Penn State President on his way out today (apparently)
According to a Pennsylvania newspaper report, Penn State President Graham Spanier will either resign or be fired by the end of the day.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_president_graham_sp.html
November 9th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
riddance.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^
Chump
November 9th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
Douchebag
November 9th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
asshole
November 9th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^
prick
November 9th, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^
Take Joe Pa with you...
November 9th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^
cheater
November 9th, 2011 at 4:03 PM ^
bitch
I see how it is... no one wanted to write bitch
November 9th, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^
whore
November 9th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^
Sluuuuuuuuuuuuut
November 9th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
Given what comes next...and the whole situation
November 9th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^
Along with Schultz and Curley, Spanier is one of the main perpetrator's of the coverup by approving the former's baffing, illegal, and unethical response to the eye-witness report in 2002.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
Good Call, as soon as Spanier said he was 100% behind Curley and Shultz, I figured he would be fired almost immediately. His lack of common sense and compassion is utterly astounding.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:47 PM ^
is Gordon Gee still employed?
November 9th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
Great question, although the two situations are world's apart. I guess because Tressel steepped down before he could fire Gee.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
Completely different situations.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^
Man - no President, No Athletic Director, No Head Football Coach. Imagine UM with MSC, DB and Coach Hoke all gone simultaneously - their football team must be reeling. Feel sorry for Zettel and the rest of those guys. . . .
GO BLUE!
November 9th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
But the president really needed to go.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^
This does raise the interesting question of how PSU goes about filling its HC position. Who will run the search? Usually that is done by the AD, but there is no AD. So, it could fall to the Asst. AD, but he is gone too. The President would have to be involved in the high level negotiations, but there will be no president. Hell, in a situation like this, you would even expect JoePa himself to be involved in appointing his successor, but he will either be gone this week or will be equivalent to the walking dead (not because of his age).
I feel for the kids on the team, as well as those coaches on the staff who had no knowledge of anything Sandusky-related. They are looking at some difficult years.
I would expect that PSU will simply name someone on staff as interim-HC for next year - assuming that it was someone who can realisticly be said to have had never met Sandusky (is there a relatively new coach on staff?), that might not be met with widespread angst. Then, after next season, with the stink somewhat behind them, the new President, new AD, and new Asst. AD will conduct a real coaching search.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
Shalala at the U is all like....hey al golden heres a yacht to show you how much we love you here at the U
November 9th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
I am so happy Mary Sue is our president and not Graham Spanier.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
The next will be when he is arrested.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
The PSU Board of Trustees seems to be taking the correct actions, with the exception fof Paterno. How can everyone else be terminated and the man of moral integrity who was also intimately involved in this debacle be allowed to leave on his own terms? The school is thinking short term in trying to appease students and Paterno supporters. Long term if facts come out that indicate Paterno was even more complicit than current facts suggest the school will suffer permanent damage to its prestige for letting him coach the rest of the year. That's a lot of risk to take in order to appease a morally ambiguous, ancient figurehead who doesnt even coach or recruit
November 9th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
Have the Trustees agreed to let Paterno retire? This morning, Paterno announced he was going to retire at the end of the year, but I have not seen that the Trustees have agreed to that. They may need a new interim president in place to take action against Paterno.
EDIT: The Trustees still considering what to do with Paterno. They are meeting on Friday with the Pennsylvania governor expected to attend. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/penn-states-joe-paterno-wants-to-retire-at-end-of-season.html?src=tp
November 9th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^
How did you get your post above mine, wave?
November 9th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
The school is thinking short term in trying to appease students and Paterno supporters. Long term if facts come out that indicate Paterno was even more complicit than current facts suggest the school will suffer permanent damage to its prestige for letting him coach the rest of the year.If the facts come out that what Paterno did was reasonable much less right, and they fire Paterno, bowing to public pressure, that would damage their prestige even more.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^
He wouldn't be voluntarily retiring at the end of the season.
There's maybe a .01% chance what he did was reasonable, and a 0% chance it was right.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
Paterno's contract is up at the end of the year and he knows he isn't going to be rehired.
Despite nearly universal condemnation of this man on this board, we just don't have enough facts to reach a valid conclusion. Did Paterno cover something up? Maybe. Maybe not. Should Paterno have called the police? Maybe. Maybe not. The police already knew about Sandusky.. Calling them wasn't necessarily going to make any difference. Everyone here seems ready to assume facts not in evidence in order to satisfy their anger.
When the facts do come out, it could be that everybody is right. But you can't know that now.
Ann Arbor Torch and Pitchfork has nothing left but empty shelves.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^
A rational "take" on the situation.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
I mean, if he KNOWS he's innocent and all, wouldn't you fight for your job and reputation? You can't tell me after 20 years of hanging on too long he suddenly doesn't feel like "coaching" football anymore.
What I do know? Unless Paterno has been completely out of touch from reality since the late 90's, he knew there were some (at LEAST) pretty horrid rumors about Sandusky. And up to this year he let him still hang around the Athletic Department and use the facilities. If he didn't know anything (I mean, really), then he DAMN well should have made it his business to find out before letting this guy still associate himself with the program.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^
He knows that he is not going to be rehired because of the politics of what's going on and because some have wanted Joe out for a long time.
Your point about letting Sandusky hang around is a good point.
Edit: But how much does Joe control that now at 84(?)?
November 9th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
I'm not sure how much control he has is the relevant question. Even if he doesn't have control, he is still responsible for what happens because, in his position, he is supposed to have control.
November 9th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^
Control of the football team, not the athletic dept.
btw, the answer as to why Sandusky continued to have on campus privileges is found in the grand jury report. It was negotiated as part of Sandusky's retirement package.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:20 PM ^
He knows it will take someone with a lot more energy than he has to guide the program through this mess.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
This is why you don't ever put a living guys name on a trophy. Safer to wait for him to be dead so that he can't ruin his legacy. Be interesting to see what the Big Ten does. They might have to scrap all of the trophies and legends stuff just to quietly get rid of this.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
Reading what Paterno admitted to knowing and not doing in his grand jury testimony was enough for me.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^
This right here. I encourage anyone has not done so yet to read the grand jury document linked in an earlier post on the board. Whether he was legally right or not, Paterno's self-admitted actions violate everything regarding integrity he has hypocritically espoused while at Penn State. The man is a washed up, pathetic joke of a figure head and should be exorcised from the school (whether he wants to go or not). The very fact he himself hasn't elected to step down for the good of the school and the program shows how deluded and self-absorbed he is.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^
. . . who would have thought we would see that. In addition, this post also follows the principles our justice system has placed before us.
Perhaps we should just forgo all the discussion, investigation and trial, and not only fire all of the people involved but hang them in the town square as well. I mean, it has been a whole 5 days since a great majority of the population and media learned of these events, so we must know every detail of significance . . . right?
November 9th, 2011 at 3:56 PM ^
We have enough facts to know he failed a moral and ethical test.
According to his own testimony, somebody he knew and trusted (McQueary)* was an eyewitness to a violent crime involving a child. He had past knowledge of an allegation of sexual abuse in 1998 where no charges were filed. Then, in 2002, an independent eyewitness who was not the victim (something the police didn't have in 1998) tells him of an even more serious incident that happened in his facility.
It doesn't matter if McQueary told him the details or not. He had an eyewitness describe an illegal sexual act against a minor. So he notifies the AD but no charges come about. Sandusky continues to bring minors to the athletic campus.
These facts are not in dispute. Paterno had a moral obligation to follow up and make sure such things didn't happen again. He did not. That is a fireable offense, in my opinion.
What we don't know is why he never followed up. But when kids are being violated, the "why" doesn't really matter, does it?
So, to your statement: "Should Paterno have called police? Maybe. Maybe not." Based on what he testified he knew -- yes. He should have. No question in my mind.
*(I take as fact that Paterno trusted McQueary because he was promoted after this incident. If Paterno thought he was lying, no way would he have kept him around. That's serious slander.)
November 9th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^
Bear with me 'stache. This is less a refutation than an attempt to clarify. Please correct me where I am wrong.
1) We don't know what McQueary told Paterno. McQueary may have been reluctant to be explicit with Paterno.
2) Paterno discribed it as "disturbing", "inappropriate", and "something of a sexual nature".
3) Paterno tells his superior AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz who supervises the campus police. This is required by law.
4) Whatever Paterno tells Curley and Schultz, he knows that they are going to talk to McQueary themselves. Paterno does not attend the meeting.
5) PSU has a policy for how to handle such things. There is a chain of command. The head of the institution is the one responsible for notifying authorities. Not the football coach. Paterno would be violating the chain of command by alerting authorities and we do not know what McQueary told Paterno or what Paterno knew beyond (2).
6) The police already knew about Sandusky. They hadn't arrested Sandusky after 4 years.
7) If Paterno wasn't appraised of the specific nature of the allegations by McQueary, and trusted Curley and Schultz to do their jobs, it would not be clear that they weren't doing their jobs. Paterno could have assumed that if there was anything to it, that they would act. This especially applies to Schultz because of Schultz's connection to the police.
8) Paterno may even not have been aware that they didn't call the police.
9) They may have had a witness, but they didn't have a victim.
10) Violating the chain of command may be a fireable offense.
11) Joe is 84 years old and no longer on top of things. Even then Joe was 75.
Anything I have wrong here?
November 9th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
You're leaving out some important context:
First, your argument boils down to "Paterno followed the chain of command. He trusted the AD and VP to do their jobs. How was he to know they weren't doing their job?"
It doesn't matter the level of detail that McQueary went into. Paterno, by his own testimony, admitted it was an illegal sexual act against a minor.
A long time went by and Sandusky keeps showing up on campus with minors. Meanwhile, this disturbing sexual act witnessed by a third party is unresolved. It becomes clear that the AD and VP are not doing their jobs.
The violation of a minor happened in a facility where Paterno was in charge. That's his program, his facility. He's the head coach. He had reasonable suspicion that a sexual crime against a minor occurred and resonable suspicion that the AD and VP were not following up.
I'm sorry, chain of command is not an excuse. There was a sexual predator in his facility, using his facility for illegal sex acts against minors. Paterno had information and belief that this was the case. Months and years went by with no action.
Had he asked the AD and VP and been brushed off, he should have contacted the police himself. Chain of command be dammed. If his so-called superiors asked him to not say anything, he should have ignored them. He was in a much more secure position than they. If my boss asked me to be quiet about something of that nature, I wouldn't care what happened with my freaking job. I'd be too worried I was letting a sexual predator run amok.
If he was too senile to understand the gravity of what he was told, then he doesn't deserve to be there one more day.
And I don't even know what you mean by "they may have had a witness, but no victim." It's not PSU's job to find the victim before reporting it to police. A witness saw a crime occur. That's enough. If the police had been contacted in a timely manner, the witness would have been found. That's what police do.
November 9th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
I disagree that it doesn't matter what McQueary told Joe. The severity of the act is crucial if you want to use it as a reason to say chain of command be damned.
Remember, that the police already knew about Sandusky.
Think of it this way: McQueary goes to Paterno, hesitant to be too explicit, tells Joe that something inappropriate of a sexual nature happened with Sandusky and a kid. Joe goes "Not again!, well, I had better tell Tim and Gary." Then does so. It is their job to call the police. Schultz probably talked to police daily. Joe knows the police already know about Sandusky and is just waiting for Sandusky to charged already. Why call them again?
There was nothing imminent about the situation by the time Joe hears about it. Depending on what McQueary said to Paterno, there may have been nothing definate either. Weeks go by. Joe isn't in the loop. Joe knows the police know about Sandusky and nothing immediate is going on. What moment in time should Joe decide to act on his own and call the police to tell them about somebody they already know about? What would suddenly spur Joe to do something that seemed redundant or unnecessary?
November 9th, 2011 at 6:19 PM ^
1) There is a sworn statement by McQueary attesting to what he told Paterno
3) He only told Curley, not Schultz.
6) This is a laughable point. Yes, the police knew about Sandusky. So to you that means that they didn't care what crimes he was committing? They weren't the ones who declined to file charges in 1998. It was the former DA. Maybe they wanted notihng more than to see Sandusky locked up and just needed a stronger case than they had back then.
7) See 1 and 3.
8) If he gave a damn, he'd have known.
10) OMG!
11) That's his best defense. His son has already started using it.
November 9th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
I really didn't get into this to defend Paterno, just to suggest we step back and wait until Paterno and everyone has a chance to defend themselves. But, (sigh)...
I haven't seen McQueary's statement, but I am not inclined to take it at face value. It was a long time ago and people's memories can play tricks. Does Joe agree or disagree about what McQueary says he told him?
I thought Paterno called Curley and Schultz to his home the next day.
Laughable point? From the perspective of the police? Sure. They want to know everything. But what about from Joe's perspective? Remember that we are talking about a motivation for Joe to violate chain of command.
Also, I wonder why, if calling the police in violation of the chain of command of the organization you trust and work for is such an automatic thing to do, that McQueary gets a free pass? There was no problem in translation for Mike. If anyone should have been keen to call the cops, it should have been McQueary.
November 9th, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^
I'm inclined to trust McQueary's statement the most. It was given under oath. I can't think of a single reason for him to lie. I don't see what he had to gain. Paterno downplays what he was told. Do you really trust Paterno's memory more?
The chain of command arguments are very weak. Paterno could easily have made sure that the AD reported this to the police. Do you really dispute that he had the moral obligation to do so? It's quite apparent he had no interest in doing so. We can only speculate about his reasons.
McQueary isn't getting a free pass. He's been getting reamed by the media, and rightly so. I think his inaction was even more inexcusable, but Paterno gets most of the attention because of his status. Incidentally Paterno shares some of the blame there too. He could have brought McQueary with him to meet Curley, instead of just passing along his version of what he was told.
I'm not claiming that Paterno was part of a conspiracy to cover the incident up, but if he were I don't think he would have changed a single thing he did. If he was actually concerned about the welfare of the victim, and other poetential victims, he would definitely have done things differently.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:11 PM ^
I think Paterno delegates a lot of authority.
I think it is just the way Joe operates.
And I think that's what happened here. Joe just expected everybody to do what they were supposed to do.
I think you and the others who are so critical of Joe wanted him to micro-manage this.
November 9th, 2011 at 9:43 PM ^
I'm inclined to trust McQueary's statement the most. It was given under oath. I can't think of a single reason for him to lie.
I can. Suppose he witnesses the anal rape and then - for whatever reason - waters it down when he talks to Paterno. If he admits that to the grand jury, he's essentially admitted guilt of the same crime that Curley and Schultz are accused of. Really, whatever he actually told Paterno in 2002, there's no good reason at all for him to tell the grand jury anything other than "I told Paterno everything." Only one person can contradict him, and like you said, maybe his memory isn't too good.
I do not really trust McQueary in this. I can sympathize with the mind-blowing shock he must've felt witnessing an individual he trusted without reservation, caught in the act like that, but 1) he is in a more vulnerable position than Paterno right now and 2) other than Sandusky, I think he's proven to have been the one making the worst decision(s) in all of this.