Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal

So now you're accusing Paterno of being a pedophile? No big surprise, given your hysteria and rush to judgment.

Here are some additional questions for you.

When Paterno originally reported the guy to the AD (when he first became aware of the abuse) do you think he was unaware of the possible repurcussions to him or his program?

Wasn't he just as vulnerable (or moreso) then as now?

Did he do the right thing at the time without regard to the potential outcome?

Is it your position that he should have ignored the chain of command?

If you ever have any direct reports, do you want them to report to you or just do whatever they think is a good idea at the time? If they report to you in accordance with organizational policy, is it the employee's fault if you drop the ball?

What infraction of their duties will you allege in your reprimand or discharge of them? Failure to break the rules?

Gecko said:
Overruled, Facts already in evidence.

Do you usually protect predefines over children?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
So now you're accusing Paterno of being a pedophile? No big surprise, given your hysteria and rush to judgment.

Here are some additional questions for you.

When Paterno originally reported the guy to the AD (when he first became aware of the abuse) do you think he was unaware of the possible repurcussions to him or his program?

Wasn't he just as vulnerable (or moreso) then as now?

Did he do the right thing at the time without regard to the potential outcome?

Is it your position that he should have ignored the chain of command?

If you ever have any direct reports, do you want them to report to you or just do whatever they think is a good idea at the time? If they report to you in accordance with organizational policy, is it the employee's fault if you drop the ball?

What infraction of their duties will you allege in your reprimand or discharge of them? Failure to break the rules?
Click to expand...

So you are sticking up for a football program that knowingly kept quiet about a known pedifile sodomizing under privileged kids for 6 years.

Not once in your statements have you shown any sympathy for the victims or their families. You are more concerned ( as was Joe) about his image. How is that workin out for you now? :rofl:
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
So now you're accusing Paterno of being a pedophile? No big surprise, given your hysteria and rush to judgment.

Here are some additional questions for you.

When Paterno originally reported the guy to the AD (when he first became aware of the abuse) do you think he was unaware of the possible repurcussions to him or his program?

Wasn't he just as vulnerable (or moreso) then as now?

Did he do the right thing at the time without regard to the potential outcome?

Is it your position that he should have ignored the chain of command?

If you ever have any direct reports, do you want them to report to you or just do whatever they think is a good idea at the time? If they report to you in accordance with organizational policy, is it the employee's fault if you drop the ball?

What infraction of their duties will you allege in your reprimand or discharge of them? Failure to break the rules?
Click to expand...

Wayne, while I agree completely that there's a rush to judgement, if there truly was child sexual abuse we are required to report it -- it is illegal activity of the most heinous type and not up to our personal discretion.
 
Last time I checked, division I college coaches are still considered educators. Barely, I know :mad2:

No matter what the status of Pennsylvania's law for mandatory reporting in these situations, I personally cannot agree that only reporting an instance to one's workplace superior satisfies the obligation as an educator to ensure that the matter is addressed properly, and immediately.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Last time I checked, division I college coaches are still considered educators. Barely, I know :mad2:

No matter what the status of Pennsylvania's law for mandatory reporting in these situations, I personally cannot agree that only reporting an instance to one's workplace superior satisfies the obligation as an educator to ensure that the matter is addressed properly, and immediately.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's an Army thing, but we were taught that unlawful orders and illegal activities were to be reported to legal authorities -- Chain of Command no longer applied.

I don't know what the criminal penalties are for not reporting in Pennsylvania, but there sure will be civil penalties.
 
Geico266 said:
Prove any of my assertions wrong.
Click to expand...

Your posts in this thread are motivated exclusively by the fact that Penn State plays Nebraska this weekend.

Prove my assertion wrong.
 
If Paterno is guilty of something, he should be punished.

If he obeyed the law, followed the rules and complied with the reporting protocols of the institution, he should be commended.

The concept of due process has long-since disappeared from our system, so there's little chance that this case will be any different. Too bad.

dmccormack said:
Wayne, while I agree completely that there's a rush to judgement, if there truly was child sexual abuse we are required to report it -- it is illegal activity of the most heinous type and not up to our personal discretion.
Click to expand...
 
dmccormack said:
Maybe it's an Army thing, but we were taught that unlawful orders and illegal activities were to be reported to legal authorities -- Chain of Command no longer applied.

I don't know what the criminal penalties are for not reporting in Pennsylvania, but there sure will be civil penalties.
Click to expand...

If you were to be the Monday-morning quaterback re Paterno's decision, should he have:

1. Reported to the AD (with the expectation the AD would report to LEO)
2. Reported to law enforcement
3. Instructed the coach who witnessed the event to report to law enforcement

I'm pretty sure I would have quickly concluded that handling this deal:

1. was above my pay grade

2. had absolutely nothing to do with coaching the football team

3. should properly be handled by the Administration, and not by the football coach.

and would have done what Paterno did (assuming he quickly notified the AD that he had become aware of the event through his assistant who was an eyewitness.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
If you were to be the Monday-morning quaterback re Paterno's decision, should he have:

1. Reported to the AD (with the expectation the AD would report to LEO)
2. Reported to law enforcement
3. Instructed the coach who witnessed the event to report to law enforcement
Click to expand...

My answer would be 4. all of the above :dunno:
 
I am very comfortable, here in my ivory tower.
 
wabower said:
Would you consider the risk of getting your ass sued off if you were wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm holding back my judgement for Joe Pa. But how does sincerely going to the cops and stating "I have what I believe to be a credible report of X from an eyewitness" open you up to litigation? Right now I see Joe Pa as the middle man the guy who saw it should a kicked some ass then dialed 911 right there on the spot. The entire story seems fishy to me in that I cannot fathom the sequence of events taking place how they are being portrayed. Shower episode and the reaction was to walk away quietly and tell a football coach? Who in turn reported it to an administrator who all did nothing?
 
wabower said:
Would you consider the risk of getting your ass sued off if you were wrong?
Click to expand...

The truth is an absolute defense to a slander suit :nono:

One could easily be sued for withholding critical information as someone who might have an special duty under the law. Perhaps Mr. Paterno may experience that very thing as this whole thing progresses.
 
Take a look at how this case is being pursued and the size of the net. If there was even thimble-full of evidence that Joe was culpable, he would be wading in the same do-do as the AD and Business VP. His exclusion from the party indicates to me that at least somebody in PA legal system thinks he handled it corrrectly. Based on the information to date, I think they know who screwed up, and it wasn't Joe. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean he won't be forced to retire.

bartmc said:
I'm holding back my judgement for Joe Pa. But how does sincerely going to the cops and stating "I have what I believe to be a credible report of X from an eyewitness" open you up to litigation? Right now I see Joe Pa as the middle man the guy who saw it should a kicked some ass then dialed 911 right there on the spot. The entire story seems fishy to me in that I cannot fathom the sequence of events taking place how they are being portrayed. Shower episode and the reaction was to walk away quietly and tell a football coach? Who in turn reported it to an administrator who all did nothing?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Take a look at how this case is being pursued and the size of the net. If there was even thimble-full of evidence that Joe was culpable, he would be wading in the same do-do as the AD and Business VP.

....
Click to expand...

The fact that a grand jury didn't indict or recommend charges is pretty telling.

Also, speaking of "telling," it's always interesting to me how many people are completely willing to believe what they're told.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not Paterno 's actions lived up to the letter of the law is, to me, not the issue. The issue is whether or not he lived up to the ethical standards he endeavors to instill in his players, and he standard he holds in the public eye.
If he is indeed the individual he wants us to believe he is, he would publicly explain why he made the decision he did, admit his mistake, that he put the interests of the football program ahead o the interests of these young boys, and resign the position.
 
wabower said:
Take a look at how this case is being pursued and the size of the net. If there was even thimble-full of evidence that Joe was culpable, he would be wading in the same do-do as the AD and Business VP. His exclusion from the party indicates to me that at least somebody in PA legal system thinks he handled it corrrectly. Based on the information to date, I think they know who screwed up, and it wasn't Joe. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean he won't be forced to retire.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether JoePa had a legal obligation to take it further or not (the Grand Jury did not return an indictment, so at least one group does not think he had a legal obligation - whether he handled it "correctly" hinges on a slightly different question). That question is whether - legal obligation or not - whether he had a moral or ethical obligation to take it further.

That's the question I see as being the key to his future, and it's not one that will be answered in a courtroom.

Related is whether the answer to the moral/ethical question reflects on JoePa and Penn State in general going forward.

What is legal is not always ethical. Or moral.
 
I think Joe did what he should have done and the system failed him. If the AD or PSU counsel had contacted the police the day he was informed by Paterno, would we be discussing this now? Would Paterno have been viewed as a good guy or a bad guy for reporting the perp? There's no evidence that he was trying to protect his program or that he had an ethical or moral obligation to do more than he did.

The witch-hunters are probably going to win this deal, and the breathless sensationalists in the media will drown out the more rational views that are being expressed by numerous individuals who are familiar with the situation and don't have a dog in the fight. Sad deal for all.
 
Moderator, kill this thread - has nothing to do with flying...

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
Moderator, kill this thread - has nothing to do with flying...

denny-o
Click to expand...

Threads in Hagar Talk do not have to all be aviation related. The forum description clearly states this:

Hangar Talk Open forum for discussion of any topic you like, aviation related or otherwise....

If things get too heated the MC can move it to SZ where "heated" discussions go. But there is no reason IMHO to kill it or even to move it to SZ at this point.

If all you want is aviation talk. There is a red board that has that as their policy. But the thing I like most about PoA is that we do not just talk aviation. We are more than just aviators and it is those other things that are as important to our social circle as the common thing of aviation.

Anyway, that is my $.02
 
alaskaflyer said:
Last time I checked, division I college coaches are still considered educators. Barely, I know :mad2:

No matter what the status of Pennsylvania's law for mandatory reporting in these situations, I personally cannot agree that only reporting an instance to one's workplace superior satisfies the obligation as an educator to ensure that the matter is addressed properly, and immediately.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

If you suspect a child is being abused, I think you have a minimum obligation as a human being to report it to the police. Not your boss, not your neighbor -the police.
 
TMetzinger said:
:yeahthat:

If you suspect a child is being abused, I think you have a minimum obligation as a human being to report it to the police. Not your boss, not your neighbor -the police.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Multiple fails for the people that were involved.

As for Joe, he may not be guilty of anything illegal. But in my mind he is guilty of a moral and ethical failure. He is not the only one, but one of several in this instance.
 
and the breathless sensationalists in the media will drown out the more rational views that are being expressed by numerous individuals who are familiar with the situation and don't have a dog in the fight.
Click to expand...

By "rational views" I assume you mean the ones who agree with your opinion?

Here's my "rational view." JoePa is not under indictment because he did not commit perjury (which is one of the charges facing the administrators). Nor did he fail to follow the letter of the law which requires educators to report suspected sexual abuse to the "person in charge" of the institution. I don't think he's in any danger of being charged with a crime.

However, my "rational view" is that he failed in his moral obligation to insure that his report was followed up with action. Having occupied a "corner office" for many years now, every institution or enterprise of which I've been a part honors the "chain of command" but also provides for feedback. Joe should have asked what was being done.

In my "rational view" here's what should happen:

1) The administrators who broke the law should be punished.
2) Joe should step up and admit that he should have at least followed up, and (even better) called the police when he received the report. He should admit that his judgement was clouded by concern for his friend and the university and football program. He should take this opportunity to resign and get out of the spotlight.
3) The father of the graduate student should step up and admit that his instruction to his son to "come home without reporting the situation" and think about it overnight was idiotic.
4) The graduate student (a 28 year old MAN at the time) should step up and admit that he should have immediately stopped the activity (you can see in the Grand Jury report that the activity was explicit), gone into JoePa's office and reported the activity immediately and followed up to make sure JoePa or SOMEone reported the incident to authorities.

That's my "rational view" based on the facts as presented in the Grand Jury "Finding of Facts" and the statements of the people involved.

And I have no dog in the hunt. My alma mater (Rice University) has never and will never compete at that level athletically. We do, however, have a reputation of turning out fairly rational graduates.
 
My definintion of rational means that "ready-aim-fire" should be kept in proper sequence. That hasn't happened in this case. The shooting has started, and now they're just drawing bulls-eyes around the bullet holes.

Does anybody purport to know the details of Paterno's interaction(s) with the AD or others in the PSU administration? Would that be relevant to you if you were involved in this case? If someone on your staff reports an incident to you, or refers it to you for handling, should they be justified to think that you will in fact take care of it rather than sweeping it under the rug?

If the AD said "Thanks for the report, Joe, you've done what you should do. This is obviously a very serious and sensitive issue that should be handled at the university level, and we'll take if from here" what would that mean to you if you were Joe?

I've been a college football coach, a corner-office guy and commish of a 150-man police department. As a result I have some experience with these cases, and know the level of confidentiality that is involved in the investigations.

Within the past week I've also seen and read about a guy in Dallas who was exonerated last week after serving 20 years for alleged sexual abuse that was later recanted by the alleged victim.

I'm not carrying water for Joe, I've just seen too many lynch-mobs in action to go along with another one. Get the facts, dig as deep as necessary to learn the truth, then take action.







Rndmtrvlr said:
By "rational views" I assume you mean the ones who agree with your opinion?

Here's my "rational view." JoePa is not under indictment because he did not commit perjury (which is one of the charges facing the administrators). Nor did he fail to follow the letter of the law which requires educators to report suspected sexual abuse to the "person in charge" of the institution. I don't think he's in any danger of being charged with a crime.

However, my "rational view" is that he failed in his moral obligation to insure that his report was followed up with action. Having occupied a "corner office" for many years now, every institution or enterprise of which I've been a part honors the "chain of command" but also provides for feedback. Joe should have asked what was being done.

In my "rational view" here's what should happen:

1) The administrators who broke the law should be punished.
2) Joe should step up and admit that he should have at least followed up, and (even better) called the police when he received the report. He should admit that his judgement was clouded by concern for his friend and the university and football program. He should take this opportunity to resign and get out of the spotlight.
3) The father of the graduate student should step up and admit that his instruction to his son to "come home without reporting the situation" and think about it overnight was idiotic.
4) The graduate student (a 28 year old MAN at the time) should step up and admit that he should have immediately stopped the activity (you can see in the Grand Jury report that the activity was explicit), gone into JoePa's office and reported the activity immediately and followed up to make sure JoePa or SOMEone reported the incident to authorities.

That's my "rational view" based on the facts as presented in the Grand Jury "Finding of Facts" and the statements of the people involved.

And I have no dog in the hunt. My alma mater (Rice University) has never and will never compete at that level athletically. We do, however, have a reputation of turning out fairly rational graduates.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
If the AD said "Thanks for the report, Joe, you've done what you should do. This is obviously a very serious and sensitive issue that should be handled at the university level, and we'll take if from here" what would that mean to you if you were Joe?
Click to expand...

I'd detect the distinct odor of politics, and I'd say "Yes, Sir, I understand. I expect you to notify the police and inform me that you've done so."

If I got any push-back, or no follow-up in a day, then I'd say "Sir, I'm going to notify the police now". If they made threatening noises about my job I'd say "and I'm going to notify the media too, after those threats".

Character is how you behave when nobody's looking - it's "to thine own self be true". No guilt is worse, or more earned, than the guilt that comes from knowing you failed to live up to your own code of conduct.
 
If the AD or PSU counsel had contacted the police the day he was informed by Paterno, would we be discussing this now?

Probably not.

Would Paterno have been viewed as a good guy or a bad guy for reporting the perp?

Absolutely the good guy. All the better had he driven the bastard to the cops himself. The life of a child outweighs the game of football.


There's no evidence that he was trying to protect his program or that he had an ethical or moral obligation to do more than he did.

If it were reported to you by an eye witness that it happened in your place of business, what would you do? If you saw that the perp skate, would you accept that? How about if it were your child?



Sad deal for all.

Agreed. Especially when we accept "he did the minimum required by law" as the acceptable standard in these cases. Joe Pa was the leader. He was the one with the moral and ethical weight, not the AD. He should have lead. I bet he knows it, and wishes he had.
 
Character is how you behave when nobody's looking - it's "to thine own self be true". No guilt is worse, or more earned, than the guilt that comes from knowing you failed to live up to your own code of conduct.

Very well said, Tim, very well said.
Can I use that?
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Character is how you behave when nobody's looking - it's "to thine own self be true". No guilt is worse, or more earned, than the guilt that comes from knowing you failed to live up to your own code of conduct.

Very well said, Tim, very well said.
Can I use that?
Click to expand...


Sure. And I want to give Lois Bujold credit for a similar sentiment. Roughly:

Honor is what you know about yourself.
Reputation is what others think about you.

Guard your honor, and don't worry about your reputation too much.
 
wabower said:
Get the facts, dig as deep as necessary to learn the truth, then take action.
Click to expand...
Sadly what we see far more often than not is the Catholic Church reaction of when presented with a charge of child sexual abuse, circle the wagons to protect the institution.

We have here two eye witnesses that saw a sex act being performed by Sanducky on obvious underage boys. What we did not see is the proper law enforcement authorities being called in right away. Instead we see the institution keeping a tight wrap on things while they investigate internally. In a situation of criminal rape of an underage person, is a university athletic department really the best equipped to perform such an investigation?
 
Some things can be handled "internally" effectively.
Crimes involving children do NOT fit into this category.
 
A guy has to do what a guy has to do. Even if your stumble-bum methods cause more harm than good and totally disrupt and/or destroy an ongoing investigation and negotiations that have been purposesly kept under wraps as all such issues are typically handled.

TMetzinger said:
I'd detect the distinct odor of politics, and I'd say "Yes, Sir, I understand. I expect you to notify the police and inform me that you've done so."

If I got any push-back, or no follow-up in a day, then I'd say "Sir, I'm going to notify the police now". If they made threatening noises about my job I'd say "and I'm going to notify the media too, after those threats".

Character is how you behave when nobody's looking - it's "to thine own self be true". No guilt is worse, or more earned, than the guilt that comes from knowing you failed to live up to your own code of conduct.
Click to expand...
 
Chip Sylverne said:
...
If it were reported to you by an eye witness that it happened in your place of business, what would you do?
....
Click to expand...

I would tell the actual witness, the one with actual knowledge of what did or did not happen, that it was on him/her to evaluate what happened, whether or not it was something that need to be reported to whoever would be appropriate, and that it was on him/her, as the person with actual knowledge, to do the reporting. I would also make clear that I would gladly facilitate any meeting or reporting with whomever was necessary, in any way that I possibly could.

Would you report information that you'd obtained secondhand as a crime? If so, maybe there are some people that I'd like to see harassed and confined in a manner that's really difficult to fight and where people jump to immediate conclusions, whether founded on anything other than newspaper articles or not, and where mere allegations will follow them for the rest of their lives. All I have to do is tell you, and then you'll tell the police, and then I'm off the hook for something like false reporting, because I didn't report anything, and I can always come back and say, "I told you nothing, you're wrongly pointing the finger at me, and you've already wrongly pointed the finger at someone else, too; I see a pattern here officers, hmmm, hmmm, wag of the finger."
 
At least one reporter, Christine Brennan of USAToday, has essentially spit-roasted Penn State and Paterno. Story with link to audio interview

<<<break>>>
Additional breaking news: Paterno to retire at end of season. This just in.
 
wabower said:
A guy has to do what a guy has to do. Even if your stumble-bum methods cause more harm than good and totally disrupt and/or destroy an ongoing investigation and negotiations that have been purposesly kept under wraps as all such issues are typically handled.
Click to expand...
Bull****. In that case all the "boss" has to say is that the police are involved.


Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
Bull****. All boss has to tell you is that it's being handled. You're out of the deal.
TMetzinger said:
Bull****. In that case all the "boss" has to say is that the police are involved.


Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Bull****. All boss has to tell you is that it's being handled. You're out of the deal.
Click to expand...
Nope. He has to convince me it's being handled properly. In a good organization whose ethics are compatible with mine, this will NOT be difficult.

I've been in similar situations where I reported possible criminal behavior to a superior. He told me he'd take care of it, and within 24 hours told me enough about how it was being handled that I was reassured that it was being handled correctly. I had a decent relationship with the boss, and felt that my butt was covered AND that it was being appropriately addressed. In a few months, I knew it was properly addressed because criminal charges were filed.

In another case, with another boss, I reported behavior I personally witnessed that I KNEW was against our rules of conduct and possibly criminal. I got a thank you, and no follow-up. When I inquired again the following week I was told "don't worry, it's being handled". This boss did NOT inspire the same trust. So I called OPR (which is who my boss would have notified anyway) and told them the same thing. They asked if I'd told my boss, and I said "yes" and gave them those details. OPR agent said "Thanks, we'll look into it". Six weeks later both the "violator" and my boss were on admin leave, and they resigned within another month.

In this specific case, where sex with a child is involved, the only response that would be acceptable to me would be my boss telling me that the police were notified (which is a legal requirement). Telling me "we're handling this" does NOT inspire trust. Saying "We've brought the police in and are cooperating with their efforts" does.
 
TMetzinger said:
...
In this specific case, where sex with a child is involved, the only response that would be acceptable to me would be my boss telling me that the police were notified (which is a legal requirement).
...
Click to expand...

In this specific case, where sex with a child is involved, a better response would have started with something like, "You did the right thing by calling the police to report what you witnessed."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top