Paterno: What can NCAA do?
I seem to be among the many who are confused re the degree to which the NCAA can/will do here, especially in terms of Paterno. This case goes so far beyond the usual NCAA issues and guidelines that maybe one of our MGolawyers will be kind enough to explicate the NCAA angle.
Let's assume the prosecutor's allegations generally hold up. (A big assumption, I realize.) At the very least, it seems, Paterno satisfied the minimum requirement: He informed the AD. But is that all the NCAA requires of him? Especially since he was the Tressel of PSU: Paterno, although technically outranked by the AD, was the de facto boss.
I appreciate that the NCAA issues are a distant second to the legal, moral, and ethical issues here. But this situation is so singular in its grotesquerie -- and so open to wild speculation -- that a little clarification would be productive.
November 7th, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^
RIch Rod is gonna be coaching at PSU next year, I can feel it..
November 7th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^
We need so much more information about who did what when. Most normal people, had they been in McQueary's position, would have immediately kicked Sandusky's ass and dragged him to the cops. Did he really just defer to the AD for nine years, even as Sandusky continued visiting the lockerroom? Most head coaches, having heard of anything even remotely involving pedophilia, would have beaten the drum until every shred of doubt was gone. Most school administrators would have immediately consulted with outside law-enforcement.
Either McQueary or Paterno is lying about what McQueary reported. Would Paterno, when informed that Sandusky was literally caught raping a 10-year-old on campus, really just fob it off on the AD and still let Sandusky hang around the program? Strains credulity, doesn't it? I do wonder how candid McQueary was when he first reported the "incident." Otherwise, Paterno is a monster.
Regardless, adults who witness sex crimes must be legally required to also contact the police, no? I'm pretty sure the law doesn't say "Just tell your boss and you're good." I'm hoping Paterno et al will be able to fill in the blanks. But jeez. There's very little gray area once you (or one of your staff) catches a colleague in the showers with a 10-year-old boy.
November 7th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^
Do they really need to do anything? Given what has apparently happened, I think the final decision on his fate - if it is to be something other than retirement - is up to PSU and, if it gets that far, law enforcement.
I don't know...if I am PSU and Joe Paterno's name is basically doing a Titanic before my very eyes, then I offer him the opportunity to leave quickly and, for the time being, somewhat graciously.
He really should have gone straight to law enforcement. Why he would merely present the allegations of child sexual abuse - once he heard about them - to the AD's office and no one else is beyond me. Definitely, when he saw nothing happen, he should have approached the police.
November 7th, 2011 at 5:18 PM ^
Long time reader, second time poster here and I want to lead with a few position statements before I offer my opinion: I am not trained to offer a legal opinion or interpretation of the situation. From a moral perspective, I'm outraged by the situation and I believe that any adult has an obligation to inform the autorities whenever an allegation of sexual abuse of a child is made so that a proper investigation can be conducted and, most importatly, children can be protected. I also believe in the rule of law and, no matter how damning a Grand Jury statement or evidence produced by a prosecutor to the media, that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty and deserves a fair trial.
Regarding the purview of the NCAA in this matter, at this time I don't see that the bylaws presented here relate closely enough to the situation for an investigation to be initiated. It's abhorring to say, but frankly the charges are not related to the on-field product (from prospective student-athletes through active staff in the program). Having to resort to "catch-all" bylaws like Section 10, no matter how central to the organization's aim, generally make the burden of proof fall that much harder on the accusor/investigator in cases like these.
Unfortunately, this situation has caused everyone to stare into the depths of a horrible, previously unthinkable situation. Now that Pandora's Box has been opened, I hope the NCAA will add an addendum to their bylaws specifically dealing with abuse of all kinds. They are now faced with the realization that a large portion of the individuals in their purview (prospective student-athletes) are minors, and provisions for their protection need to be explicitly legislated. Given the current debacle and that an athletic scholarship means anything from the fulfillment of a lifelong dream to a life-altering opportunity to attend college when it would otherwise be impossible, it seems that the vulnerability of prospective student-athletes has been exposed to its core and protections must be made for them as quickly as possible.
Even more unfortunate in this instance is that, from a legal perspective, the rules can only be created now. I believe a code of conduct and expectations for interactions with minors that expressly addresses the "Position of Trust" issues in the recruit-coach relationship should be created as soon as possible and immediately added to the NCAA Bylaws. Punishing Penn State under those rules however would be rationally unjust. Ex post facto punishment is forbidden by the Constitution, and though specific instances similar to the current situation have been tested in the Supreme Court, currently the NCAA would be inconsistent with the American justice system if they were to punish Penn State for rules that were not in effect when the transgressions occurred.
Now that I'm done with the (arguably) rational side of my opinion, it's time for the emotions to creep back. Morally, I think it's hard to find a point in the entire Grand Jury statement at which some adult didn't fail to act in the child's (childrens'?) best interest. The GA should have stepped in and removed the child from the shower and Sandusky's presence. His father should have instructed him to tell Paterno AND the police. Paterno should have immediately contacted the police. Curley and the VP should have been transparent, even if they had to try to spin the situation from a PR standpoint to the press. "We've stopped him and we're seeking justice for the children" is a much more powerful message than "we've been caught trying to save ourselves and our program from negative press (at the very least)." Hiding behind chains of command or loyalty to longtime employees/employers in situations like this is inexcusable and demonstrates a willingness to apply moral relativism to an issue--the well-being of children--that I and hopefully most people believe requires an absolute.
My hesitance to ride my emotional desire to see the pike on which I believe people who sexually abuse children should be impaled hit Sandusky in the tonsils is based on the personal relationship I have with several people who were involved in former District Attorney Nifong's crusade against the Duke lacrosse team. Seeing the destruction, stress and emotional pain inflicted on them by a malicious prosecutor convinced me that every defendant is entitled to a fair trial in a court of law. It also taught me that evidence is relative until both sides of the argument are heard. Frankly, the Grand Jury statement made my blood boil, but until Sandusky and his attorneys either admit its truth or can convincingly and rationally refute it, I'm stuck in a no-man's land between emotional rage and a rational nagging to make sure that an attempted public railroading never happens again. So, I'm left with a desire to show people who hurt kids like this my home run swing in a place where nobody can hear their screams and a tiny voice in my head begging me to make sure the guy deserves everything he gets... It's troubling that I have to feel that dichotomy.
/back under the bridge
November 7th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^
that JoePa will be retiring at the end of the year, whether by his choice or Penn State's
November 7th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^
Paterno didn't do anything because he wanted to protect himself and his reputation from the questions that would follow. Such as, 'How could you have spoken so highly and made your heir apparent a man who is a child molester?"
In other words, Joe Paterno didn't do what he should have done because of his, Joe Paterno's, self-interest. And so, it is almost certain, other boys were molested, if not worse. II'm not sure "molested" does the GA's accusations justice, since what the GA witnessed was an ass-rape of a 10 year old boy).
I don't believe for a second that Paterno wasn't made aware of the actual act McQueary witnessed. The next act of any morally well-adjusted man would have been to call the police and tell them.
November 7th, 2011 at 6:20 PM ^
"Schultz's lawyer said his client was not among those required by law to report suspected abuse. He also argued that the two-year statute of limitations on the summary offense has expired. "
How low can they go? This is a PR nightmare for the university and I think there's going to be some big happenings within a week or two. This hasn't made national news yet, but the university president isn't in the clear yet either.
November 7th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
Think of it this way. If you walked down the street and saw a guy beating up his girlfriend, you could keep walking and not break any laws, or you could do what any man worth a damn would do, and do something to stop it. Now, imagine if the crime was being conducted in your own backyard, by someone you knew intimately for decades? Even more so the impetus upon you to stop it.
JoePa's a mess, and deserves the slime on him for not stepping up.
November 7th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 8:28 PM ^
McQueary went to Paterno in 2002. The last victim cited by the grand jury was abused between 2005-2009.
November 7th, 2011 at 8:02 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 8:16 PM ^
There is no discussion--you protect children--end of discussion. Also, here's a quote from the AG in Pennsylvania:
[quote]Ms. Kelly described Mr. Paterno, who was told of at least one incident by a graduate assistant, as being "cooperative" with prosecutors. He is not viewed as a target at this point, she said.[/quote]
Paterno was told of at least one incident..... This line of thought was not by accident. There must be reports Paterno heard other things. Sorry, the guy is dirty and should go. I don't care if never said a bad thing in a recruiting visit, helped old ladies across the street, or funded a new wing at the hospital. His inactions helped to allow children to be raped. I know it sound bad because it is bad.
November 7th, 2011 at 8:18 PM ^
The people around Joe has spent years saying the old man is still vibrant, engaged, firmly in control. Watch how swiftly they now start saying he's an old man who left the details to others.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:02 PM ^
Anyone think that because Patterno has been the figurehead coach at Penn State since who knows when that he may have been unable to go over the AD's and other officials' heads? for those of you who believe Patterno has a dimished role in the progam( like Bobby bowden would've had if he stayed at FSU) is it plausible that Patterno didn't do more because he didn't have any real authority over the program?
this question is just a hypothesis.