Politics Beat Blog

Jackson, your point is valid, however, taken to its logical conclusion all the indicted parties should still have their jobs and be bopping merrily along because they are all innocent until proven guilty. They are indeed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law and the Constitution. But that does not mean there isn't sufficient evidence to take measures necessary to protect children and clean house at Penn State. Whether Sandusky is ever convicted or not (and I suspect you will not be wagering your mortgage on the prospect of a not guilty verdict), after reading the grand jury indictment, with it's assorted claims from completely unrelated yet respectable witnesses over a period of years, the accused is certainly deserving of ostracism and quarantine until a jury of his peers can weigh the evidence in order to uphold our Constitution. Calling the grand jury report "the vaguest sort of hearsay" exhibits a complete misapprehension of the testimony in the record. Other than that, I generally love to read your columns.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I'm not particularly offended by what is being said about Mr. Sandusky. A grand jury has, at least in theory, found probable cause to believe crimes have been committed and probable cause to believe Mr. Sandusky committed them. At the time of the indictments he was no longer an employee at Penn State.
On the other hand we have Joe Paterno, who has not been charged with anything and according to the prosecutor no charges are expected. He reported what someone else told him about Sandusky to the Penn State administration. I'm not sure what his sin is. He had no first hand information, his was neither part of the administration nor a member of law enforcement. What was he to do? Suppose he had gone public with what he had heard happened and it turned out to be false. I wonder what the politically correct members of academia would have said then? Sure enough, more damning facts may come to light, but based on what is in the public domain now, Jo Pa deserved better than he got from the trustees.

report 0 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Thanks, Ronny, but I guess I didn't make myself clear. Sandusky is obviously a snake, and the Grand Jury report makes that all too clear. My suggestion that he, too, was entitled to a presumption of innocence was a throw-in.

My real point was that Joe Paterno's guilt/complicity/involvement in a cover-up was uncertainly evidenced in the extreme. Indeed, the Grand Jury report contains very little about that possibiity, and what is there consists oIf two or three widely differing accounts. To say it again: "the vaguest sort of hearsay." Not much to go on to destroy a man's career and legacy.

Or, to put that another way, what Drift Boat said.

report 0 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Prejudgment of guilt is especially common in cases involving sexual crimes against children for two reasons: prejudicial publicity and public outrage. Locally, the WM3 and Georgian Hills cases have been the best examples of that.

Surely, though, no one would suggest that Penn State's administration (including Paterno) shouldn't have reported the information they had to law enforcement authorities, or that they should have waited for the outcome of the judicial process to take steps to protect additional children from becoming victims of sexual predation.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I think Ronny nailed it. Jackson, I agree that Sandusky has right to trial and right to presumed innocence. He was no longer an employee of Penn State. Paterno however, was the leader of the football program. He was the supervisor responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on his watch. The University had no other choice. Legally and morally, people had to go..and now! Penn State management knew...and have apparently known for years, that Sandusky was a pedophile, performing criminal acts, against children, on their campus! As former Dallas Cowboys coach, Barry Switzer, (also former coach at Oklahoma), said, "everyone in that athletic program had to know."

I do believe that Sandusky was first charged in 1998 and The DA, (mysteriously missing a few days later), declared insufficient grounds to prosecute. Sandusky was allowed to resign..at a very young age for a coach. He however, was apparently allowed access to The Penn athletic facilities for years after until this story broke. Logic would tell you that Sanduskys' past was overlooked, in the hopes that it would mysteriously go away. As you may have heard, pedophiles rarely cease abusing children unless kept PERMANENTLY away from children. That action was never taken...and no one said a thing. A childs voice is easy to ignore.

Most normal, functioning adults, cannot imagine this type of crime. It's ugly. It's revolting behavior. I think however, that for too long, Americans had rather not admit that this evil exists. It has shown its' presence in our churches, our youth groups, our scout troops, and is hidden by our natural inclination to trust and admire those adults who give of their time to help children. We must take the blinders off and have the guts to talk about the need to protect the most vulnerable of our society. We must teach our children to recognize and report any signs of an abusive authority figure. More important, we should stamp out forever any excuse for NOT stepping forward to help a child being abused. Inaction...is NOT ACCEPTABLE and is, in fact, COMPLICIT.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Jackson, I appreciate the civility of this thread. It's a good discussion. My problem with Paterno is he is not denying that he was told by an individual he trusted that Sandusky was having inappropriate sexual contact with a young child in the Penn State athletic facility shower. This wasn't vague hearsay. He also acknowledges he was aware of other allegations against Sandusky that pre-dated the 2002 episode. He was also aware that Sandusky brought, on occasion, young boys on Penn State road trips. I am
not suggesting that Paterno has broken any law based on the available information. However, I am suggesting that it was perfectly reasonable for the state officials to fire him based on the facts Paterno
himself acknowledges. It should have been a relatively short conversation and easy decision to fire the gentlemen involved. Goes something like this: "Hey guys, were all
of you aware that a graduate assistant you hired reported that Sandusky was having a sexual encounter with a young boy in the Athletic facility shower?" Answer: "Yes"
"Am I to understand that none of you reported this to the local or campus police?" Answer: "No, we did not report it." "Okay gentlemen, you are all fired effective immediately."

Seriously Jackson, this is an easy one. Again, I am not saying Paterno should be lynched or shot or even prosecuted, but for goodness sake, we all can see why he was fired. The man hid from his responsibility...not only as a coach...but as a human being. I acknowledge we all make mistakes, but this one was compounded by Paterno's prior knowledge of other accusations. No way his job could be spared.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

All of these arguments are compelling. But I think Drift Boat has best hit upon a central point. To quote him and it: "...[W]e have Joe Paterno, who has not been charged with anything and according to the prosecutor no charges are expected. He reported what someone else told him about Sandusky to the Penn State administration. I'm not sure what his sin is. He had no first hand information, [he] was neither part of the administration nor a member of law enforcement. What was he to do?..."

Yep. Think about it. He didn't see Sandusky do anything. For him to go to the police really would have been hearsay. So he bucked it up to his higher authority, as the young graduate assistant had bucked it up to him. It was the eyewitness, the young graduate assistant (who apparently was the last tree to fall this week) who should have gone to the police.

report 0 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Jackson, as a teacher, anytime I suspect any sort of abuse - be it sexual, physical, or even emotional - it is my responsibility to report it. And, once I report it, I cannot just assume that my superiors will handle it, especially if the party suspected of the abuse is powerful and/or influential; rather, it is my responsibility to follow up on the situation and ensure that the child is protected. Paterno had the same responsibility, even if there was no legal obligation.

Moreover, it is disingenuous to say that Paterno reported it to his superiors. Who actually believes that anyone on the Penn State campus was Paterno's superior? He was the most powerful man on campus, even if he was not officially at the top of the chain of command, and the fact that he did not take the situation seriously enough to do any follow-up set the expectation that the school should not either.

Sandusky was close to Paterno, even after Paterno, by his own admission (see his testimony), had been told of a disturbing event. Now, I am also a coach - and I can tell you that no one suspected of any kind of abuse, hearsay or not, will get anywhere near my athletes without a full investigation to clear them.

Paterno failed in his responsibilities as a coach and teacher. He most certainly deserved to go. It is about time someone put the school and its students ahead of the football program.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Mr. Baker, you last point is different from your first point. Your first point was basically "we don't know anything but hearsay" so we must somehow endure a long investigation before anyone can be fired Which of course is not true. We know from the grand jury report and from Paterno himself what happened vis a vis Paterno. And innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply outside the courtroom. But then when this is pointed out, you shift your argument. Now you are arguing not that we don't know what Paterno did, but that what he did was appropriate and sufficient. Entirely different argument. Most people think you are wrong, including Joe Paterno, because he said that he wished he'd done more. He was told that a child was raped in his facility. He called him boss and washed his hands of it. Never confronted Sandusky to find out if it was true or not, never tried to find out who the kid was, never called the cops. He was given a first hand account from someone who saw a man raping a child in a Penn State shower. That's a pretty strong basis on which to call the police. Or if you'd rather, to advise the 28 year old who did see it to go to the police. Given his position on campus, its hard to believe that anyone would find what he did to be sufficient. The right thing is not always the legal thing.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I think most of the folks on this thread probably know this, but for those who may not, it should be noted that the 28 year old graduate assistant who witnessed and reported to Paterno the raping of a child was ultimately promoted by Paterno to wide receivers assistant coach. The point is, the source of what Mr Baker refers to as "hearsay" is obviously a respected and trusted associate of Mr Paterno. Take a moment and think of those in your life you both respect and trust. If one of these people reported to you the fact they had witnessed the raping of a child, would you consider it mere hearsay. I think not. And I think Paterno probably wholeheartedly believed his associate as well. Therein lies the problem. Paterno reacted to a heinous report from a trusted source with a bare minimum response...a response that put the reputation of the school and football program ahead of the welfare of an innocent child. Would he have reacted in this weak a manner had the child been his grandson or nephew or the like? Again, I think not. This innocent child deserved better and it is fairly apparent from Paterno's reaction that he realizes his horrible error.

I want to take one moment to say this tragic decision by Paterno does NOT make him an evil man. His life's accomplishments are not negated. Sometimes perfectly good people make really bad decisions. Unfortunately, this bad decision, quite justifiably, cost him his job.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

If we take the findings of the grand jury at face value, this situation was allowed to go on for over a decade. At every step where any decision was made throughout this long process, the reputations of powerful adults was consistently deemed to be more valuable than the protection of minor children. Whatever presumptions we make on behalf of the accused, the innocence of the victims cannot be called into question. We're talking about credible eyewitness allegations of child rape. If this situation does not call for the utmost care, for the highest standards of disclosure and ethical conduct, then what in Heaven's name really does?

The question of Joe Paterno's fate seems to me to be secondary to that of the victims of these cover-ups. How was this allowed to go on for so long? We've all seen this horror show before, in the form of the widespread abuses that took place in the Catholic Church. Still other child sexual abuse scandals have rocked other organizations whose ostensible aim was the protection of children. This is clearly not an isolated problem.

Are we all just too polite to talk about child rape? Is that why, in so many cases, when these matters finally come to light we nearly always learn of individuals who already knew what was going on? Is that why, when some guy found a child being raped so violently that he could hear it from another room, he knew that he would find support from his peers if he just turned around and walked away?

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

There's a lot of righteous rage here, but -- as Ronny has pointed out -- a lot of good civil discussion as well. Thanks.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I think there have been a number of good points made here. The sad realities are we have created this environment where it's not all so black and white. There have been many cases where innocent lives have been ruined by false statements and the rush to jump on the band wagon before any investigation or trials.........case in point the Duke Lacrosse team accused of rape.......and we all know how that ended up. The indictment by the grand jury is not a conviction. The report published is not testimony in a trial.....yet in this litigious society all involved will react to CYA. The University reacts by firing Joe and others, yet the one eye witness is merely placed on administrative leave.... do we have a double set of standards here? I'm not so sure the University's reaction is so much a particular stance on moral or responsibility obligations as it is an attempt to make some distance from itself and future civil cases on behalf of the victims that are surely to result in some very substantial settlements by the University.......Like wise with Sandusky's foundation that has cut their ties with him at an earlier date....shall we judge and convict them as well?

That facts are Sandusky is accused and if proven guilty will justifiably spend the rest of his life in prison. How far shall we cast the net of associative complicity by mere knowledge after the fact? It's very easy to Monday morning quarterback the events and say what one would have done in the same situation.......it's entirely another to be in the spot and have to make that decision.

If anything I think it's a sad commentary on society in general that we have allowed the environment to develop that so many extenuating factors come into play..

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Sandusky still had an office on campus and free use of the football facilities when he was arrested.

'Nuff said.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Sorry, but if you haven't read the indictment, you shouldn't even be commenting. Joe Paterno TESTIFIED that one of his assistants told him about Sandusky's sex act with a child in team facilities. He testtified that he passed that info on to his superiors and did nothing further, thereby tacitly allowing the cover-up and the abuse to go on for several more years. And he knew full well Sandusky was continuing to use PSU facilities.
I'm a boss, of sorts. If an employee comes to me and tells me he saw another employee molesting a child in the office bathroom and I don't immediately go to the police, I should be fired. If all I do is mention it to MY boss and do nothing else, I should be fired. Joe Pa isn't being "railroaded" or "presumed guilty." He isn't being convicted in a court of law. He was fired for actions he's admitted — to a grand jury. Please read the indictment: http://bit.ly/uAU9Df

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

There is a distinction here that the defenders of "innocent until proven guilty" have lost track of, and that is that innocence and guilt are terms of art which apply to, and only to, the outcome of a legal process. Much like a person can be crazy, but not insane (also a legal determination), a person can commit an act but, for a variety of reasons, not be guilty of a crime for having committed it.

Also, while many acts may be unspeakable, reprehensible, or even immoral, that doesn't make them crimes. Again, only the law declares what is, and what isn't, a crime.

However, the fact that something unspeakable, reprehensible or immoral has occurred doesn't mean that a society (whether at large or a sheltered environment like a university), must wait for a determination of whether or not that occurrence constitutes a crime, or the guilt or innocence of the party accused of committing it, before taking action to prevent its recurrence. That is especially so since the determination of guilt or innocence is based on a standard of proof (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt) by which the necessity for prompt corrective action cannot be judged.

Here, the uncontroverted fact is that Paterno, by his own admission, failed to report to law enforcement authorities information he was given that unspeakable, reprehensible, immoral (and probably also criminal) acts had taken place in his bailiwick and on his watch. Whether or not that's a crime, in and of itself, remains to be seen, but there can be no question that swift and decisive action to punish and prevent the recurrence of such conduct was not only appropriate but absolutely necessary.

Paterno had to go. Now, where he ends up going can await the outcome of the remainder of the process.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I've got to agree with Bruce, here. When Mr. Paterno testified to a grand jury that one of his assistants TOLD HIM about Sandusky's sex act with a child on the campus property in the athletic facilities and he did NOT call State College police, then there is no presumption of guilt. He IS guilty of covering up a crime, which is obviously why he has hired a big time criminal litigator. This whole thing is about self-preservation. As one media outlet put it, Mr. Paterno was the veritable Pope of PSU who did NOTHING to put an end to the filthy, unholy abuse of innocent children at the university. It is the ultimate act of arrogance.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Bruce? Marty? At long last, you guys have concluded some sort of modus vivendi, and I wasn't even invited to the ceremony? Oh, snap!

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Although here latterly a smidgen of righteous indignation and, dare I say, intolerance has crept into this dialogue, I still believe, as do several commenters (on opposite sides of the issue, mind you) that this thread has been remarkably open-minded, probing, and civil.

As for those who don't believe there's anything to talk about, case closed, just hand over the rope and shut up, and all that, I offer a couple of links, which supply thoughtful alternatives to the lynch-mob attitude. One issues from David Brooks, of all people. Who's a-thunk it? “Let's all feel superior,” indeed!:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/11/10/the-…


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opinion/…

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Oh Jackson, shirley you aren't going to use Brooks. He's consistently wrong about everything. Brooks is merely upset that a person of power and prestige has been brought low by the rabble.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Jeff, ain't gonna "use" anybody, David Brooks or Shirley or whomever. This is one of those instances when the usual polarities: left vs. right, R vs. D, Our Team vs. Their Team, etc., etc. won't define the issue. In fact, if you read Brooks' piece, he isn't trying to protect or defend Paterno, his focus is on the presumptions and misprisions of the collective human heart. It's worth a whirl, really.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Mr. Baker,
Perhaps in support of your reluctance to rush to judgment re Jo Pa: I understand the assistant coach, that claims to have seen the now defendant assaulting the young boy, that assistant has modified his statement as to who reported what to whom. I've been involved in a lot of trials in my life (the legal type) and have come to the shocking realization that folks will occasionally lie under oath. The use of the word occasionally is probably being charitable.
We are probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum but, as you so accurately pointed out, "the usual polarities..." don't have much bearing on this discussion. Keep fighting the good fight.
Drift Boat

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

It may be part of our human nature not to step in when these situations arise, but it is also part of our human nature to expect that we will. Expecting people to do the right thing and being upset when they don't has nothing to do with being superior; it has to do with the fact that we'd all rather live in a world in which we expect the better angels of our nature to rise at the proper time than in a world in which we assume that, since the better angels don't always appear, we don't even expect them to show.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

JB: Welcome to my world (i.e., defending an unpopular position on this forum). I'm glad you're doing it, though, 'cause, just as with the criminal judicial process, it's only through the tension between conventional wisdom and challenges to it that something approaching truth can result.

I can't help but wonder, though, whether Franco Harris has second thoughts about that: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh…

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike