The Joe Paterno Issue

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think anything "bad" about the old guy. I am glad to know his opinion on this child molestation case. Because that helps me formulate my plan for my daughter in his vicinity.

 

To me, thinking that someone who KNEW he was employing an active child molestor and who gave it a feeble attempt to stop it, shows a general lack of good discernment. And no, we tend not to have adults without good judgment around the kids. It's a side effect luxury of homeschooling and having a SAHM.

 

You seem to be having a serious overreaction to small piece of a conversation you over heard.

[SKL]

I think I may die of shock, as I'm agreeing with both Joanne and Chocolate Reign in the same thread. ;)

[Joanne]

I think I may die of shock, as I'm agreeing with both Joanne and Chocolate Reign in the same thread. ;)

 

Here's a hug. :grouphug: I need you stabilized. ;)

 

What fun is WTM General board without SKL?:tongue_smilie:

[Jennifer3141]

I think I may die of shock, as I'm agreeing with both Joanne and Chocolate Reign in the same thread. ;)

 

Meh. I'm agreeing with the people I usually agree with and respect as parents so I'm not all that surprised.

[TranquilMind]

Jennifer3141: He died from cancer, NOT this. He should have died when a parent got to beat the crap out of him with a baseball bat.

 

Does it really matter? The result is the same, as Joanne stated.

 

And I don't think they lost any money over this. So he didn't really lose too much, especially since there are people like this old guy who think he got a bum rap.

 

Well, you would be mistaken. Apparently, you have never hired attorneys to represent you in a major case. It was all going anyway. Does it really matter how he lost it all?

 

And while your impassioned view is understandable, we live in a nation of laws, where parents can't just take a baseball bat to someone's skill.

[TranquilMind]

I think I may die of shock, as I'm agreeing with both Joanne and Chocolate Reign in the same thread. ;)

 

Exactly. Me too! But this sort of thinking is really irrational.

 

Understandable, if she or someone else she knows has been molested, but definitely irrational projection. Sort of like someone saying, after having been mugged once, "ALL black guys (or Asians, or tall guys with tattoos, or fill in the blank with the characteristics of the perp) are muggers!"

[8circles]

I'm sorry, but this is making me angry. It's this kind of thinking that prevents good dads, grandpas, and other male role models from being able to do normal, healthy things with kids - to the detriment of all.

 

You don't know that guy from Adam. He (and the anti-Paterno person next to him) could be a saintly, loving grandpa or a child molester. I don't decide my daughter's activities or whom they're with based on whether I agree with their views on what is seen in the popular media.

 

From the OP again

The groundskeeper (70ish man) whined that it was no fun for him to watch the game since it wouldn't count for anything and he had a hard time knowing Joe got such a bad rap. The other two moms nodded, one spoke up a teeny bit but the other seemed to agree with the old guy. I'm not sure if it was true agreement or placating. But I was a little surprised to hear that opinion stated at a GIRL SCOUT camp. Hello! Anyone home?

 

And I know that even my own father thought JP was crucified because, "What was he supposed to do? He reported it!" and JP just couldn't be expected to do more because it was so heinous, how could any rational person react?

 

I agree with the OP. Nowhere did she say that the groundskeeper was a child molester or anything close. Someone who holds his opinions has a higher likelihood (IMO) of not being trustworthy with children. That's all I need to make a note to keep my distance.

 

As to your assertion that opinions like mine are what keep men away from volunteering with children, I say hogwash. Most men (IME) do NOT hold these views about the Penn State case & if they did then I would prefer that they not volunteer with my children. There is no shortage of men doing things with my kids & to my knowledge none of them hold these views. When I find out they may lean this way (commenting about "crying like a girl" or similar) I steer my children away. The opinions of the groundskeeper as described are not "manly" opinions, they are cowardly ones. My children don't need that as a role model.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I still can't see where the gentleman defended Sandusky or crimes against children. Based on what I have read (including the Freeh Report) there is still a debate about exactly what JP was told, and those details could explain why he did less that what many of us think he should have done.

 

The second part of the groundskeeper's statement is an attempt to rationalize why someone he (the groundskeeper) saw as an upstanding member of the community would not push the matter more. I don't see any statements that defend child molesters or suggest they should not be reported.

[8circles]

I still can't see where the gentleman defended Sandusky or crimes against children. Based on what I have read (including the Freeh Report) there is still a debate about exactly what JP was told, and those details could explain why he did less that what many of us think he should have done.

 

The second part of the groundskeeper's statement is an attempt to rationalize why someone he (the groundskeeper) saw as an upstanding member of the community would not push the matter more. I don't see any statements that defend child molesters or suggest they should not be reported.

 

Well, if one can't think of anything else that someone in JP's shoes could have done about the situation, why would I shave any level of confidence that they would be able to think of what else to do if they were in that position themselves?

 

And complaining about *one's own* lack of fun in light of such a tragedy? Not someone I would trust to behave in the best interest of my children.

[NittanyJen]

You seem to be having a serious overreaction to small piece of a conversation you over heard.

 

:iagree:

 

As to the following person who said people who think like this are less trustworthy around children... What a load of garbage. People who are actually informed, rational, caring, and respect the laws and due process are just as trustworthy around children as anyone else. In my mind, I prefer my children to hang out with people who consider facts over biased media reports and who don't come out in favor of mob violence because they (erroneously) think witch-trial mentality is the right way to go any day.

 

In a crisis, I want my kids to be with the person who keeps his or her head in a bad situation.

 

The Freeh Fiction and falsehood ridden media reports are the worst thing to be basing such vitriol on.

 

There are excellent reasons why the victims everyone claims to care so much about have spoken up and said they feel the sanctions, and treatment of Joe, were wrong. Nobody asked them first. The FACT is that upon hearing of the problem, Joe reported it on up the chain-- not exactly the action of a man trying to bury the story and keep it in house. The FACT is that anybody claiming Joe put football ahead of student well-being is completely unfamiliar with Penn State football and Joe Paterno. Entitled to your opinion? Yes. Entitled to be wrong? Yes you are. I am not surprised when so many who feel so violently anti-Paterno and anti-PSU admit that they are unfamiliar with Penn State's actual culture, PSU athletics and football, sports in general, or Joe Paterno. The media reporting of this affair has been horrifically inaccurate and biased, so if that is all you have to go on, then you judge others who have more knowledge of the situation, and imply they condone child molesting/don't care about children/are less protective than you are/are less trustworthy than you... Because you eavesdropped on a conversation by people probably more informed than yourself... that is just mind boggling. Think about it.

[8circles]

:iagree:

 

As to the following person who said people who think like this are less trustworthy around children... What a load of garbage. People who are actually informed, rational, caring, and respect the laws and due process are just as trustworthy around children as anyone else. In my mind, I prefer my children to hang out with people who consider facts over biased media reports and who don't come out in favor of mob violence because they (erroneously) think witch-trial mentality is the right way to go any day.

 

In a crisis, I want my kids to be with the person who keeps his or her head in a bad situation.

 

The Freeh Fiction and falsehood ridden media reports are the worst thing to be basing such vitriol on.

 

There are excellent reasons why the victims everyone claims to care so much about have spoken up and said they feel the sanctions, and treatment of Joe, were wrong. Nobody asked them first. The FACT is that upon hearing of the problem, Joe reported it on up the chain-- not exactly the action of a man trying to bury the story and keep it in house. The FACT is that anybody claiming Joe put football ahead of student well-being is completely unfamiliar with Penn State football and Joe Paterno. Entitled to your opinion? Yes. Entitled to be wrong? Yes you are. I am not surprised when so many who feel so violently anti-Paterno and anti-PSU admit that they are unfamiliar with Penn State's actual culture, PSU athletics and football, sports in general, or Joe Paterno. The media reporting of this affair has been horrifically inaccurate and biased, so if that is all you have to go on, then you judge others who have more knowledge of the situation, and imply they condone child molesting/don't care about children/are less protective than you are/are less trustworthy than you... Because you eavesdropped on a conversation by people probably more informed than yourself... that is just mind boggling. Think about it.

 

I think you're making more assumptions about people than anyone else in this thread. I'm taking the OP & her description of the conversation at face value. You have to make a lot more assumptions than I did to come to your conclusion that this person is somehow more informed to have his opinion that "what else could JP do?" and bemoaning his lack of fun watching a football game. Informed, indeed.

[Spy Car]

I think "Geezers" attitude is worrisome not because I suspect he approves of child molestation (which most people consider monstrously bad) but because it is emblematic of the "circle the wagons" mentality that is far too pervasive when individuals and institution one might positively identify with fail in their moral responsibilities to protect children from rape and sexual abuse. Too often there is "excuse making" that hard to accept.

 

Joe Paterno failed. Penn State failed. The Roman Catholic leadership failed. The Boy Scouts of America failed. And those devoted to those institutions and individuals to the point they are blinded into offering excuses are part of the problem. "Geezers" attitude is part of the problem. And I would be far less confident that he would act against the interest of an organization he was invested in (and in the interests of a child) than a person who wasn't so inclined.

 

Bill

[8circles]

I think "Geezers" attitude is worrisome not because I suspect he approves of child molestation (which most people consider monstrously bad) but because it is emblematic of the "circle the wagons" mentality that is far too pervasive when individuals and institution one might positively identify with fail in their moral responsibilities to protect children from rape and sexual abuse. Too often there is "excuse making" that hard to accept.

 

Joe Paterno failed. Penn State failed. The Roman Catholic leadership failed. The Boy Scouts of America failed. And those devoted to those institutions and individuals to the point they are blinded into offering excuses are part of the problem. "Geezers" attitude is part of the problem. And I would be far less confident that he would act against the interest of an organization he was invested in (and in the interests of a child) than a person who wasn't so inclined.

 

Bill

 

Yes, Bill, I think you've nailed it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think "Geezers" attitude is worrisome not because I suspect he approves of child molestation (which most people consider monstrously bad) but because it is emblematic of the "circle the wagons" mentality that is far too pervasive when individuals and institution one might positively identify with fail in their moral responsibilities to protect children from rape and sexual abuse. Too often there is "excuse making" that hard to accept.

 

Joe Paterno failed. Penn State failed. The Roman Catholic leadership failed. The Boy Scouts of America failed. And those devoted to those institutions and individuals to the point they are blinded into offering excuses are part of the problem. "Geezers" attitude is part of the problem. And I would be far less confident that he would act against the interest of an organization he was invested in (and in the interests of a child) than a person who wasn't so inclined.

 

Bill

 

I think that is quite a reach to make off of a snippet of one conversation. There is a reasonable debate to be had about what JoePa knew, when he knew it, and what transpired afterwards.

There is a reasonable debate to be had as to what constitutes fair sanctions towards the PSU program, and if what was applied was reasonable. It is also reasonable for fans of college athletics to discuss whether the NCAA over stepped its mandate in the way it became involved.

Someone having a different take on those specific issues does not mean they do not take the issue seriously or would place children in jeopardy. If he were defending Sandusky this would be a different conversation. But he wasn't.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, if one can't think of anything else that someone in JP's shoes could have done about the situation, why would I shave any level of confidence that they would be able to think of what else to do if they were in that position themselves?

 

But JP did report it up the chain. We can debate whether he should have done more, but in all fairness we don't know exactly what he was told. MM has been very inconsistent with his version of events. I also don't see where this gentleman said he wouldn't know what to do.

 

Sorry, but declaring this person as potentially unsafe or a possible bad influence is not a rational reaction.

[Anne in CA]

The book I read about Sandusky said that even though it might seem that JP reported the second known incident up the chain, in fact he had hired the people he reported it to and was in fact senior to them as far as actual power at the university went. That JP reported up the chain is in question, not a fact. What he said when he reported is in question. The man he reported it to has never budged in his story that JP did not talk about the explicit details or tell what had really happened. It may be that JP did NOT tell the truth. We will probably never know.

 

The reality is that the other incidents should never have happened, because one thing that is a FACT is that there was a lengthy police report from years before that the district attorney had somehow chosen not to pursue. Does anyone really think that the university did not influence the DA from doing his job? I will agree that we will never know either, the DA is dead. But it is incredibly naive to think that JP and the university did not indulge in at least some cover up. And if you believe that, then you have to believe that they are partly responsible for the other crimes that happened after S should have been in prison.

[Joanne]

The book I read about Sandusky said that even though it might seem that JP reported the second known incident up the chain, in fact he had hired the people he reported it to and was in fact senior to them as far as actual power at the university went. That JP reported up the chain is in question, not a fact. What he said when he reported is in question. The man he reported it to has never budged in his story that JP did not talk about the explicit details or tell what had really happened. It may be that JP did NOT tell the truth. We will probably never know.

 

The reality is that the other incidents should never have happened, because one thing that is a FACT is that there was a lengthy police report from years before that the district attorney had somehow chosen not to pursue. Does anyone really think that the university did not influence the DA from doing his job? I will agree that we will never know either, the DA is dead. But it is incredibly naive to think that JP and the university did not indulge in at least some cover up. And if you believe that, then you have to believe that they are partly responsible for the other crimes that happened after S should have been in prison.

 

But, Anne? The issue in this thread is about assumptions made about Mr. Geezer.

 

It's not about JP and the truth. It's not about the level of reaction to molestation and rape.

 

It's simply about a reaction to a man based on his casual, short comment regarding JP.

[Harriet Vane]

I think "Geezers" attitude is worrisome not because I suspect he approves of child molestation (which most people consider monstrously bad) but because it is emblematic of the "circle the wagons" mentality that is far too pervasive when individuals and institution one might positively identify with fail in their moral responsibilities to protect children from rape and sexual abuse. Too often there is "excuse making" that hard to accept.

 

Joe Paterno failed. Penn State failed. The Roman Catholic leadership failed. The Boy Scouts of America failed. And those devoted to those institutions and individuals to the point they are blinded into offering excuses are part of the problem. "Geezers" attitude is part of the problem. And I would be far less confident that he would act against the interest of an organization he was invested in (and in the interests of a child) than a person who wasn't so inclined.

 

Bill

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

I think that is quite a reach to make off of a snippet of one conversation. There is a reasonable debate to be had about what JoePa knew, when he knew it, and what transpired afterwards.

There is a reasonable debate to be had as to what constitutes fair sanctions towards the PSU program, and if what was applied was reasonable. It is also reasonable for fans of college athletics to discuss whether the NCAA over stepped its mandate in the way it became involved.

Someone having a different take on those specific issues does not mean they do not take the issue seriously or would place children in jeopardy. If he were defending Sandusky this would be a different conversation. But he wasn't.

 

We are not living in the same universe when it comes to judging the moral culpability of Joe Paterno. As far as I'm concerned he failed to protect children from being raped. His was a great moral failure. I think that is clear and utterly unambiguous.

 

The authority of the NCAA to act in the matter is also clear and unambiguous.

 

Bill

[SKL]

I read that the guy who reported the incident to Paterno said he didn't see anything and didn't think sex was occurring. It sounded like he just had a funny feeling. After Paterno reported it the "witness" was interviewed again and continued to be wishy washy.

 

This is not the first time (nor the last time) that someone wasn't pursued because everyone who had the ability to accuse him wussed out.

 

Policy needs to consider that some men are falsely accused and that a false accusation of child molesting is devastating. Now that a lot of facts have come out, it seems Sandusky probably was guilty, but I don't blame a guy for not convicting the guy after only hearing a report that there were once some strange noises that didn't seem to be sex. Keep in mind that all the information we now have was not available to inform Paterno's decision.

 

Of course I don't know whether the groundskeeper knew a lot or a little about Paterno, or how emotionally invested he was one way or the other. Nobody knows. Either way, his opinion as expressed in the OP doesn't suggest anything about his personal proclivities. If we were allowed to get political here, I could provide a whole list of parallels that would suggest half of the US population should not be trusted with my children, based on the logic applied here.

 

What I find more scary is that people like the OP and some commenters will make hurtful decisions based on something of this nature. I mean, some folks sound like they'd be happy to participate in a stoning of this old groundskeeper. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[Barb_]

What I find more scary is that people like the OP and some commenters will make hurtful decisions based on something of this nature. I mean, some folks sound like they'd be happy to participate in a stoning of this old groundskeeper. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

:iagree: As heinous as the crime was, we can't possibly know all the details of Paterno's involvement. I personally prefer to extend the benefit of the doubt in absence of hard evidence. Anything else reeks of witch hunt, IMO...particularly where an unrelated groundskeeper at a girl scout camp is concerned.

[Joanne]

We are not living in the same universe when it comes to judging the moral culpability of Joe Paterno. As far as I'm concerned he failed to protect children from being raped. His was a great moral failure. I think that is clear and utterly unambiguous.

 

The authority of the NCAA to act in the matter is also clear and unambiguous.

 

Bill

 

This I agree with.

 

The assumptions about Mr. Geezer? Not so much.

[Spy Car]

:iagree: As heinous as the crime was, we can't possibly know all the details of Paterno's involvement. I personally prefer to extend the benefit of the doubt in absence of hard evidence. Anything else reeks of witch hunt, IMO...particularly where an unrelated groundskeeper at a girl scout camp is concerned.

 

There was a major investigation by former Director of the FBI and former Federal District Court Judge, Louis Freeh. The results of the investigation are quite clear and condemn Mr Paterno's actions. So much so that he lost his position, and the NCAA stripped Penn State of decades of football victories.

 

This is not a case lacking in evidence. Paterno failed to act when action was demanded of any person with a conscience. His was a complete and utter moral failure to protect children from being raped.

 

http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/

 

Bill

[Joanne]

There was a major investigation by former Director of the FBI and former Federal District Court Judge, Louis Freeh. The results of the investigation are quite clear and condemn Mr Paterno's actions. So much so that he lost his position, and the NCAA stripped Penn State of decades of football victories.

 

This is not a case lacking in evidence. Paterno failed to act when action was demanded of any person with a conscience. His was a complete and utter moral failure to protect children from being raped.

 

http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/

 

Bill

 

Bill, where do you stand on McQueary? Or Sandusky's wife?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There was a major investigation by former Director of the FBI and former Federal District Court Judge, Louis Freeh. The results of the investigation are quite clear and condemn Mr Paterno's actions. So much so that he lost his position, and the NCAA stripped Penn State of decades of football victories.

 

I have read the reports. Freeh makes statements in his summary based on very flimsy evidence and a few times on assumptions.

 

This is not a case lacking in evidence. Paterno failed to act when action was demanded of any person with a conscience. His was a complete and utter moral failure to protect children from being raped.

 

The case doesn't lack evidence...except when it comes to Paterno. Again, read what Freeh presented as evidence against Paterno. A couple of emails, a couple of which do not include Paterno's name.

Was Paterno a complete moral failure? Maybe. I am not sure based on the evidence provided.

 

Oh, and contrary to what you stated in a previous post, the NCAA having the authority to sanction PSU in this case was also not clear cut. I have no real issue with the sanctions, but the NCAA may have just opened a can of worms they may regret in the future.

[8circles]

I read that the guy who reported the incident to Paterno said he didn't see anything and didn't think sex was occurring. It sounded like he just had a funny feeling. After Paterno reported it the "witness" was interviewed again and continued to be wishy washy.

 

This is not the first time (nor the last time) that someone wasn't pursued because everyone who had the ability to accuse him wussed out.

 

Policy needs to consider that some men are falsely accused and that a false accusation of child molesting is devastating. Now that a lot of facts have come out, it seems Sandusky probably was guilty, but I don't blame a guy for not convicting the guy after only hearing a report that there were once some strange noises that didn't seem to be sex. Keep in mind that all the information we now have was not available to inform Paterno's decision.

 

Of course I don't know whether the groundskeeper knew a lot or a little about Paterno, or how emotionally invested he was one way or the other. Nobody knows. Either way, his opinion as expressed in the OP doesn't suggest anything about his personal proclivities. If we were allowed to get political here, I could provide a whole list of parallels that would suggest half of the US population should not be trusted with my children, based on the logic applied here.

 

What I find more scary is that people like the OP and some commenters will make hurtful decisions based on something of this nature. I mean, some folks sound like they'd be happy to participate in a stoning of this old groundskeeper. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

Stoning? That's a stretch. I don't know what kind of man his groundskeepers is. What I do know isn't encouraging. Given the choice between this man and an equivalent man who would share my opinion of the penn state situation, I would not choose this groundskeepers to entrust my children to (that's an ugly sentence). There are plenty of people who do share my opinion so this isn't a hardship. There isn't anything illogical about taking people for who they show themselves to be.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The book I read about Sandusky said that even though it might seem that JP reported the second known incident up the chain, in fact he had hired the people he reported it to and was in fact senior to them as far as actual power at the university went. That JP reported up the chain is in question, not a fact. What he said when he reported is in question. The man he reported it to has never budged in his story that JP did not talk about the explicit details or tell what had really happened. It may be that JP did NOT tell the truth. We will probably never know.

 

The Penn State BOT hired those above Paterno. While Paterno had tremendous stroke at PSU, claiming he "hired" the university president is a bit of a stretch. It is a "fact" that under the PSU chain of command, Paterno reported what he was told (what that was is still unclear) to the proper individuals.

A major issue with the Freeh report was that none of the administrators who could shed light on exactly what was reported and when were interviewed due to the charges currently filed against them.

 

It is clear that certain PSU administrators did not do the right thing with the information that was provided to them. It is less clear how much Paterno was involved in that failure to act.

 

The reality is that the other incidents should never have happened, because one thing that is a FACT is that there was a lengthy police report from years before that the district attorney had somehow chosen not to pursue. Does anyone really think that the university did not influence the DA from doing his job? I will agree that we will never know either, the DA is dead. But it is incredibly naive to think that JP and the university did not indulge in at least some cover up. And if you believe that, then you have to believe that they are partly responsible for the other crimes that happened after S should have been in prison.

 

 

I suggest you read further about the case in 1998. The police investigation determined that the alleged incident in the shower with the boy was highly inappropriate, but was not a crime based on what the child reported. Sandusky was certainly engaging in grooming behavior with the child, but the the testimony from this victim (#6) at the trial also did not present evidence of a crime by Sandusky.

The ball was dropped when the DA and child welfare did not notify The Second Mile Foundation and get Sandusky far, far away from these boys. However, unless you can provide evidence that PSU administrators were involved, making a conspiracy claim is rather weak.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Stoning? That's a stretch. I don't know what kind of man his groundskeepers is. What I do know isn't encouraging. Given the choice between this man and an equivalent man who would share my opinion of the penn state situation, I would not choose this groundskeepers to entrust my children to (that's an ugly sentence). There are plenty of people who do share my opinion so this isn't a hardship. There isn't anything illogical about taking people for who they show themselves to be.

 

He hasn't shown anything in a couple of simple statements about a current events topic that is not as clear as some of you want to believe. It is quite possible this groundskeeper is actually more aware of how complex this story is than people like you and the OP.

[SKL]

Given the choice between this man and an equivalent man who would share my opinion of the penn state situation, I would not choose this groundskeepers to entrust my children to (that's an ugly sentence). There are plenty of people who do share my opinion so this isn't a hardship. There isn't anything illogical about taking people for who they show themselves to be.

 

I find this so odd. You admit that what you hold is an "opinion." Unless you are very close to Paterno, are privy to all the evidence, and have a thorough understanding of the process such that you know where the line between "fair deal" and "bad rap" must be drawn, you can't be sure your "opinion" is right.

 

So basically in your view, the measure of a man is whether or not he agrees with your "opinion" on something that was a media carnival and continues to be controversial.

 

I mean, don't you think it often happens that truly good, even awesome people hold opinions different from yours?

 

The guy's opinion isn't about whether molestation is wrong or hiding it is wrong. It might not even be his opinion that Paterno did enough. The guy's opinion was simply that Paterno got more than his fair share of blame and consequences.

 

It is pretty obvious that once they decided Paterno was out, they used him as a scapegoat to protect others. If you doubt that, then maybe I shouldn't let my kids be around you.

[JennyD]

There was an excellent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education recently, by a Penn State professor who held a chair (a named professorship) endowed by the Paterno family. The article digs deeply into all facets of what happened: the events, the Freeh report, the public reactions.

 

Wow, what a fascinating article. Thanks so much for the link.