense. In that thread, it was about his sad family, even though we didn't know them. This thread is supposed to be about Paterno's goods and bad, and since we don't know him, why should we be sad anyway.
I understand that this is defining Paterno's legacy, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It doesn't mean that it has to define his legacy for Penn State alum, fans, and players either. And, if you reject the idea that mental contortions are required to not see this as a stain, that means you have been drinking Kool Aid or something. I am not and have never been a Penn State fan or a Paterno fan, ever. I have no love for child molesters and I think they are all evil. Still, I have come to a different conclusion about Paterno's role than the majority. So, I think that should be okay and not attributed to some suspect mental contortions or Kool Aid or any other comments designed to de-legitimize my thought processes.
posted by bperk at 01:28 PM on January 24, 2012
Drop by Penn State. And take a logic class. Seriously.
posted by yerfatma at 02:01 PM on January 24, 2012
This is exactly why I shouldn't have got into this argument. All I got was an asshole response. Thanks for that.
posted by bperk at 02:04 PM on January 24, 2012
I understand that this is defining Paterno's legacy, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It doesn't mean that it has to define his legacy for Penn State alum, fans, and players either. And, if you reject the idea that mental contortions are required to not see this as a stain, that means you have been drinking Kool Aid or something.
Perhaps you can explain how that's the case.
Mind you, I see a difference between "defining Paterno's legacy" and "a stain". The former is simplistic and reductionist, the latter is an acknowledgement of a wrong that is not somehow canceled out by any number of righteous deeds. Big, big difference.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:45 PM on January 24, 2012
This is exactly why I shouldn't have got into this argument. All I got was an asshole response.
Of course. It's those of us with the scales over our eyes who are causing the problem. If only we would see everything your way.
posted by yerfatma at 02:58 PM on January 24, 2012
It's those of us with the scales over our eyes who are causing the problem. If only we would see everything your way.
Find me where I said or implied any such thing. Maybe where I said I would rather not be confused of "drinking Kool Aid" if I disagree? Or perhaps when I rejected your mental contortions statement? If I go back to logic class, will you work on your reading comprehension?
posted by bperk at 04:40 PM on January 24, 2012
It's true, bperk. And I'm fairly certain other members feel the same way and often hesitate to post because of just that. I can't convince anyone I'm not really motivated by the need to have everyone agree with my points, but I still choose to post knowing I'm going to get lambasted for not agreeing with a segment of the members. Kind of strange, but it won't stop me from posting. And I do try not to respond to other members in a way that makes them feel stupid. And for the record, I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. It's the little jabs that go along with them that aren't necessary. Not saying I have never done it, but I try not to.
posted by dyams at 04:44 PM on January 24, 2012
This is exactly why I shouldn't have got into this argument. All I got was an asshole response. Thanks for that.
That's hardly "all you got".
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:45 PM on January 24, 2012
That's hardly "all you got".
I can't change it now. But, thank you for a real response.
I want to respond without re-arguing the whole Paterno thing, but it is difficult to do so. I'll just say that I'm not entirely certain that the way he handled the case indicates a moral failing on his part. And, if I go with that, then why would I consider it a stain on his legacy?
posted by bperk at 04:54 PM on January 24, 2012
The company from which I am retired was forced to put a strong ethics policy into place because of some minor misconduct while performing work on a government contract. A clear chain of reporting was set up, annual ethics training for all was started, and all employees were encouraged to report anything that seemed out of place. The thing that made it work was the part that forced those to whom the problem was reported to provide feedback to the reporting party. Not only was the reporting party told of the results of the investigation, he was also given alternatives that he could pursue if he was not satisfied that the remedy for the problem was sufficient. From what I could determine from the various things that my son was given during his undergrad time at Penn State, the university did stress ethical behavior, but there was no clear policy stated. Nothing told to anyone seeing a problem what to do about it, and more importantly, there was no provision for feedback to the individual. I agree that the situation in this case called for some reporting to law enforcement, but McQuarrie was the only one who witnessed the act, and while he should have called the police, by the time they would have arrived, the crime is done, there is no evidence, and there is only McQuarrie, a scared kid and a respected professor emeritus to interview.
Now McQuarrie does what he thinks is right and goes to Joe Paterno, his boss. Paterno is given a foggy account of what's going on, and he calls his boss, the Athletic Director. In a later meeting, after having talked with McQuarrie, AD Curley and Schultz, the head of campus security, discuss things with Paterno. At that time, they supposedly reassured him that they would take care of things. Joe Paterno can be blamed for only 2 things. The first is trusting those with whom he had had a long relationship and had never been given reason to distrust. The second is being the most famous person involved, so rather than throw all fault upon the relative nonentities in the case, it is heaped upon Paterno. There was no clear emphasis that Paterno should be responsible for doing anything more, and Paterno (as well as all of the Penn State people involved) had no idea of the extent of Sandusky's crimes. It was not until much later, after another report of misbehavior by Sandusky with a high school wrestler, that the police and Attorney General's Office began their investigation. Other than Curley's and Schultz's failure to report the problem to the police, there is not a lot here. As despicable as Sandusky's acts were, their extent was unknown to most, and those who insist there was an organized cover-up are sensationalizing the situation.
posted by Howard_T at 05:29 PM on January 24, 2012
I'll just say that I'm not entirely certain that the way he handled the case indicates a moral failing ...
That's your prerogative, but I think it's a significant moral failing to have credible knowledge of a child being molested without doing everything in your power to stop it. He should have called the police and made sure they were investigating the allegation.
In November, Paterno called the situation "one of the great sorrows of my life" and said, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." He was right.
posted by rcade at 05:30 PM on January 24, 2012
There was no clear emphasis that Paterno should be responsible for doing anything more ...
As weeks passed after McQueary talked to him and Curley and Schultz began the cover-up, you don't think Paterno had a responsibility to make sure the crime was being investigated? Coaches aren't allowed to ignore possible NCAA violations, no matter how ticky-tack. This was far more serious.
It was not until much later, after another report of misbehavior by Sandusky with a high school wrestler, that the police and Attorney General's Office began their investigation.
You know why that was investigated? A school official called the police!
posted by rcade at 05:39 PM on January 24, 2012
I would prefer not to wade into the Penn State / Paterno part of this discussion, but I do want to chime in to say that unpopular opinions and disagreements with the the opinions of the moderators here are not punished by banning or comment deletions. Healthy discussion about sport is a positive thing for this community as long as we all remain civil.
posted by scully at 06:53 PM on January 24, 2012
Joe Posnanski: "In the moments after Joe Paterno died, it became common for people to write and say that he died of a broken heart. He did not. Joe Paterno died of lung cancer and the complications it caused. He did not die a bitter or broken man. I know this because I spent time with Paterno in his hospital room during the last weeks of his life."
posted by rcade at 08:47 PM on January 24, 2012
I was waiting for Posnanski's article.
posted by justgary at 09:29 PM on January 24, 2012
I'll just say that I'm not entirely certain that the way he handled the case indicates a moral failing on his part. And, if I go with that, then why would I consider it a stain on his legacy?
I think there's a pretty clear line between those who find no fault with Paterno's actions/lack thereof, and those who do. If you find no fault in his handling of the situation, then there's really no more to be said. If you think instead that he could have and should have done things differently, then I guess it's a question of whether you consider it to be a moral failing (and if not, what other kind would it be?).
I have no trouble imagining that Paterno was horrified, confused, stunned, disbelieving, any or all variations of "omgwtfdoidonow?" when McQuarrie came to him. I have no trouble imagining him momentarily paralyzed by the situation. But I believe he had a moral responsibility to act nevertheless, and moreover to act in such a way that he knew the situation was resolved. If you reported such a thing to your superiors, and you heard nothing back, and the alleged perpetrator continued to use the facilities and conduct programs for vulnerable youth, would you consider that you had done your duty? I would not.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:24 AM on January 25, 2012
I have no trouble imagining that Paterno was horrified, confused, stunned, disbelieving, any or all variations of "omgwtfdoidonow?" when McQuarrie came to him. I have no trouble imagining him momentarily paralyzed by the situation. But I believe he had a moral responsibility to act nevertheless, and moreover to act in such a way that he knew the situation was resolved. If you reported such a thing to your superiors, and you heard nothing back, and the alleged perpetrator continued to use the facilities and conduct programs for vulnerable youth, would you consider that you had done your duty? I would not.
That's the way I feel. I can understand making a mistake, and being overwhelmed, and paralyzed. It's the fact that he never looked into it further when not only did nothing happen to Sandusky, but he continued to be present on campus and be involved with his youth program.
As much as I liked Paterno, that's hard for me understand.
posted by justgary at 11:41 AM on January 25, 2012
There are a couple of points that seem to be overlooked by those who question how Paterno could have allowed Sandusky to continue his use of campus facilities. I'll bullet point them:
...I believe that Curley and Schultz agreed to restrict Sandusky's use of campus facilities after the 2002 incident. My memory is faulty, but I remember reading this early in the furor.
...The Penn State University Park athletic facilities do not compare to your local high school gym. There are at least 5 major athletic facilities, each with its own locker rooms, weight rooms, and the like. Penn State's University Park campus is quite extensive, and Sandusky could have used (and I believe the record says he did use) other Penn State campuses, there are about 20 of them scattered around the state. Paterno might have known what was going on at Beaver Stadium or at the football practice facilities, but he would not have monitored places like Recreation Hall, The Bryce-Jordan Center, or the Natatorium. Short of having Sandusky "tailed" or enlisting the support of informants, there was no way Paterno could have known when and if Sandusky was on campus unless the two met by accident.
...Sandusky's activities with his foundation were beyond the control of Paterno or anyone else at Penn State. It is a private foundation, and while it might have received grants from Penn State and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the only control to be exercised is by the foundation's board of directors. If nobody let them know what was going on, they would not have done anything. Even if someone like Joe Paterno had approached them with an unproven suspicion, would they have made any move against Sandusky? My opinion is that they would do what any person or organization would do when someone makes such an accusation-defend your own turf.
Paterno's remark was, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Please note the operative words are "With the benefit of hindsight...". All of us are opining with that benefit, and until there is a lot more information about what really went on and what everyone knew, the picture will still remain cloudy.
posted by Howard_T at 02:17 PM on January 25, 2012
Short of having Sandusky "tailed" or enlisting the support of informants, there was no way Paterno could have known when and if Sandusky was on campus unless the two met by accident.
...or unless, having heard nothing back from the AD, he made it his business to know.
Sandusky's activities with his foundation were beyond the control of Paterno or anyone else at Penn State. It is a private foundation, and while it might have received grants from Penn State and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the only control to be exercised is by the foundation's board of directors. If nobody let them know what was going on, they would not have done anything. Even if someone like Joe Paterno had approached them with an unproven suspicion, would they have made any move against Sandusky?
So, if nobody told them, they couldn't be expected to do anything, and if somebody did tell them...they couldn't be expected to do anything?
My opinion is that they would do what any person or organization would do when someone makes such an accusation-defend your own turf.
Any person? Really? If someone had come to you with such an accusation about someone in your organization, would you have dummied up and "defended your turf"?
All of us are opining with that benefit, and until there is a lot more information about what really went on and what everyone knew, the picture will still remain cloudy.
If we never acted except when in possession of a crystal-clear picture, completely unambiguous, all the facts known, then harmful situations would be allowed to continue unabated, and all that we'd ever do would be pick up the pieces and say "oh dear".
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:24 PM on January 25, 2012
I believe that Curley and Schultz agreed to restrict Sandusky's use of campus facilities after the 2002 incident. My memory is faulty, but I remember reading this early in the furor.
That didn't happen. He continued to have access to the athletic building and an office there.
Sandusky was working out at Penn State's athletic facilities regularly all the way up until the indictment. He also ran overnight football camps for boys at other Penn State campuses for at least six years after 2002.
A teen said he was raped by Sandusky in his office at the Penn State football building in 2004.
posted by rcade at 02:30 PM on January 25, 2012
So, are you assuming that Paterno knew all along and just didn't care? Or is it more along the lines of he should have made it his business to know?
posted by bperk at 04:17 PM on January 25, 2012
Are you assuming Paterno was unaware Sandusky still had an office there and was using the facilities for eight years?
posted by rcade at 04:50 PM on January 25, 2012
I'm not assuming anything either way. I wish I had information as to whether Paterno or McQuarry knew Sandusky was hanging around or not, and why they weren't curious if they saw him out and about. So, did he see him at PSU? Did he and McQuarry ever talk about it again? I don't know. I wish I knew. Unfortunately, none of this was relevant to the grand jury's indictment, so they weren't answered.
posted by bperk at 05:43 PM on January 25, 2012
Unfortunate ending to his life, coming so soon after the horrible mess at Penn State. A legend, and the terrible transgressions of another individual won't change the positive impact he had on so many. Rest in peace.