Blue-Chip

June 17th, 2015 at 8:24 AM ^

I used to kind of like Penn St. Everything that's happened both with the scandal and the fan reaction to it, makes me feel really dirty about that fact.

Unicycle Firefly

June 17th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^

That was a good documentary, actually fairly unbiased.  However, do NOT watch "365 Days: A Year in Happy Valley."  Absolutely disgusting pro-PSU propaganda.  They actually try to tie the PSU scandal in with the tragic Amish school shooting in Nickel Mines, PA, aiming for some type of vague "forgiveness" theme.  It was disturbing to say the least.

michelin

June 17th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^

The documentary portrays JoPa as very possibly involved in the decision to suppress the Sandusky news after he reported it to his superiors. Since he died, he never got to explain the emails implicating him. But appearances suggest he could have been indicted along with the President and AD.

It would have been interesting if the documentary went deeper into the motivations for such suppression.  It could have shown how the reluctance to even talk about such crimes—was ingrained in the older generaltion's culture. So many similar incidents had been suppressed for years. Victims would not step forward because of the shame---which has only lessened in recent years.  And the crimes were hardly restricted to athetic departments.  Even some priests had been involved in such crimes for years, sometimes with the knowledge of Popes who did nothing.

Indeed, the same shame that Paterno and the Catholic Church tried to evade, now became associated with the very name of Penn State.  Then, while many fans were just in denial, others interviewed in the documentary felt they were unfailry being punished for Sandusky's crimes.  Their jersies--once a symbol of pride--became like a scarlet letter.  But were the fans entirely innocent?  Or did their fanatical worship of JoPa and PSU make it seem necessary to suppress Sandusky's deeds?

NittanyFan

June 17th, 2015 at 8:37 AM ^

is getting short-shrift here.  He's also getting inducted, let's talk about him!  

Although, he did lose to the Michigan Panthers in the first title game.

As for Joe, this is just part of the continuing battle among various factions as to how he's viewed in the history books.  I wish people (on both sides, honestly) would just shut up about him for awhile, but that's not going to happen.

NittanyFan

June 17th, 2015 at 9:38 AM ^

but I do think the "Joe Pa side" has some legs to stand on --- 2 prominent ones being:

(1) While I do believe the Freeh Report's conclusions are generally correct, I am objective enough to admit that the report did not (IMO) come close to proving its conclusions "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Of course, that's not a standard Freeh was being held to.  But I do still think it's fair for Paterno Loyalists to play that "beyond a reasonable doubt" card.  Accusing someone of covering up child abuse is a very serious allegation, and if you're going to do it, you better have a strong case.

(2) the PA prosecuting attorney who indicted Curley/Schultz/Spanier has said multiple times that if Paterno were still alive today, he would not have been charged.

RGard

June 17th, 2015 at 9:50 AM ^

1. Paterno knew Sandusky was doing something sexual with that child in the Lasch Football building showers that night in 2001.  The testified he knew under oath.  He had no issue with the failure to report and his excuse (to the investigator, Sassano) was he had other things to do.  Sandusky went on to sexually abuse more children on PSU property after Paterno found out what a vile person Sandusky was.

2. Your claim about the prosecuting attorney is out of context and not complete.  I can find the exact quote and date it was said if you want.

Additionally, Paterno was the target of a Federal investigation when he died.

The Paterno cult needs some prostetic legs.

NittanyFan

June 17th, 2015 at 10:01 AM ^

As I said, I think Joe WAS part of a cover-up in 2001.

I also said I don't think that was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."  My belief that Joe was part of a cover-up is based more on personal intuition vs. tangible facts.

So as to the question "was he part of a cover-up in 2001?": I do think a fair answer is "we don't know, and given that he's dead right now anyway, the answer to that question doesn't particularly matter.  If one believes in a God, God will sort things out as regards Joe.  Move on from Joe & worry a whole lot more about answering that question for those who are still alive (Curley/Schultz/Spanier)."

NittanyFan

June 17th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^

JoePa covered things up in 2001.

Now, I admit to having a nuanced opinion as to whether that was "proven beyond a reasonable doubt."  

Fair enough if you don't want to discuss that particular nuance, but I don't think it's fair for you to say that "I'm letting facts get in the way of a good story."

BigBlue02

June 17th, 2015 at 12:24 PM ^

What else could possibly be proven to make it beyond a reasonable doubt?

And usually when someone thinks JoePa covered the rapes up, they don't follow it up with "but I'm biased, I can see the other side of the argument, bla bla bla." If you truly believe he covered up a rape, then there is no other side to it that is plausible. None. You can't think someone is capable of covering up a rape and also think people supporting him have some sort of argument. I mean, you can think that, but you would be missing the point in a big way. I'm not surprised actually. You sound just as delusional as every PSU fan that worships JoePa.

RGard

June 17th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^

I understand your position, but we can conclude he was part of the cover up.  Spanier and Curley did have a plan to report Sandusky to the PA DPW. 

Curley then told Paterno (based on Curley's email to Spanier) of the plan to report.  After discussing it with Paterno, Curley then recommended to Spanier that they should not report Sandusky.  Spanier agreed.

Paterno is right in the middle of that mess.

RB's Mustache

June 17th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^

"We don't know"? He knows about it and does nothing and let's him go on to do it more at PSU facilities. That's covering it up in my book. Perhaps worse.

The fact he's dead doesn't mean shit. They are still honoring him, so yes it does matter. That's why we are talking about it right now. He's lucky he's dead. He would have been deposed big time and talked his old ass into prison time.

You're just another delusional Nursery Liar. Go away.

michelin

June 17th, 2015 at 11:47 AM ^

In fact, there is no tellling how many times Sandusky actually was seen but not reported.  Maybe Joe did not even seek information--he did not want to know about it after a certain point.

When I say "one incident", however, I really mean one episode extending through time and involving the same kind of acts by the same man and an ongoing suppression of the truth. 

Such behavior may suggest in Paterno a single moral blindspot---regarding a shameful act--rather than a more extensive pattern of amoral behavior--as seen with Tressel.  Tressel's record suggested not one (extended) episode of the same kind of moral bllindness but rather a pattern of amoral action in multiple incidents involving entirely different people doing different things.  In the extreme, such people are called sociopaths.  JoPa was not a sociopath.

 

Hail-Storm

June 17th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^

Tressel looked the other way when his players sold their own stuff for tattoos and got some extra benefits.  These are not amoral things, as many fans believe that college players should get paid more or be able to get benefits.

Joe Pa looked the other way on a definite, no way is there any moral ground to stand on, situation so his program wouldn't be negatively affected.

I love me some Buckeye he cheated stories as much as the next guy, but these situations are not comparible.

saveferris

June 17th, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^

Also, if Paterno was so morally bankrupt that the was willing to look the other way for something as serious and reprehensible as Sandusky, can't we infer that he was looking the other way on other more mundane details regarding his program.  You can infer some smoke around the notion that JoePa ran a "clean" program.  Bollocks.

michelin

June 17th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^

Can you cite reliable evidence that he succumbed to the academic improprieties that have plagued so many programs?  Or that his administration was rife with booster scandals.?   In fact, wasn't PSU at this point one of the few FB programs with no history of major violations?

Based on what I have read--which may be as incomplete as your information--I have no reason to condemn him on the basis of suspicion for anything but the Sandusky matter.  And just because he looked away from something he found shameful does not mean he looked away from things he did not find shameful but that benefitted his program.  Indeed, the people most sensitive to shame often are highly moral in many ways.  The shame you could hear in his voice is something you could never hear in the slick, calculated and rehearsed comments of Tressel.

That does not justify what JoPa did by any means. I repeat: he does not belong in the HoF.  He may even have belonged in jail for what he did.   But our justifiable disgust at what he did does not entitle us to convict him in the court of public opinion for countless other deeds without evidence.

 

michelin

June 17th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^

JoPa was involved in far more horrific episode than Tressel, yes.  But the other difference is that Tressel's pattern of amoral behavior was far more extensive and embraced many different acts.  Many articles and documentaries suggest that he did far more than look away from tattoos or one or two "extra benefits.".  They suggest a longstanding pattern of many different forms of cheating since his days at YSU. They suggest academic improprities to keep players eligible. They suggest he allowed--or coordinated with boosters--many of the under the table payments or cars.  Pryor's mom got a free car through Sarniak.  It was Sarniak--not even his mom--who Tressel called and when the memorabilia for cash scandal broke.  Tressel had dozens of calls and emails to this man, and Tressel refused to release the emails.

I could go on and on....

No, JoPa does not belong in the HoF.  But neither does Tressel.

 

 

michelin

June 17th, 2015 at 11:32 AM ^

We do need to learn from this incident.  The incident makes me think about the Popes who allowed Priests to abuse children for years. No doubt, they were otherwise supremely moral men. Likewise, the documentary argues that JoPa had high ethical standards---except for the horrific blindspot that prevented him from outing Sandusky to the PD and making the matter public. I suspect that his insufficient action—which he acknowledges in the film--was probably due to his own denial and his culture. People just didn’t talk about such things in his day. At the same time, I don’t think that this excuses JoPa---a person does have responsiblity to resist an immoral culture. In fact, I think JoPa probably should have stood trial based on what I’ve seen from email evidence. But like you say, we’ll never know.

What we can do, however, is to contrast JoPa---a mostly decent man involved in one horrific incident---with the other recent HOF inductee, Tressel. IMO, Tressel was a thoroughly rotten man—Bo once called him a “snake”. He was involved in countless but less horrific incidents. If Sandusky were never around, JoPa would not have become infamous. Yet according to many revealing articles, Tressel’s misdeeds involved many different people over a long period. In fact, if anything like the Freeh report commissioned by PSU had been commissioned by OSU for Tressel, I think it would have uncovered a mountain of misdoings. Instead, OSU commissioned a whitewash headed by former execs of Arthur Anderson, the fraudulent firm involved in the crimes of Enron.

It’s ironic then that PSU jerseys became stigmatized—as if bearing a Scarlet Letter---while the OSU ones really having the scarlet letters evaded stigmatization. 

mgoblue0970

June 17th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^

I am objective enough to admit that the report did not (IMO) come close to proving its conclusions "beyond a reasonable doubt."

By Jay Paterno's own admission, St Joe knew! Jay published it in his own freaking words that McQueary was in JoePa's living room and told him about the abuse. St Joe reported it and did nothing else. It may have not been covered up according to your sick, twisted, logic but it was most certainly left to die on the vine. God help your kids if they are ever abused... because we know you won't do jack shit rather than protecting them.

CLord

June 17th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

Not have been charged?  Kind of like a guy in an Armani suit walking down the street not being charged for minding his own business as he leisurely watches a kid get run over by a bus he could have potentially stopped.  Wasn't his responsibility and he does have that lovely suit to protect...

No matter your lot in life, no matter whose responsibility it is, if you are presented with an immediate circumstance where you simple act or two on your part can save innocent children, you don't hesitate, you act.  Anything less and you are scumbag.  Charged or otherwise.

Why this is clear to 99.9% of the world, but not to a vocal sect of PSU fans, is why PSU is now the most despised program in the country.