The CardBoard
Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" (/thread-3469.html)


Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - yvonne - 07-12-2012

Quote:"The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized,'' the investigation concluded.
It cited former Penn State University president Graham Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz, former head football coach Joe Paterno and Athletic Director Tim Curley, now on leave, as never demonstrating "through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky's victims until after Sandusky's arrest."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-11/penn-state-investigation-sandusky/56162986/1?csp=34news

Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - needle - 07-12-2012

Case closed, take down the statue.

Paterno had an active, participatory role in deciding what (non)action to take against Sandusky following McQueary's report that was apparently at once vague and emphatic in describing sexual activity between Sandusky and a boy. After JoePa initially reported what McQueary saw to university administration, he was brought back into the loop and decision-making process and, based on emails, his input contributed to a decision ultimately to not go to child welfare authorities.

Sad but true, (former) JoePa defenders.

Here's what my mind feels is an interesting footnote:

Freeh emphasizes the words of Paterno during his meeting with McQueary, including in the report this fragment, that "Paterno tells McQueary, 'you did what you had to do. It's my job now to figure out what we want to do.'"

This snippet of Paterno's words is mentioned three times in the report. Why? At a basic level, it seems to show that Paterno is accepting responsibility for whatever happens next. It can also be read as sort of absolving McQueary of not worrying about it further. Can it also be read as more than absolution, perhaps a subtle threat to not even think about going to cops/child welfare? I think it can be read that way, but others might disagree.

So where does this snippet come from? The Washington Post. It comes not from McQueary, but JoePa himself, in his final interview. Here is the full context of the quote:

Quote:“He was very upset and I said why, and he was very reluctant to get into it,” Paterno said. “He told me what he saw, and I said, what? He said it, well, looked like inappropriate, or fondling, I’m not quite sure exactly how he put it. I said you did what you had to do. It’s my job now to figure out what we want to do. So I sat around. It was a Saturday. Waited till Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors and I said: ‘Hey, we got a problem, I think. Would you guys look into it?’ Cause I didn’t know, you know. We never had, until that point, 58 years I think, I had never had to deal with something like that. And I didn’t feel adequate.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_print.html

Again, he deserves full censure for his active, participatory role in the 2001 university decision-making process to not go to authorities with a credible report of sexual abuse involving Sandusky.

It's just interesting to me that this was a quote that didn't seem to rise above the noise and talking heads when it was published, and I'm sure JoePa never thought that his words would be used against him in such a way as Freeh does in this report.



Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - oman - 07-12-2012

needle, I am going to read the report this afternoon, but my gut response to what you just said is that, even assuming Paterno was going to actually do something about it, one of the first things you would do in a position of authority when the institution you represent is at serious risk for liability and adverse press is to control what the underlings are going to talk about to third parties. 

You shut up the rank and file in the hope that you can stop bad press -- it's cynical, but at the point you first learn of it, your institution might well not be culpable, and you have the responsibility to make sure that a guy like McQ doesn't go to irresponsible sources and the media.

Then you call HR and PR and the lawyers and your bosses and you don't go home until you have decided just how you are going to report it to the police and who is going to not sleep until it is resolved.

Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - CowboyIndian - 07-12-2012

(07-12-2012, 08:24 AM)oman link Wrote:You shut up the rank and file in the hope that you can stop bad press -- it's cynical, but at the point you first learn of it, your institution might well not be culpable, and you have the responsibility to make sure that a guy like McQ doesn't go to irresponsible sources and the media.

Then you call HR and PR and the lawyers and your bosses and you don't go home until you have decided just how you are going to report it to the police and who is going to not sleep until it is resolved.

As opposed to actually doing the right thing, which is going to the police and severing all ties with Sandusky.

Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - OutsiderFan - 07-12-2012

From day one, it was seemingly obvious that Penn State put the football program's interests ahead of protecting children.  That is the story in a nutshell.  The Freeh report is just details of who didn't act and who covered it up.

Sandusky is a sick man, but PSU administrators who willfully took no action to stop Sundusky are almost as sick as him for putting the football program ahead of protecting children.  To me, they should be in the jail cell right next to Sandusky.


Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - yvonne - 07-12-2012

For anyone interested, the full report is available here: http://assets.espn.go.com/pdf/2012/0712/psupressrelease.pdf

(The URL says press release, but it's not a release. It's the actual report.)

Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - oman - 07-12-2012

(07-12-2012, 08:32 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:As opposed to actually doing the right thing, which is going to the police and severing all ties with Sandusky.

Procedurally, you may be violating your duties to the institution by going to the police without giving the appropriate heads up to people.

My response to McQuery would have been:  Red, I think the right thing to do is to go the police -- are you comfortable with that?  That is what I thought, so let me get legal and HR and PR on the line and make sure they get a heads up on what we propose and we make sure that we do this the right way. I don't want them to get blindsided. 

(I think all these guys are fully culpable.  I just don't think needles concern with Paterno's initial comments to McQ about how it would be taken care of are all that damning, in and of itself.  But he immediately commits a damning error by not contacting Curley or Schultz so as not to "interfere with their weekends")

Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - 97fan - 07-12-2012

I haven't read the Freeh Report yet, but from press reports, it contains a much bigger bombshell than whatever the details are regarding what happened after McQueary reported the 2001 rape to Paterno.

It turns that Paterno did know about the 1998 report, and followed its handling with keen interest. (I'm not surprised by this revelation, by the way. Of course he would have been told; he was the most powerful person at the university.)

This news casts in a completely different light what happened after McQueary's report. It's one thing to agonize over to report to police if this was the first time you'd heard such allegations; another thing completely if you'd heard a similar allegation a few years earlier.

In addition, JoePa apparently lied prior to his death by saying that he didn't know about the 1998 report. (Or at least his family did so on his behalf.)

These are just preliminary thoughts are based on my quick reading of the NYT story. But it's hard to see how anyone could defend JoePa at this point.

One last thought: his attempt to separate this scandal from his on-the-field legacy -- "not a football scandal" -- is pathetic.

Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - needle - 07-12-2012

FWIW, the report says that before the May 1998 incident that sparked a police investigation into Sandusky, he had already been told by Paterno he wouldn't be the head coach (Reason: Too much time devoted to Second Mile Foundation). The report states that no evidence was found linking Sandusky's resignation and the 1998 police investigation.

Interestingly, the report cites a June 1999 email from AD Tom Curley about Sandusky's resignation that states "Joe did give him the option to continue to coach as long as he was coach."

So, whatever JoePa knew of the 1998 investigation, he apparently was OK with keeping Sandusky on staff indefinitely.

Personally, I think a strong argument can be made that JoePa didn't do anything wrong in 1998 and 1999, as he could have only been told (perhaps emphatically) that an investigation cleared Sandusky of any wrongdoing. The report only states that Paterno was "anxious" to know the outcome of the investigation.

Quote:This news casts in a completely different light what happened after McQueary's report. It's one thing to agonize over to report to police if this was the first time you'd heard such allegations; another thing completely if you'd heard a similar allegation a few years earlier.

To be charitable to JoePa, perhaps he thought that an exhaustive investigation in 1998 cleared Sandusky completely and unequivocally, and that this other allegation was thus likely to be equally unfounded.

The way I look at things, it was when JoePa actively decided (along with Spanier and Curley) to not go to authorities that he crossed the line into indefensible, probably criminal behavior.


Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - LuckE2Bhere - 07-12-2012

(07-12-2012, 08:32 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:As opposed to actually doing the right thing, which is going to the police and severing all ties with Sandusky.

It goes back to the words JoePa used in the quote that needle highlighted: McQ "did what [he] had to do" (or at least part of it, as a human being)... and then JoePa "figure[d] out what [he] [WANTED] to do". (my emphasis)

I'm certainly not suggesting that he (JoePa) "wanted" any of this to happen, but definitely don't believe that he did what he "had to do"... as Cowboy rightly indicates  :-(

Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - 97fan - 07-12-2012

(07-12-2012, 11:34 AM)needle link Wrote:To be charitable to JoePa, perhaps he thought that an exhaustive investigation in 1998 cleared Sandusky completely and unequivocally, and that this other allegation was thus likely to be equally unfounded.

Sorry, I can't be that charitable to Joe.

If you know that an allegation was made, investigated, and no charges were brought, and then a similar allegation surfaces a few years later, the logical conclusion is that you should reexamine what happened a few years ago, and you should take the current allegation even more seriously than you would otherwise.

The alternative you're proposing -- that the decision not to prosecute the first time somehow discredits the second allegation -- just makes no logical sense.

Re: Report: Penn State had "total disregard for the safety and welfare" - oman - 07-12-2012

(07-12-2012, 01:58 PM)97fan link Wrote:Sorry, I can't be that charitable to Joe.

If you know that an allegation was made, investigated, and no charges were brought, and then a similar allegation surfaces a few years later, the logical conclusion is that you should reexamine what happened a few years ago, and you should take the current allegation even more seriously than you would otherwise.

The alternative you're proposing -- that the decision not to prosecute the first time somehow discredits the second allegation -- just makes no logical sense.

Agreed -- this isn't some statutory scenario where the University is prohibiting from rethinking their (faulty) approach to their first investigaiton. 

That Paterno would give Sandusky what amounted to two strikes for possible child molestation/rape is, well, whatever is less pardonable than unpardonable.Â