whywouldPaterno protect Sandusky. He had to know about the 1998 incident and he just let him "resign" a year later and keep his office. His story that the GA didn't tell him the details of the 2002 incident and he just knew he was pretty upset only makes any sense if the GA started to tell him and Paterno told him to stop. Even if it is true, in light of the 1998 indicent, I have to think almost anyone would have done more than justreport it to the AD. The only reason I can think of that makes any sense to me is that Sandusky had some type of incriminating information on Paterno. I've always hated Paterno and thought he was a huge hypocrite, so maybe I'm just thinking the worst of him, but I can't think of any other explanation that makes any sense.
The one question I keep asking myself about this whole Penn State situation is
- Thread starter patdog
- Start date
are (or allows everyone else to run around claiming your sainthood) is truly rotten on the inside. I think Paterno had to have the thought..."If this gets out, my whole reputation and everything I have ever claimed is out the window.." therefore, he thought by simply washing his hands of it by only telling the AD would protect him in the public eye or may not make it to the public to begin with. I have to believe that he would wake up in the middle of the night worried about this situation for years. If he didn't, I have to question all the "The kids (players/kids) come first...that's why I am here..not for me...for the kids" bullcrap he spewed for 40 some odd years. Looks like he was only concerned with the kids who could help him and "screw" (literally and figuratively) the other kids if they can't run a 4.3 40. Turns out, he is just as selfish and worried about his own as were the other coaches he felt so pious dragging through the dirt year after year ie. Sherril, Switzer. Karma is a ***** and it bites much harder than you think.
If you look at this and the scandals in some religious organizations, a lot of similarities exist and I think this saying may be more true than we realize.
When people are a part of such organizations, particularly at the top, sometimes their judgment gets clouded by personal loyalties, a fear of appearing to be a hypocrite, having something they view as the most important institution on Earth toppled, and I think they on some level simply cannot believe it to be true.
This isn't a defense of Paterno or anyone else involved - frankly, if the allegations are true, a lot of folks beyond Sandusky ought to be facing criminal charges. Nor am I bashing any churches. What I am saying is that when humans (all imperfect) are involved in "deified" organizations, it appears to be inevitable some (and it is thankfully a very small minority) leaders of those organizations will place the importance and continuance of the organization above all else.
When people are a part of such organizations, particularly at the top, sometimes their judgment gets clouded by personal loyalties, a fear of appearing to be a hypocrite, having something they view as the most important institution on Earth toppled, and I think they on some level simply cannot believe it to be true.
This isn't a defense of Paterno or anyone else involved - frankly, if the allegations are true, a lot of folks beyond Sandusky ought to be facing criminal charges. Nor am I bashing any churches. What I am saying is that when humans (all imperfect) are involved in "deified" organizations, it appears to be inevitable some (and it is thankfully a very small minority) leaders of those organizations will place the importance and continuance of the organization above all else.
And he handled this matter in a very old fashioned way.
Before the 1980s, child sexual abuse was something too horrible to even talk about. When it came up, you just separated the abuser from the child, removed people from their job if necessary, and covered it all up. You basically hoped the child would just forget about it.
Joe handled this like it was 1960. With the first incident, Sandusky retired. With the second incident, Joe told his superiors and let them handle it. He probably doesn't even understand what all the fuss is about.
Before the 1980s, child sexual abuse was something too horrible to even talk about. When it came up, you just separated the abuser from the child, removed people from their job if necessary, and covered it all up. You basically hoped the child would just forget about it.
Joe handled this like it was 1960. With the first incident, Sandusky retired. With the second incident, Joe told his superiors and let them handle it. He probably doesn't even understand what all the fuss is about.
know / harbor secrets of Joe Pa (although I would guess they would beminor recriuting violations which would dwarf in comparision to raping a child ).... that would put JP in a tough predictiment when it came to spilling the beans to the authorities .... maybe something like "hey Joe - remember when I looked the other way when you ...
.... it's hard to say from this distance -but I know there IS NO EXCUSE
.... it's hard to say from this distance -but I know there IS NO EXCUSE
But this is the line of thought that I am aligning myself with. It has only been in recent history that victims of sexual abuse have not felt the societal pressure just to keep things under wraps. Prior to recent history there was a lot of shame and tarnish that came with being a sex abuse victim, despite your age, sex or situation. Like you said, the old way of dealing with things was just to keep everyone separated and try to act like nothing happened. I think Joe Pa took that approach, and I think he's a coward for doing so.<div>
</div><div>I know that MSU hates on Joe Pa for saying what he said about Jackie, but I think this is different. This scandal has nothing to do with on the field production, but with allegations of homosexuality and pedophilia, things that just were not talked about in Joe Pa's generation. I am not making any excuses for Paterno or anyone of any generation who didn't do anything to help the victims of this abuse. My point is that I don't think Joe Pa's reaction would have been different if it hadn't been Sandusky, but some other person whether on his staff or not. I don't think Joe Pa did what he did to make Penn State a better football program. I think he did what he did because he just didn't want to be involved in it. Regardless, he didn't do the right thing.</div>
</div><div>I know that MSU hates on Joe Pa for saying what he said about Jackie, but I think this is different. This scandal has nothing to do with on the field production, but with allegations of homosexuality and pedophilia, things that just were not talked about in Joe Pa's generation. I am not making any excuses for Paterno or anyone of any generation who didn't do anything to help the victims of this abuse. My point is that I don't think Joe Pa's reaction would have been different if it hadn't been Sandusky, but some other person whether on his staff or not. I don't think Joe Pa did what he did to make Penn State a better football program. I think he did what he did because he just didn't want to be involved in it. Regardless, he didn't do the right thing.</div>
and his desire to own all the NCAA coaching records he could possibly get.
All of these "occupy Wall Street" protesters, who are protesting highly unethical public corporations need to occupy Happy Valley until Penn State, a public institution, cleans house. This behavior is inexplicable and must be harshly punished, just as the numerous children were punished because they trusted JOE PATERNO and his staff at Penn State.
All of these "occupy Wall Street" protesters, who are protesting highly unethical public corporations need to occupy Happy Valley until Penn State, a public institution, cleans house. This behavior is inexplicable and must be harshly punished, just as the numerous children were punished because they trusted JOE PATERNO and his staff at Penn State.
YESSS!! This is the very crux of the issue with me....this man that people from, not just PSU, but from all over the country claim as a walking saint, decided his own personal reputation was more important than the lives of young people that his sick-o friend was destroying. Nobody, NOBODY hears anything close to the story that was supposedly told to him by the GA and simply brushes it off like he did. And before anyone defends his actions here, simply going to your buddy, the AD, and mentioning it IS brushing it off. True colors shine through eventually and I think we are seeing those colors........doesn't matter what generation you are from...child abuse is child abuse and ignoring it is a very, very close cousin to condoning it!
things will 'never, ever' be the same in 'Happy Valley.'
Best article that explains 'how' he was viewed is ... Growing Up Penn State ... The end of everything at State College
Bis long but really good read ... http://www.grantland.com/...05085/growing-penn-state
The one thing that I don't understand about the case is the GA that actually witnessed the attack on the 10 year old in '02 is CURRENTLY an assistant coach at Penn St. How could he continue working there knowing that Sandusky was still there?
Best article that explains 'how' he was viewed is ... Growing Up Penn State ... The end of everything at State College
Bis long but really good read ... http://www.grantland.com/...05085/growing-penn-state
The one thing that I don't understand about the case is the GA that actually witnessed the attack on the 10 year old in '02 is CURRENTLY an assistant coach at Penn St. How could he continue working there knowing that Sandusky was still there?
They're all cowards, and they basically did condone his actions by their inaction. To me, their response says we don't care what you do, just don't do it here, and let's not ever talk about it again. Even after supposedly shutting out Sandusky, they still let the guy have an office on campus and access to all of the PSU facilities. Only after the 2002 incident was he not allowed to bring kids to the campus from his charity, and the authorities were called in 1998. It isn't like they had no idea that anything was going on with the guy. In 2002, they never even attempted to find out who the victim was, or to see if he was out of harm's way. There's no defense for any of their actions.
