Jerry Sandusky thread

[Ksyrup]

I don't have a problem with the NCAA meting out the punishment if the state or university system won't do it. And you know they won't do it. Certainly anyone in an elected position or who has the slightest bit of a thought to run for anything above town crier won't push for it. And certainly not the blowhard AG.

Having said that, I've already noted that the NCAA risks putting itself in a bad position if it doesn't do something drastic here. You can't have some half-assed punishment that can in any way be comparable to the punishment the NCAA might have to give a program for strictly compliance violations down the road. The outcry on both sides would be deafening.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by molson

Who is they again? The Penn St. logo?

You're saying the purpose is deterrence, as a message to other schools, and I don't see that as something effective to prevent child abuse. Do you think that if Paterno and friends knew that the program could be shut down if they got caught, they would have handled things differently? I think they knew they were all finished if they got caught as it was.

Ha, you are just going back and forth between two arguments I already answered and driving me nuts . So let me summarize my answers to your repeating 2 points. Maybe get a real rebuttal or a third point out of it?

1. Who is they again? The Penn St. logo?

As much as the president/coach/AD are to blame, the culture that allowed this(and still doesn't seem to get it) extends well beyond them and there's no single point to blame/punish.

2. Whole reason for the coverup was they were afraid of penalties.

They are being punished for the coverup. Not what they were covering up.

It was bad for their image if they got caught, thats why they hid it. Now it needs to be made very clear consequences are much worse than bad publicity if you try to cover up.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

Strong statements are fine but actual preventive measures and new organizational regulations (at every organization, not just Penn St), are more important than pure punishment of the remnants of organizations, I think.

I disagree they need to be punished coupled with new organizational regulations.

Originally Posted by molson

Killing the Penn St program won't deter abuse cover-ups, it will only give more incentive to keep the bad stuff covered up.

This is where you started to get way off to me. By giving Penn State a harsh punishment it will set precedent that the NCAA will punishment institutions that use their sports programs to cover up criminal activities. This will send a signal to other institutions that are aware of criminal activities to report it or else they will suffer much more than just public ridicule.

I don't think the course of events at Penn St. would have been different if only everyone there knew that the cover-up being revealed would actually be "really bad" for the program rather than just "very bad" (I'm sure they only cared about their individual careers anyway).

You sure? If I knew of such activities I would have reported and sued Penn State if they fired me for reporting it. Instead Penn State allowed Joe Pa to control the situation and effectively ruined their careers and lives because of all the litigation they will be subject too.

I think my characterization of your argument was a bit harsh, but I strongly disagree with it.

[jeff061]

Yes, Molson you seem to be equating the coverup with the subject of the coverup. They are two very different things. This punishment is about the coverup.

[Noop]

B1G and the NCAA need to do something however I think nothing will be done. Money talks and bullshit walks.

[RedKingGold]

One thing I wonder though, if the SMU death penalty didn't educate Penn State administrators, including the athletic department, about the consequences of a coverup, then what's to say that a Penn State death penalty will have that effect?

I really don't think there's a way to educate or legislate around the "it'll never happen to us!" mentality. I'm sure PSU administrators and Paterno snickered at SMU in the mid-eighties by rationalizing that it will never happen to them.

[jeff061]

If its and buts were candies and nuts .

It's like people are looking for reasons to go soft on them.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Noop

Money talks and bullshit walks.

This.

Besides whatever the punishment is, it won't happen this football season. We are roughly six weeks away from kick-off? The NCAA is probably hoping a season of football will tone down the people who want Penn State to suffer substantial penalties.

[Subby]

How about they get a year of no football for every kid Jerry Sandusky is convicted of raping after the 2001 shower incident that Paterno covered up?

[bhlloy]

Yeah Molson I think you are way off here. If Paterno and the Penn State admin reports this in 98 or 01 or whenever they first learn about it, they aren't close to done. Embarrassing, maybe some down years recruiting, sure. But they made a choice to avoid embarrassment and turning in a friend to go all in on the cover up.

Like many have said in this thread, you have to go absolutely nuclear on that decision to make it clear that if you cover this shit up you, your staff and your program are dead. And it sucks for Penn State alumni, students and people who had nothing to do with it but you just can't let this slide

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Noop

You sure? If I knew of such activities I would have reported and sued Penn State if they fired me for reporting it. Instead Penn State allowed Joe Pa to control the situation and effectively ruined their careers and lives because of all the litigation they will be subject too.

I really don't want to get too personal here, but would you report on someone you knew was violating the law if that person was responsible for your well-being or if you were emotionally attached for that person?

In the interest of full disclosure, I had a close family member convicted of a crime and was relieved I didn't know about it before he was apprehended. It's easy to sit and point fingers before your realize someone close (and truly close) is not whom they appear to be. There is a grief/doubt/shame mechanism in perpetrator's families upon that realization.

That is my motiviation for coming to Paterno's family's and PSU defendants defense in this thread. It's not a defense of the PSU football program. Unless you've been on that side of the coin, it's hard to really relate and look at it as a black-and-white issue.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

It's like people are looking for reasons to go soft on them.

Nope, just trying to think about the approach that will protect kids the most. There's basis for reasonable disagreement on that, but I think it's unfair and a bit offensive to drop the "going soft on them" BS just because I have some different thoughts on this.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

One thing I wonder though, if the SMU death penalty didn't educate Penn State administrators, including the athletic department, about the consequences of a coverup, then what's to say that a Penn State death penalty will have that effect?

I really don't think there's a way to educate or legislate around the "it'll never happen to us!" mentality. I'm sure PSU administrators and Paterno snickered at SMU in the mid-eighties by rationalizing that it will never happen to them.

Sure, if we are looking for completely irrelevant comparisons I guess we could ask why they didn't learn from the Titanic either. The two situations have absolutely nothing in common other than the fact they are both football programs

[larrymcg421]

Yeah it goes beyond the NCAA, but I don't see why that should have any effect on the strength of the penalty the NCAA should dole out. It's clearly a football/athletic issue. Sure it's more than that too, but that's no reason they shouldn't mete out their harshest punishment possible. That doesn't forbid anyone above the NCAA from also acting.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I really don't want to get too personal here, but would you report on someone you knew was violating the law if that person was responsible for your well-being or if you were emotionally attached for that person?

In the interest of full disclosure, I had a close family member convicted of a crime and was relieved I didn't know about it before he was apprehended. It's easy to sit and point fingers before your realize someone close (and truly close) is not whom they appear to be. There is a grief/doubt/shame mechanism in perpetrator's families upon that realization.

That is my motiviation for coming to Paterno's family's and PSU defendants defense in this thread. It's not a defense of the PSU football program. Unless you've been on that side of the coin, it's hard to really relate and look at it as a black-and-white issue.

A university football program is not a family member - IT'S A FUCKING GAME!!!

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Sure, if we are looking for completely irrelevant comparisons I guess we could ask why they didn't learn from the Titanic either. The two situations have absolutely nothing in common other than the fact they are both football programs

The crimes were different, but the cover-up and connection to the head of the university was the same.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

A university football program is not a family member - IT'S A FUCKING GAME!!!

Agreed, which is why it's a bit confusing to me that the MOST IMPORTANT thing we can do here apparently is stop a game from being played

Edit: (which is something I haven't even really disagreed with, I'm just questioning what it's the focus and what purpose that serves, and questioning whether it's a good idea...but I think this discussion has reached that emotional place where you have to have the one particular focus or viewpoint or you're some kind of enabler.)

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

A university football program is not a family member - IT'S A FUCKING GAME!!!

Again, I'm not defending the PSU football program. My earlier posts were a viewpoint from where Paterno's family was coming from in defending a family member, and the feeling of grief/loss/betrayal/shame PSU students may feel because of things they had no knowledge of or participation in.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed, which is why it's a bit confusing to me that the MOST IMPORTANT thing we can do here apparently is stop a game from being played.

See, this is where I think your argument fails. I don't think there is anyone suggesting PSU get the death penalty and absolutely nothing else happens to them. I think the NCAA should absolutely give PSU the death penalty, but I also support any changes/penalties that the state of Pennsylvania wants to put in place.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by molson

Nope, just trying to think about the approach that will protect kids the most. There's basis for reasonable disagreement on that, but I think it's unfair and a bit offensive to drop the "going soft on them" BS just because I have some different thoughts on this.

Well that was more directed to RKG, where he was making long leaps of logic that in the end are irrelevant.

You simply just have a fundamentally flawed argument .

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed, which is why it's a bit confusing to me that the MOST IMPORTANT thing we can do here apparently is stop a game from being played.

Is this post for real?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I really don't want to get too personal here, but would you report on someone you knew was violating the law if that person was responsible for your well-being or if you were emotionally attached for that person?

In the interest of full disclosure, I had a close family member convicted of a crime and was relieved I didn't know about it before he was apprehended. It's easy to sit and point fingers before your realize someone close (and truly close) is not whom they appear to be. There is a grief/doubt/shame mechanism in perpetrator's families upon that realization.

That is my motiviation for coming to Paterno's family's and PSU defendants defense in this thread. It's not a defense of the PSU football program. Unless you've been on that side of the coin, it's hard to really relate and look at it as a black-and-white issue.

They have laws that protect people who report their employers for crimes, so that is null. If it is not family then I have zero emotional attachment and even still I would strongly encourage them to turn themselves in.

I also had a close family member commit a crime and I am sure I would have told him to turn himself in had I been aware. I know you're a Penn State fan, but you're on the wrong side of this one. Penn State needs to be removed from college sports because their presence is a constant reminder to the real victims.

It sucks for the Penn State alumni and fans but their feelings when weighted against the victims hardly make a dent.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

Penn State needs to be removed from college sports because their presence is a constant reminder to the real victims.

OK, that's a completely different justification than others are promoting here (i.e. deterrence), and I think it's an interesting one. You're saying (I think), that the organization was so rotten that it's continued existence is offensive/painful to victims of the organization. I think that's a fair point. As I've said many times early in this thread (before I apparently "went soft") I find the glorification of big-time college athletics a little off-putting after all this and that's especially true at Penn St - should they be allowed to celebrate that culture that caused so much damage, or isn't that just too fucked up? That's a better practical argument, IMO, than "deterrence" or "punishing culture" and that's all I was trying to do here, ask the questions to figure out what the objective here is and whether the proposed actions fulfill that. Just a couple of thoughts beyond "BURN EVERYTHING!"

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed, which is why it's a bit confusing to me that the MOST IMPORTANT thing we can do here apparently is stop a game from being played

Are you sure you're thinking this thing through? I do not understand this at all molson and I never thought of you as someone who is flat out irrational.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Noop

They have laws that protect people who report their employers for crimes, so that is null. If it is not family then I have zero emotional attachment and even still I would strongly encourage them to turn themselves in.

I also had a close family member commit a crime and I am sure I would have told him to turn himself in had I been aware. I know you're a Penn State fan, but you're on the wrong side of this one. Penn State needs to be removed from college sports because their presence is a constant reminder to the real victims.

It sucks for the Penn State alumni and fans but their feelings when weighted against the victims hardly make a dent.

Again, please re-read my posts over the last few pages. Where do I say PSU shouldn't get the death penalty. I'm not saying that at all.

[molson]

I wonder, if we knew Jean Yawkey and Haywood Sullivan helped cover up the Red Sox sex abuse scandal in the 70s and 80s, and we didn't find out about it until 2006 or so, should the Red Sox franchise be sanctioned? As a deterrent to other teams? If not, is it only because some time has passed, and because the guilty individuals were no longer with the team? What difference do those things make to the concept of deterrence? In other words, what makes it OK for an organization which did horrible things to exist? Enough time to have passed? A clean sweep of personnel? Or is there just a taint in the brand that can never come clean? I think it's an interesting question when it comes to organizations, I'm not trying to "be soft" or enable child molesters or anything (I feel like I need to throw that disclaimer in now.)

[muns]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

A university football program is not a family member - IT'S A FUCKING GAME!!!

pretty sure he is talking about sandusky here who was like family to joepa

[larrymcg421]

I just don't really understand these arguments. What it sounds like to me is people are saying that because Penn State fucked up so bad that it goes even beyond the NCAA, they should avoid the death penalty because that's an NCAA penalty. So they were smart to fuck up worse than anyone else ever has before, because if they had fucked up a little bit less, but kept it totally within NCAA's range like SMU, only then would they deserve the death penalty. Maybe this is not what you're trying to get across, but it's exactly how these arguments read to me.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I just don't really understand these arguments. What it sounds like to me is people are saying that because Penn State fucked up so bad that it goes even beyond the NCAA, they should avoid the death penalty because that's an NCAA penalty. So they were smart to fuck up worse than anyone else ever has before, because if they had fucked up a little bit less, but kept it totally within NCAA's range like SMU, only then would they deserve the death penalty. Maybe this is not what you're trying to get across, but it's exactly how these arguments read to me.

On the nose. Especially when people claim "it's child rape, something much more important than football games." As if no one wanted Sandusky in jail, no one believe the PSU administration should be charged, no one wants Clery Act violations cited, etc.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Noop

It sucks for the Penn State alumni and fans but their feelings when weighted against the victims hardly make a dent.

Not just that, but one could easily make the argument that it's because of the level of idolatry Penn State fans/alums had for Paterno and the football program that enabled/forced Penn State administration into a position of subservience to their underling, allowing this mess to become possible.

So yeah, while it would suck for Penn State fans to see their program shut down for a while, this is precisely the point - the lesson that needs to be learned here is the relative importance of a football program to the parent University. A significant "reset" button needs to happen to these fans - and to serve as an example to all other college sports fans - about relative priorities.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I just don't really understand these arguments. What it sounds like to me is people are saying that because Penn State fucked up so bad that it goes even beyond the NCAA, they should avoid the death penalty because that's an NCAA penalty. So they were smart to fuck up worse than anyone else ever has before, because if they had fucked up a little bit less, but kept it totally within NCAA's range like SMU, only then would they deserve the death penalty. Maybe this is not what you're trying to get across, but it's exactly how these arguments read to me.

I don't want to see any NCAA sanctions like loss of scholarships or vacating wins. That would incredibly cheapen what happened, IMO. I'd rather see them stay out of this entirely if that's what they're going to do. I'd love to see Penn St., on their own, make sweeping organizational changes, 100% personnel turnover, settle the lawsuits and contribute tens of millions to abuse prevention nationwide, but I could care less whether they play or not because the issue to me isn't football. If people at the NCAA get together and decide that the best way to protect children is to forceably shut the program down, and they have the legal authority to do such a thing, I'm fine with that too. I would hope that's not the last word on it, and I'd hope everyone wouldn't just pat themselves on the back and say "problem solved" after that, but I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over games not being played. I don't care at all about games, and I don't think they should be the primary focus, because I'm not sure how not playing them addresses the problems. It seems more like an emotional/revenge solution than a practical solution, though there's definitely practical reasons for doing it, and I was just trying to talk about those. I wasn't convinced by "deterrence", or "punishing a culture", but there's others I think.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder, if we knew Jean Yawkey and Haywood Sullivan helped cover up the Red Sox sex abuse scandal in the 70s and 80s, and we didn't find out about it until 2006 or so, should the Red Sox franchise be sanctioned? As a deterrent to other teams? If not, is it only because some time has passed, and because the guilty individuals were no longer with the team? What difference do those things make to the concept of deterrence? In other words, what makes it OK for an organization which did horrible things to exist? Enough time to have passed? A clean sweep of personnel? Or is there just a taint in the brand that can never come clean? I think it's an interesting question when it comes to organizations, I'm not trying to "be soft" or enable child molesters or anything (I feel like I need to throw that disclaimer in now.)

It's an interesting question for sure. I think if it came out that people outside Ye organization knew about it and the Sox persuaded them or encouraged them to keep quiet for the good of the team, you'd have a pretty comparable situation. And yes in that situation I would in favor of sanctions as unrealistic as that might be.

And even then I still think Penn State would be worse. The Sox are a professional franchise whereas Penn State is a public institution of which the football program is supposed to be a small part.

[jeff061]

Except the issue is football and how football controls everything at Penn State. Everything falls under the football umbrella there.

[gstelmack]

1. A crime was committed, and the man who committed that crime is going to jail.
2. A second crime was committed by Joe Paterno, who pushed to keep his friend and colleague out of trouble, and did his level best to enable the behavior by allowing him to stay around the program and facilities and bring these kids onto campus. Unfortunately we can't go after him, although I suspect civil trials will go after his estate.
3. A third (and beyond) crime was commited by those who were supposed to be JoePa's bosses, by kowtowing to him and failing in their duty to report what they knew to the proper authorities. With any luck these guys will go to jail.
4. The folks in #3 did what they did to keep JoePa happy, the football program running, and avoid any embarrasment for the university. This is exactly what NCAA "institutional control" is all about. The football program controlled the university, not the other way around. All of the guys from #3 were supposed to put a stop to this and act like they were in charge, not just give JoePa whatever they wanted. The fact that JoePa had the power he did shows an institution with major issues.

1-3 are civil/criminal, 4 is where the NCAA steps in. You can't raise your football program to that level of stature, you are supposed to exercise control. At the very least PSU needs to show they are serious about asserting control over a runaway program. And the NCAA has to show they are serious that other programs cannot do this, even if there isn't some serious criminal violation going on. The issues with disciplining football players from 2006-2007 are another example that can be used to show this issue, the Sandusky thing is just the most recent example that exposed it all.

I don't know if the death penalty is appropriate, but it's clear that this institution did not exercise any true control over its football program, to the point of enabling a pedophile to avoid embarrasment, and that has got to be dealt with.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

1. A crime was committed, and the man who committed that crime is going to jail.
2. A second crime was committed by Joe Paterno, who pushed to keep his friend and colleague out of trouble, and did his level best to enable the behavior by allowing him to stay around the program and facilities and bring these kids onto campus. Unfortunately we can't go after him, although I suspect civil trials will go after his estate.
3. A third (and beyond) crime was commited by those who were supposed to be JoePa's bosses, by kowtowing to him and failing in their duty to report what they knew to the proper authorities. With any luck these guys will go to jail.
4. The folks in #3 did what they did to keep JoePa happy, the football program running, and avoid any embarrasment for the university. This is exactly what NCAA "institutional control" is all about. The football program controlled the university, not the other way around. All of the guys from #3 were supposed to put a stop to this and act like they were in charge, not just give JoePa whatever they wanted. The fact that JoePa had the power he did shows an institution with major issues.

1-3 are civil/criminal, 4 is where the NCAA steps in. You can't raise your football program to that level of stature, you are supposed to exercise control. At the very least PSU needs to show they are serious about asserting control over a runaway program. And the NCAA has to show they are serious that other programs cannot do this, even if there isn't some serious criminal violation going on. The issues with disciplining football players from 2006-2007 are another example that can be used to show this issue, the Sandusky thing is just the most recent example that exposed it all.

I don't know if the death penalty is appropriate, but it's clear that this institution did not exercise any true control over its football program, to the point of enabling a pedophile to avoid embarrasment, and that has got to be dealt with.

Nails it.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

1. A crime was committed, and the man who committed that crime is going to jail.
2. A second crime was committed by Joe Paterno, who pushed to keep his friend and colleague out of trouble, and did his level best to enable the behavior by allowing him to stay around the program and facilities and bring these kids onto campus. Unfortunately we can't go after him, although I suspect civil trials will go after his estate.
3. A third (and beyond) crime was commited by those who were supposed to be JoePa's bosses, by kowtowing to him and failing in their duty to report what they knew to the proper authorities. With any luck these guys will go to jail.
4. The folks in #3 did what they did to keep JoePa happy, the football program running, and avoid any embarrasment for the university. This is exactly what NCAA "institutional control" is all about. The football program controlled the university, not the other way around. All of the guys from #3 were supposed to put a stop to this and act like they were in charge, not just give JoePa whatever they wanted. The fact that JoePa had the power he did shows an institution with major issues.

1-3 are civil/criminal, 4 is where the NCAA steps in. You can't raise your football program to that level of stature, you are supposed to exercise control. At the very least PSU needs to show they are serious about asserting control over a runaway program. And the NCAA has to show they are serious that other programs cannot do this, even if there isn't some serious criminal violation going on. The issues with disciplining football players from 2006-2007 are another example that can be used to show this issue, the Sandusky thing is just the most recent example that exposed it all.

I don't know if the death penalty is appropriate, but it's clear that this institution did not exercise any true control over its football program, to the point of enabling a pedophile to avoid embarrasment, and that has got to be dealt with.

This.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

At the very least PSU needs to show they are serious about asserting control over a runaway program. And the NCAA has to show they are serious that other programs cannot do this, even if there isn't some serious criminal violation going on.

I would love it if somehow there was an NCAA rule that your football program can't be stupid big. But it seems they (and certainly a lot of fans and media) are completely OK with the big/runaway program thing as long as we don't find out about any bad results of that. Maybe that part needs to change too.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by molson

I would love it if somehow there was an NCAA rule that your football program can't be stupid big. But it seems they (and certainly a lot of fans and media) are completely OK with the big/runaway program thing as long as we don't find out about any bad results of that. Maybe that part needs to change too.

Which is why the "death penalty"(hate that name) is needed.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by muns

pretty sure he is talking about sandusky here who was like family to joepa

Aaah

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Which is why the death penalty is needed.

A death penalty for getting too big, or only for the end result (when we actually know the end result, which certainly isn't all the time?) All I'm saying is that the bigness needs to be examined too, and I think gstelmack was saying the same thing with the runaway program stuff. Wouldn't it be great if some schools decided that big-time college sports is a little obscene. That'd be a SO much better result than laying the hammer down on one school and then continuing on like before until the next scandal is revealed.

[jeff061]

Well ya, I'd agree bigness, it's effects and any possible reforms needs to be at least examined in addition to any penalties.

[Subby]

Great summary by gstelmack.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by molson

A death penalty for getting too big, or only for the end result (when we actually know the end result, which certainly isn't all the time?) All I'm saying is that the bigness needs to be examined too, and I think gstelmack was saying the same thing with the runaway program stuff. Wouldn't it be great if some schools decided that big-time college sports is a little obscene. That'd be a SO much better result than laying the hammer down on one school and then continuing on like before until the next scandal is revealed.

Yeah I hope one of the things to come out of this after the anger and penalties is an examination of the place of college sports and it's importance. Many big time college hoops and football programs are bigger than the schools themselves and I don't think that is healthy. At least not if we want to maintain that these are regular college kids just trying to get an education

[muns]

Figured I'd post this.

This is from THE best higher ed lawayer in the business, who my university had come in this year as a consultant. When something major happens (the rutgers case, or a school shooting) this is the guy CNN has on.

He starts his email about an article on the higher ed chronicle and then offers opinions after and how "we" the administrators should respond.

I found it interesting.


http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstor...&utm_medium=en

This blog got me thinking, so I thought I'd think it out loud and see what you all think. It's common now to posit that four key administrators at Penn State acted in ways that were evil, morally bankrupt and/or without regard to the safety of vulnerable children. I think that conclusion allows us to make them an other, set them aside, and frame their actions as an anomaly. I'm not sure I think they were evil, immoral or uncaring. In fact, Spanier's email shows caring (though it is directed at Sandusky, but nevertheless evidences a capacity for caring). I think they fell into a trap any administrator could. They were overly cautious, too prudent, and lacked the civil rights investigation resource or skill set they needed to avoid this catastrophe. They also were dealing with a cherished employee, which exacerbated the level at which they demonstrated deliberate indifference. I think the important recognition here isn't the exceptionalism of what happened at Penn State, but what a commonplace it is daily on college campuses. I hear from campus administrators and legal counsel regularly that: they don't have enough evidence to act; aren't willing to see an allegation as proof; don't want to destroy someone's reputation without evidence; know there are two sides to any story; etc., etc., etc. These are all true statements, and valid as far as they go. They are valid when they lead to consideration of what happens next, rather than as a path to paralysis or minimization. What should happen next is simple and straightforward and is the best practice in every case: 1) provide a preliminary investigation and then a full investigation if indicated, and 2) consider suspending the employee or student on an interim basis pending the outcome of the investigation. The harm this may cause to reputation is an acceptable balancing against the harm that may have been caused if the allegations are substantiated by the investigation. It's legally defensible, can often be undone or repaired, and if handled well, does not have to be a career ender for any student or employee. It's a simple two-step protocol that has to be applied to every individual accused of a civil rights violation, regardless of the privilege afforded by their position, socio-economics, role on campus, race, gender, influence, or threats to sue us. We have lawyers too.

Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law

[molson]

The NCAA's timing is going to be pretty interesting. I don't think there's any way they would do anything for this season. I think they're way too cautious for that and they're not going to want to screw up other schools that have them on the schedule. Once Penn St. gets through a whole season (or two, or three, or eight), will there be the same public demand to do something really substantial? I think Penn St. can avoid the NCAA doing anything drastic by making major changes in the meantime.

Edit: Or is possible we just fire up ESPN.com one day in the next few weeks and it says, "NCAA hands Penn St. death penalty effective immediately"?

[Grover]

I think the latter is more probable.

Federal officials probe Penn State for possible Clery Act violations - The Washington Post

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

1. A crime was committed, and the man who committed that crime is going to jail.
2. A second crime was committed by Joe Paterno, who pushed to keep his friend and colleague out of trouble, and did his level best to enable the behavior by allowing him to stay around the program and facilities and bring these kids onto campus. Unfortunately we can't go after him, although I suspect civil trials will go after his estate.
3. A third (and beyond) crime was commited by those who were supposed to be JoePa's bosses, by kowtowing to him and failing in their duty to report what they knew to the proper authorities. With any luck these guys will go to jail.
4. The folks in #3 did what they did to keep JoePa happy, the football program running, and avoid any embarrasment for the university. This is exactly what NCAA "institutional control" is all about. The football program controlled the university, not the other way around. All of the guys from #3 were supposed to put a stop to this and act like they were in charge, not just give JoePa whatever they wanted. The fact that JoePa had the power he did shows an institution with major issues.

1-3 are civil/criminal, 4 is where the NCAA steps in. You can't raise your football program to that level of stature, you are supposed to exercise control. At the very least PSU needs to show they are serious about asserting control over a runaway program. And the NCAA has to show they are serious that other programs cannot do this, even if there isn't some serious criminal violation going on. The issues with disciplining football players from 2006-2007 are another example that can be used to show this issue, the Sandusky thing is just the most recent example that exposed it all.

I don't know if the death penalty is appropriate, but it's clear that this institution did not exercise any true control over its football program, to the point of enabling a pedophile to avoid embarrasment, and that has got to be dealt with.

Very well said.

[flounder]

Pennsylvania is a battleground state. The chances of the federal government taking any action against Penn State are about zero. At least before the election.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by flounder

Pennsylvania is a battleground state. The chances of the federal government taking any action against Penn State are about zero. At least before the election.

The Feds took 2 years to decide on punishment for Eastern Michigan under the Clery Act and 3 years for Virginia Tech for single incidents. VPI's still appealing as of today. They're asking for 13+ years of reports that Penn State mostly won't have, since they didn't bother setting compliance up until 2007, and then the athletic department opted out anyway.

There's no way their gears would grind fast enough to make a ruling before the election.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't want to see any NCAA sanctions like loss of scholarships or vacating wins.

I think this is the problem the NCAA runs into. If they are going to punish them, it has to be the death penalty. It just looks silly to knock off a few scholarships and ban a bowl appearance or two for this. It makes the crimes seem on par with a booster buying someone dinner.

Ultimately I think they'll avoid the death penalty and weasel out of any sort of punishment with teeth. The NCAA is nearly as morally bankrupt as Penn State.