Someone from the media DEFENDS Joe? Unpossible!
Clearly, Bernard Fernandez of the Inquirer is going to get his ass beat at the next media happy hour, as he chooses to deviate from the script and (horror!) defend JoePa. Before Chris and M1EK get all over-heated, he doesn't say that Joe isn't without fault. But he brings up a personal story, choosing to understand why Joe did what he did. He also echoes that this was an excuse for the BOT to oust Joe and make him the scapegoat.
Aww, look at you. You created a Fanpost! Any content from a premium site that requires a subscription will be deleted once we catch wind of it. If you simply want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using Fanshots instead. Thanks.
85 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Infinitely better and a far more nuanced look at Joe than Ron Cook's dreg in the PPG
I wonder if Ron Cook has any decisions that he regrets (pedophile beard excepted of course). The very idea that someone could write the following sentence:
He might not be the biggest villain in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, but he is certainly no victim.
(emphasis mine)
tells you all that you need to know about Cook’s predisposition to Paterno.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
calm down kijana.
Ron Cook makes a valid point: we have to wait until all the facts are out before we rush to judgement. When all is said and done, Joe Paterno may be the Grand Poohbah of the Centre County NAMBLA chapter. It would be unfair to rush to judgement and presume innocence.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 16, 2012 9:33 AM EST up reply actions
I'm calm
There are ways to make a point about Joe’s failings. Points that I agree with. This is just absurd. The biggest villain in the Jerry Sandusky scandal is Jerry Sandusky. End of story.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 9:35 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Guess I forgot to use the sarcasm font
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 16, 2012 10:12 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry
Maybe I’m not calm. I feel undercaffeinated, but maybe that’s not the same as calm.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
Waiting to judge is fine.
Saying someone might not be the biggest villain sounds like judgment was already passed. These presumptions and loaded words are what have wreaked havoc on Paterno’s legacy and Penn State.
Whenever someone chooses to make statements with loaded words, they are continuing to not only pass judgment, but control the narrative and perspective of the readers. While it is not the worst piece out there, the subtleties go a long way in reinforcing the ignorance and misinformation that will convince people of one side or the other prior to the facts coming out.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 16, 2012 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 8 recs
"He might not be the biggest villain in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, but he is certainly no victim."
Stuff like that makes me never read those people again. I don’t need his stupid opinions on the Steelers. He’s on the do not click list now. Scumbag.
"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."
Franco Harris:
"If I had to choose today between the moral integrity and character of Joe Paterno and the politicians and commentators criticizing him, I would pick Joe Paterno, hands down, no contest every time."
by showtime on Jan 17, 2012 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's an acceptable linguistic construct
I don’t read the intent of that as “he’s probably the biggest villain but might not be”, but rather “he’s definitely not the biggest villain like some other people have implied”.
You need to read only a few paragraphs to know that your interpretation is not what he had in mind
Otherwise, agreed it could be acceptable.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
I read them.
I stand by my interpretation. He’s clearly not saying Paterno is more to blame than Spanier or Curley or Schultz; he’s clearly not saying Paterno is in the same universe as Sandusky.
He’s making a point that people who think Paterno is a victim are really making themselves and our university look bad. And I happen to agree wholeheartedly. He’s not in the top 4 of “most wrong”, but he’s not even in the ballpark for “victim”.
I agree that Joe is not a victim
I disagree that his point and intent is not to pair Paterno with Sandusky. I’ve read him long enough to know that Cook would like few things more than that.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
vic-tim (noun)
2. Somebody or something harmed – somebody who or something that is adversely affected by an action or circumstance.
I believe that Joe Paterno has been adversely affected by Jerry Sandusky’s actions and the circumstances surrounding them. Obviously there are other victims, but there are many victims of Sandusky’s actions.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 16, 2012 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
It's semantics, and it's unfair.
The people that control the semantic battles are the people leading the narrative. They set up the dialogue to win future arguments. The claim “Paterno is certainly no victim” forces the opposition to debate the merits of a “victim”, which they can undoubtedly play on the child abuse to distort the relativity of the claims.
The bottom line is we are all victims in some form. We have all been affected by these events. The relative extent that we were victimized is up for debate, but it is objectively true.
I’ve given up these types of debates as they are subjective arguments started on objective terms. The point of the first statement is not to be correct, but to place you at the greatest disadvantage for the subsequent subjective arguments.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 16, 2012 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
"The point of the first statement is not to be correct, but to place you at the greatest disadvantage for the subsequent subjective arguments."
Yeah we are totally bringing a knife to a gun fight every time we want to debate someone.
"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."
Franco Harris:
"If I had to choose today between the moral integrity and character of Joe Paterno and the politicians and commentators criticizing him, I would pick Joe Paterno, hands down, no contest every time."
I think Joe should have been placed on administrative leave
I do not think of Joe as a victim when compared to the kids. It’s all about degrees.
And, thanks for looking it up for me, I never learned how to use a thermometer (where definitions are found, right?) in law school.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I do not think of Joe as a victim when compared to the kids. It’s all about degrees.
I believe that Joe Paterno is less of a victim than the kids. And I agree that it is about degrees. I believe that it’s impossible to believe that Joe Paterno is not a victim of Jerry Sandusky’s actions. And I think it’s possible that the kids are a victim of Joe Paterno’s inaction.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 16, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
How about this?
Joe is a victim so far down on the list (not so much in raw numbers, but in terms of magnitude of the potential harm), that I don’t get too worried about the fact that he is a victim at all.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
nope
I mean I guess it’s ok that you don’t get worried about it, but then you should also be ok that other people still consider him to be a victim.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 18, 2012 12:26 AM EST up reply actions
and really I do agree somewhat that "victim"
with respect to the actual victims is watered down, but at the very least he got royally screwed over.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 18, 2012 12:35 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 20, 2012 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
A question?
Isn’t this just a watered down version of the media’s competition to see who hates child molesters more?
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
That's probably a fair reading, but I didn't mean it quite that way
I just take the long view that Joe wasn’t going to be the head coach much longer (another 4 games or perhaps 5-10 years?), so the harm really isn’t that great to anything except his legacy. That sucks for his family and for those of us who respect the man, but when you’re …. well, I don’t really want to go there yet.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 20, 2012 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
Yes
Paterno is a victim in the sense that had Sandusky never done anything, he’d still be coaching. Paterno/McQueary et al were put in a position that they never should have had to deal with. Paterno is also a victim in the sense that he’s had ridiculous accusations unfairly levied upon him over the past two months. But this is still far less than what the kids have had to deal with and I doubt that Joe himself views himself as a victim.
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
by Kyle_Martin on Jan 17, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
I never said anything to the contrary of this.
But Joe Paterno lost his career and his reputation (not to mention his million dollar a year job) over this. Moreover, it’s not like he’s Barry Bonds, where 10 years from now everybody will be ready to forgive and forget, and he’ll get his parade and his accolades back. He might, but chances are he won’t be around for it.
And the above is the actual definition of the word victim. I didn’t make it up.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Disagree on Barry Bonds
He won’t be forgiven because he’s been such an asshole about it.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 18, 2012 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
I dunno
Pete Rose is a pretty unrepentant ass-hole, but people seem willing to forgive him.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Pete Rose is white.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Jan 18, 2012 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's also not a fair comparison.
Barry Bonds’ career success is directly attributed to his steroid use. Pete Rose was banned for something that hasn’t been found to have interfered with his performance.
A more apt comparison is Barry Bonds to Mark McGuire. Most people seem to have forgiven Mark, but may never forgive Barry Bonds. Is it racial? I don’t really know. But at least McGuire to Bonds is more apples to apples.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 18, 2012 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
Absolutely correct . . .
I just used Rose since he was surfaced. I also wouldn’t suggest that any of this is entirely or even mostly racial. However, I think that there is a racial component.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Those racial components get harder to decipher when there's a sizable asshole component riding with it
jtothetweet
They don't even bind feet in China anymore, mostly.
by jtothep on Jan 18, 2012 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I've met both Rose and Bonds
Rose was nice as hell, Bonds was, hmmmm, not. Just like the baseball camp I went to in high school. Dave Cash and Mike Schmidt were nice as hell, Larry Bowa was a total dick.
I just read.
I wasn't exactly disagreeing with you
just explaining how I viewed it
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
by Kyle_Martin on Jan 18, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
"not a victim" is pejorative in this usage
This straw man juxtaposition of Sandusky’s sex abuse victims with the victims of the Attorney General’s lies, distortions, misleading statements, bogus charges and failure to investigate or charge Raykovitz.
It’s saying you can’t defend Curley, Schultz, Paterno or Spanier because that would somehow be unfair to the Sandusky Sex abuse victims.
Well that’s just bullshit.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 17, 2012 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I have no problem with those who defend Joe
I do it myself. I do it because of the man that he was and continues to be, not because he was removed from a job that, in a perfect world, he would have been permitted to see to a glorious conclusion. I’m the furthest thing from a Joe hater that you’re likely to encounter here, or anywhere.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 20, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
The interpretation doesn't matter.
That statement says “Joe Paterno is a villain”. It makes that assertion with no doubt. The only room for debate in that statement is the degree to which he is a villain. If I say “Ron Cook may not be the biggest pedophile out there” it’s making the statement he is a pedophile. Period. Just another case of overly-loaded words used in statements with motives other than objective reporting.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 16, 2012 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Let's make that statement.
Ron Cook may not be the biggest pedophile out there, Corey Giger is.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
This really needs to stop
It’s not funny, and not remotely true. It’s not acceptable to just start calling someone a pedophile because you don’t like them.
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
by Kyle_Martin on Jan 17, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Stop with this, everyone. I've deleted a bunch of them already.
by Chris Grovich on Jan 17, 2012 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
Is it still true
that Craig James allegedly killed five hookers?
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 18, 2012 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
It's absolutely true.
I have alleged that Craig James killed five hookers while at SMU, ergo, it is true that Craig James allegedly killed five hookers while at SMU.
It’s science.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Jessedot, allow me to rephrase my poorly
written question:
“Is it still okay to say that it’s true that Craig James allegedly killed five hookers (while at SMU)?”
It seems we’ve reached the boundaries of acceptable comments (when making Cory Giger-focused statements); I just want to see how far inside the fence we have to be.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 18, 2012 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Here is the difference.
I bet Cory Geiger reads BSD.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Probably.
And I don’t think he seems like a bad guy or anything, but he definitely puts himself out there and that opens him up to scorn. I mean, it’s not like people are constantly making fun of Rich Scarcella and Mark Wogenrich, mostly because they don’t have radio shows or try to get on TV.
by Chris Grovich on Jan 18, 2012 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
All of that said...
We simply can’t allow these types of comments about anyone, for a million reasons.
by Chris Grovich on Jan 18, 2012 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough.
I will do my very best to respect that guideline.
Thanks!
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 18, 2012 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
I appreciate you posting this
but is it really necessary to bait people on this blog with opposing points of view?
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
When those "points of view" clearly, obviously need corrected, yes
This is America. You have a right to voice a dumb opinion. I have the right to mock your dumb opinion.
GO IOWA AWESOME
by ckmneon on Jan 16, 2012 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 9 recs
There is a point when the discussion is no longer constructive
and I would say we reached that point long ago. The best thing to do would be to accept that there are people with differing points of view that have heard contrary arguments and don’t agree with them. Bringing up the same points again and again isn’t going to change that, it will just lead to another long, fruitless exchange….I would just like to move beyond that.
And to be clear, I’m not saying I agree with ME1K and Chris on this issue (I don’t), I just don’t want to see another thread go down this road.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Jan 16, 2012 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't disagree
It’s just the first time I’ve seen anything from the media since the JoePos article 2 days in suggesting anything other than accepted premise that Joe is the Devil. I was expecting another hatchet job.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Jan 16, 2012 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Absolutely
And it was very refreshing to see Fernandez showing some independent thought.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Jan 16, 2012 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
TS, STL, and the gang
have always done a good job a keeping an appropriately playful tone. I think the direct calling out of CG falls into that category. I probably could learn a thing or two about not taking myself so seriously from them.
Leaders Co-Champions
by PSUinBOSSton on Jan 16, 2012 9:54 AM EST up reply actions
You may be right
and it does seem like we’ve gone a while without having a thread devolve into a 200-post back and forth. If that was more of a playful jab then I apologize to TS. It seemed like an attempt to get under the skins of ME1K and Chris to me, and in the past that has gotten out of hand.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Jan 16, 2012 10:04 AM EST up reply actions
Without getting into the merits
or lack thereof in getting under M1EK’s skin, TS and CG are brothers or cousins or something right (along with STL)? So I think it was fair to call the jabs playful.
STL and TS have always advocated us being less sensitive around here. I hope we are returning to some sense of normalcy around here and can start jabbing at each other without it turning serious.
Leaders Co-Champions
by PSUinBOSSton on Jan 16, 2012 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
I hope we are returning to some sense of normalcy around here and can start jabbing at each other without it turning serious.
I’ll echo that sentiment. And if I jumped on TS too quickly, I apologize.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Jan 16, 2012 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
Awesome, allow me to start.
TS is a Joe apologist, CG is a censoring dictator, and STL loves HIT.
That should test our hypothesis.
Leaders Co-Champions
by PSUinBOSSton on Jan 16, 2012 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
A small correction:
STL loves Mike Pettine.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Jan 16, 2012 11:05 AM EST up reply actions
Good, clean love...
Without utensils.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 18, 2012 5:44 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for posting this article
It was surprisingly well written…I guess my standards have been lowered so much these past few months.
In Fairness
This is also a man (Fernandez) who worked at the Philadelphia Daily News with Bill Conlin, so CLEARLY he has a soft spot for child molesters…
In all seriousness though, its a shame that articles like the one linked are the exception and not the norm. Perhaps the country would be in better shape if it were.
As to victimhood
Joe Paterno, in a literal sense, could be considered a victim, although I would say that he is more a victim of the BoT, Surma in particular (I wish his name was Richard), than Sandusky. That said, his level of victimhood in this is miniscule. The thing is that I would surmise that, if you asked him, he’d say the same thing.
The only victims in this mess is the kids and their families. There is science to show that when a child is sexually molested, it actually alters their brain chemistry, so that, for example, a 13 year old child could be completely 100% normal, in terms of personality, behavior, etc., and if sexually molested, their brain wiring (for lack of a better term) becomes such that its almost a completely different kid. There are also studies which show that children who are sexually molested are more likely to become addicted to drugs, alcohol and become involved in the criminal justice system. So, assuming that the charges against JS are true, JS has damaged not only the children he molested (allgedly), but their families and their potential victims, as well. In fact, JS’s victims (if we think about concentric circles) are likely to be far reaching into the future. He is truly a scourge that, if convicted, should live his remaining days in a really, really small room with very little light.
As to Paterno, again he is a victim in a literal sense, but what we’ve seen from Paterno is not what I would associate with a victim. How many times has he been injured, sick, etc., and still continued to do his job: educating young men and showing them how to be leaders? When this happened to him, he didn’t grab the pulpit and complain about the media, go on Oprah, etc. He concentrated on beating Cancer like it was Pitt. I continue to pray that he does Cancer like he did Temple over the years. But, if we’ve learned anything from Paterno is that you get knocked down, you pick yourself up and keep moving forward, and you do so with all of the honor and integrity that you can muster. That’s not what a victim does, that’s what a man does. Paterno is not a victim. Paterno is a great man, no matter what the haters say. Keep fighting Coach.
by Keith Platt on Jan 16, 2012 5:21 PM EST reply actions 11 recs
Victimhood has various meanings
Being “victimized” by the attorney general’s misrepresentations and the media frenzy may not be the only appropriate term for Joe’s situation but I cannot think of another. He appears to be willing to take it although his body is not responding well if you credit the idea that stress and cancer are linked along with falling down.
Joe is most definitely the target of an attack and he has been struck and felled by that attack and is suffering the consequences.
The “victim” he stands accused of abandoning or ignoring has not been identified except allegedly by the defense that claims “victim” 2 is no victim at all. So a realistic look at Joe, Tim and Gary’s situation is that they are charged with failure to report an incident that may not have happened in the court of public opinion – and in actual fact as pertains Tim and Gary. How ironic is that?
If the case goes to trial with the “victim” 2 charges and Sandusky is acquitted on those specific charges and Curley and Schultz are acquitted of Perjury (if that even makes it to trial) all of this attention paid to Penn State becomes moot. Thus the victimization of Penn State is complete without a Sandusky victim being involved.
If this single unidentified “victim” takes the stand to deny he was abused and claims he was running around in the showers turning them on and slapping the floor with his feet when he almost falls and Sandusky grabs him to save him from a fall the irony of this situation is complete.
If McQueary’s statements about what happened to his father, Dr. Dranov, Joe, Tim and Gary along with testimony from other as yet unidentified persons are all different. If his uncertainty and confusion along with the brevity of his glances and his overreaction to the 3 slapping sounds become evident and add to the conjecture that he was guilt tripped by the AG into embellishing his accounts – the irony grows.
The press begins to take a closer look at the statements of the Attorney General and notes the obvious distance between them and the truth and all is once again right in the Happy Valley but all Penn State is victimized by the Attorney General and the media frenzy she created with her misleading lies and emphasis on Penn State as the home of the pedophile enablers who failed the “victims”.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Ron Cook is surprisingly ok on this issue
He’s been far more level-headed than I would have expected.
But the “Paterno as victim” is a bit of a straw-man. Yeah, there were a lot of people at the town halls trying to push that line but public meetings always bring out the wingnuts, don’t they? I don’t think the majority of the PSU community is too worked up Joepa not getting to coach the last four games. They would have been his last four regardless so as time goes on, they’re not going to seem very important. Even if PSU and JoePa were not mentioned at all in the GJ report, the Sandusky thing would have shat all over what should have been a great celebration of Joe’s retirement. But that’s just symbolism and fleeting symbolism at that. His actual impact on the university and football remain intact.
It sucks, but it’s over now and there’s nothing that can be done so let’s move on.
And certainly Joe Paterno isn’t too worked up about it. He doesn’t like the way it all went down at the end, but he’s always been good at taking the long view. Like when people would get so freaked out about a loss, he could always put it into the context of how the team was progressing (or not) The whole, “you’re not as bad as you think you are when you lose and you’re not as good as you think you are when you win.”
Now, having said all of that, firing JoePa with a phone call as the BOT did was bad form. I’m not so upset about the thing itself – because they panicked, it was unprecedented, and lessons were probably learned.
But I would be concerned about the precedent it sets. What so many of the “well, what did he expect?” crowd don’t get is that JoePa had tenure and a contract and, you’d think, earned the right to the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, they should have had a formal hearing and let him talk and explain his side. If anybody else had been canned without any discussion or if it had been over any issue other than child abuse, the press would rightly be asking how the board could summarily can a guy just based on an accusation – and it wasn’t even that, it was more of an implication made by the prosecutor to bolster her case – alone. Tenured profs can be fired for committing a felony or academic fraud, but there still has to be a hearing and a deliberative process. We can’t have the board just firing people when it’s convenient for them.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 16, 2012 6:59 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Just a slight correction / clarification
What so many of the "well, what did he expect?" crowd don’t get is that JoePa had tenure and a contract and, you’d think, earned the right to the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, they should have had a formal hearing and let him talk and explain his side
Careful with this. While the initial reaction certainly looks like he was fired, what actual happened was that he was essentially put on leave. He is still being paid under his contract, and remains a tenured professor – he was just removed from actively coaching. I wish that the board would have made this clear from the beginning, but in the end they did not remove his tenure.
True
Of course, the haters are upset about that too.
For Joe, getting to be the coach was all he wanted. Not the money, so as far as he is concerned, he was fired.
I still think it sets a bad precedent. If this kind of thing becomes standard, what would stop them from telling a professor that they’ll still pay him/her, but he/she can’t teach or do research?
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 16, 2012 7:52 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Disagree with most of this
but this in particular:
But the "Paterno as victim" is a bit of a straw-man. Yeah, there were a lot of people at the town halls trying to push that line but public meetings always bring out the wingnuts, don’t they? I don’t think the majority of the PSU community is too worked up Joepa not getting to coach the last four games.
I do, in fact, think “Paterno as victim” is an accurate summary of the position of the majority of comment traffic on this very site. Have you been reading the other threads? Tangled with aurabass? Notice how many virtual slaps on the back he’s getting here?
I don't think BSD is representative either
Lots of good people here, but I don’t think this is a representative sample of the 108,000+. And the people on here calling him a victim seem to only be doing so by stretching the definition of “victim” very broadly.
I’ve been on the wrong end of bullshit personnel decisions at work. Most of us have. I don’t regard myself as a “victim.” I just regard myself as a guy trying to make a living in the industrialized world.
Most of my friends who are PSU fans feel like the board mishandled it and that Joe was punished without proper process, but even the ones that were very upset about at it at the time are over it now and excited about the new era of PSU football and cautiously optimistic about the longer-term future for PSU now that there’s so much attention on the BOT elections and what not.
And the Patriot-News poll from a few weeks back showed that most Pennsylvanians (I think that was who was polled) still have a favorable opinion of Paterno, but most people also support his dismissal.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 17, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
They do that all the time - it's called administrative leave
Essentially, that’s what they did to Joe too, they just didn’t call it that. The difference is that normally, there is an investigation while the person is on leave. At the end of that investigation the person is either reinstated fully, or terminated. With Joe is was different, because there was no attempt to determine a permanent solution since they knew he was done at the end of the year anyway. In that effect, it looks much more like being fired than admin leave. technically, I don’t think there is anything stopping Joe from fighting this to take back his position as coach, but I could be wrong. I’m not a lawyer, so take that for what it is – my semi-informed opinion.
Even with all that said, I’m inclined to agree with you. They definitely made an attempt to bypass the tenure through the knowledge that Joe wouldn’t fight it. The worst part is how, despite what actually happened, they made it sound like joe had been fired while Spanier resigned, Curley was on admin leave, and Schultz re-retired.
by ppfcpp on Jan 16, 2012 8:48 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Right
If they’d said “you’re suspended while we look into this” that would be better as long as they didn’t deliberately drag it out. But they have made no attempt to investigate it more fully or anything of the sort. And, as you said, they didn’t explain it very well at all.
Joe inadvertently gave them an opening when he agreed to retire, I guess, because now they can just point out that the real truth is moot because he was going to retire anyway.
And there’s no way Joe would fight it or insist they keep the HC job in “interim” limbo while he fought it.
I’m just a bit concerned some older prof is going to start criticizing the board, or a big donor, or the governor and they’ll use this maneuver to shut him/her up and disgrace him/her.
But in the big picture, everyone has to understand that this one incident isn’t really all that important and who the football coach is for four games or four years isn’t that important compared to the many of the bigger problems facing the university and education in the US.
It’s not going to help if the whole board turns over and the new board agrees to apologize and honor Joe, but then goes back to the same basic way of doing business.
This fiasco is a symptom. It’s not the fundamental issue.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 16, 2012 11:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Victims
The kids who were (allegedly) taken advantage of by Sandusky for his perversions because they were vulnerable and powerless are victims. Their families are also victims. Their current and future friends and family members have been and are victims.
To say that there aren’t any other victims in this whole fiasco is wishful thinking, though. I wouldn’t want to challenge the intellectual heft of Ron Cook, but Joe is most certainly a victim. His life work, legacy and honor as a human being has been victimized. Irrespective of the “morality” of his actions or inactions, he indisputably was and continues to be a victim. Sandusky’s (alleged) actions has negatively affected Joe, very likely past the point of no return. It most certainly does matter that he was fired instead of retiring on his own terms. He was hired and remained employed at the university to run a football program, not to be an entire episode of Law & Order — deftly taking on the roll of detective, police chief, district attorney, judge, jury and the moral of the story, all thanks to a second-hand story that had nothing to do with the reason he was there. He was absolutely a victim of these circumstances.
Mike McQueary was a victim. He was put on the spot. Not “can you name what you had for lunch last Wednesday,” but “what do I do now that I’ve just witnessed something horrific I never saw before.” He had to make a series of decisions in the span of a few seconds, minutes, then hours, that would completely change the rest of his life. Who, in his shoes, would not feel victimized, then or now? If he made the wrong choices, does that negate the fact he was not responsible for being put into that situation?
Similarly, the janitor who witnessed the ‘00 was and is a victim. Current Penn State students are victims. They have to put up with the smart aleck comments and perhaps discrimination. The alumni are victims; their school has been turned into a punchline. The staff, administration, professors, assistants, Penn State merchandise sellers, Bill O’Brien, etc., etc., have all be victims in this in a whole spectrum of ways and flavors and levels of severity. Some victims don’t think (or want to think) they’re victims. Some are hardly worth mentioning considering the genesis of this. But they’ve — we’ve — been victimized by what happened.
This is not popular, but in my opinion, Curley, Schultz and Spanier were victims. They may be victims of bad judgement. They may be victims of a bureaucracy. They may be victims of the limitations of their cocoonish environment. Victims needn’t be heroes. Victims needn’t be blameless. The Ron Cooks of the world sit in judgement over others and shoehorn facts into a black-and-white narrative. This isn’t black-and-white. There are so many victims in this. Even us, BSD readers and commenters. There is ONE MAN solely responsible (allegedly) for all this. That the information bilge water that keeps getting pumped out about this has focused on one OTHER man simply keeps adding more victims to the tally — all of us are victims of misinformation, disinformation, ignorance and the incendiary sparks of grinding axes.
by Jitterbug on Jan 17, 2012 12:00 AM EST reply actions 10 recs
FWIW, I’ve been calling the people you mentioned in your second through fifth paragraphs “collateral damage”. To me, it implies that we’ve all been impacted in a negative way, but on a vastly different scale than the kids and their families/friends. It also seems to keep the haters from jumping down your throat, at least in my experience.
by PSUbkstrk13 on Jan 17, 2012 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
These types of distinction really upset me.
I do the same thing, so please don’t consider this a criticism. I typically preface everything I say with “while it doesn’t compare to the children that were abused” or something of that nature, but it upsets me that it is necessary.
What necessitates having to do this is the fact that somehow, all of the alleged victims are burdened onto the Paterno situation, and that is a very unfair burden to place. The burden that Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier are directly accountable for is Victim #2. They were presented with no information that we are aware of regarding any of the other victims. It’s not like they were aware Sandusky was a supposed serial rapist and they knew that if they let him go, he’d continue to abuse more children. They were presented with information about 1 alleged victim, a victim that still has yet to be definitively identified.
While I understand that they were a piece of a much larger situation, it is incorrect to assert that larger situation on them. The only person that the entirety of the situation can be placed on is Sandusky. We must keep things in perspective when discussing the individual components of this situation and not be so quick to hold people accountable for things outside of their control.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 17, 2012 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 8 recs
Rec'd and agree
I completely agree with your post. For me, it was just easier to deal with the vitriol that I was encountering if I used a completely different term for everyone outside of the people closely affected. I mean, technically, we are victims too, but by using a different phrase, there’s no way for the haters to accuse me of conflating my degree of distress to that of the actual victims and their families and friends.
Your last two sentences are especially true, and it would be nice if everyone would just keep them in mind.
by PSUbkstrk13 on Jan 17, 2012 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
I strongly agree with a lot of this.
I think people are mainly uncomfortable with acknowledging certain of these victims because they regard them as being guilty of allowing Sandusky to continue his crimes (Schultz, Curley, McQueary, Spanier, Joe) and because the individual impact is relatively minor or the victim has no face (e.g., alumni, students, PSU, The Second Mile and the good employees there, Second Mile donors, etc.).
We can debate the guilt/innocence of the PSU administration all day, so we can also debate how much they are victims, but the fact remains that they were negatively impacted by the actions of JS. I’m not that willing to fight this fight, though…
However, the parties in this that are innocent of any wrongdoing are unquestionably victims (primarily students, alumni, and the good Second Mile people). And the scope of the damage done to any one of those victims makes it hard to argue that their suffering matters in comparison to the suffering of those who were directly abused, but the sheer number of those victims is what makes them significant.
My life and my identity were forever changed by JS actions. When I go into a job interview or get announced for a talk I’m giving, my PSU education will come up and for a very long time the only thing that will pop into people’s heads is what happened… not that PSU is a great school that I’m lucky to have graduated from. And, although it seems weird to say it now, I had bought into everything that Penn State was known for, particularly conducting myself with honor as a member of a community, and always striving to do my best to honor that community. Penn State is a major part of my identity and being a Penn Stater was always a major point of pride for me. This scandal destroyed a part of that pride and my inability to simply move on from that, or ignore it, just illustrates how powerfully entrenched PSU is as a part of my identity. That may sound like lunacy to someone who just went to school for a few years somewhere. I didn’t go to Penn State for a few years… I became a member of a community… a community whose individuals I run into on a regular basis and a community I regularly re-engage in through THON, my fraternity, PSU sports, and donations for worthy causes within that community. For the “friends” and relatives of mine who didn’t demonize me in the wake of the scandal as being somehow complicit for simply having a degree from there, the treatment I received from the remainder of my friends and family was very much as a victim (“I’m sorry that happened. I know you really love Penn State. This is probably killing you.” “I probably shouldn’t bring it up, but how are you doing with all of this Penn State stuff?”).
I’m fine with calling myself and other innocent people harmed by this ‘collateral damage’ if that’s what it takes not to incite people who think that it is necessary to judge the relativity of different victims, but I did not cause this, I could not have prevented it, and I have been negatively impacted. I am a victim. And I am not going to wallow in that or insist that people somehow acknowledge it, but I will insist that they not treat me or people I perceive as other victims like we somehow deserved what was coming to us. Blaming other victims does nothing to help the kids that were abused.
by BNittsDeMilo on Jan 17, 2012 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 10 recs
I’m fine with calling myself and other innocent people harmed by this ‘collateral damage’ if that’s what it takes not to incite people who think that it is necessary to judge the relativity of different victims, but I did not cause this, I could not have prevented it, and I have been negatively impacted. I am a victim. And I am not going to wallow in that or insist that people somehow acknowledge it, but I will insist that they not treat me or people I perceive as other victims like we somehow deserved what was coming to us. Blaming other victims does nothing to help the kids that were abused.
The statements I’ve bolded are the two things that some people just can’t seem to understand (or is it just that they don’t want to understand?) I refuse to be ashamed of my degree, my time at PSU and in SC, or the friendships I made while there. My professors didn’t do anything wrong, I didn’t do anything wrong, and my friends didn’t do anything wrong, so why should I be ashamed of any of it?
by PSUbkstrk13 on Jan 18, 2012 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs

by 

























