xkcd

by **SummerGlauFan** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:58 am UTC

Just my two cents, but in every single job I have ever had, if I saw anything illegal happening I was to report it to my superior/managers/whatever, and let them handle the police. In this case, I would say the buck should have stopped at the head coach, who should have control of firing all assistant coaches and other football staff in the university. His failing to take direct action is something I would consider fire-able unless university guidelines specifically said to report it to the president first.

by **Save Point** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:01 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Requiring by law for people to lose their jobs. Not good.

The law shoud be targetting superiors who fail to report it to the police, not employes who report it to their superiors.

Mostly I agree with this. I think allowing people to report to superiors is good, because I think this is the natural response for most people, and I'd rather not criminalize behavior that ought to be sufficient should the superior in question fulfill his legal obligation. It also tends to be the actual policy put forth in most jobs - at least service and retail ones. I haven't glanced at the law, but the problem seems to be exactly what superiors fall under the umbrella of that law. Once reported, the onus fell on Paterno, and his ethical failing is so egregious that it really should not go without consequence from the law if committed by others in the future.

As for McQueary, I think it's a mistake to look at his action in one giant sequence as opposed to two events. I find it hard to believe that McQueary is just an exceptionally bad person so much as a normal person, and that normal people freeze, try to rationalize bad situations into good ones, and generally don't trend towards the heroic (or else we wouldn't laud that behavior as much as we do.) For these reasons, I'm disappointed, but less critical of, his decision to immediately call home and then Paterno over rushing in. I would have liked to see the 6'4 football player kick the stuffing out of the child rapist, but I don't see why big dudes are any more immune to the aforementioned tendencies than anyone else.

The second part, the part where he reported it to Paterno (according to the Grand Jury Report, he was explicit about it), and then no one questioned him and Sandusky was still using facilities, etc. long after the fact, that should have been a huge red flag. It's one thing to freak out in the moment, but having all that time to put some pretty hefty pieces together and continue with inaction really nails it for me.

by **jakovasaur** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:53 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:Just my two cents, but in every single job I have ever had, if I saw anything illegal happening I was to report it to my superior/managers/whatever, and let them handle the police. In this case, I would say the buck should have stopped at the head coach, who should have control of firing all assistant coaches and other football staff in the university. His failing to take direct action is something I would consider fire-able unless university guidelines specifically said to report it to the president first.

Paterno told the athletic director, who is technically higher up the chain than him, and what he was legally required to do. That is why he wasn't indicted, while the AD was. Part of the problem here was that Joe Paterno had more real power than his "superiors", even the president and board of trustees, as evidenced by the time they tried to get him to step down a few years ago, and he refused. The problem was mostly institutional, I think. Their hierarchy got all messed up, and many other schools are the same way. When the coach has all the power, obviously the football team is going to take precedence over the well-being of the university.

by **The Great Hippo** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:08 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Requiring by law for people to lose their jobs. Not good.

The law shoud be targetting superiors who fail to report it to the police, not employes who report it to their superiors.

I think it would be more effective to spend our energy protecting whistleblowers rather than focus that same energy on requiring those at the top to assume responsibility.

by **morriswalters** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:37 pm UTC

If your moral stance makes a judgement that the worry over your job or your status is greater than your responsibility to a child then don't have kids and don't be around them. The point of those laws is to require you to make exactly that choice. Where is the greater harm?

by **Adam H** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:15 pm UTC

A couple takeaways for me:

People are capable of shit. This includes friends, good people, philanthropists, charitable citizens - they can do things that you just cannot bring yourself to believe, but you must believe them. Don't let the good things divert your eyes from their unforgivable atrocities.

With allegations of this horrificitude, you must must must get them in writing, so that there is NO misunderstanding. Mcqueary told Paterno one thing, who told his bosses another thing, who would have told the police another thing if they thought they needed to. I mean, comon. Anyone with a brain can see the problem here, it's a game of damn telephone. If Mcqueary just gave paterno an note saying what he saw, Sandusky would be serving the tail end of a 10 year sentence right now. OR we'd KNOW that these assholes in charge are indeed assholes and not just bumbling idiots.

by **Garm** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

I disagree, Adam H.

The testimony regarding what exactly McQuery told Paterno is confusing, sure. But when someone tells you, an adult, that they saw a grown man showering with a young boy then you, as an adult, need to take the action of getting the authorities involved. The very least of what I've read involved McQuery telling Paterno that he saw Sandusky fondling a 10 year old. That's several steps up from "showering with."

by **Adam H** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:38 pm UTC

Garm wrote:I disagree, Adam H.

Your disagreement is probably about when I said something to the effect of "the problem is that it's a game of telephone". I absolutely did not mean it was the only problem, or the main problem. I realize now that that's exactly what it sounded like... I was just specifically trying to add to the discussion rather than refute or debate any of the very valid arguments that others have given.

I absolutely agree that Mcqueary and Paterno both should have contacted the police (who would have gotten sworn statements from them).

by **Lucrece** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:39 am UTC

Let's just say Paterno's reaction would've been different if instead of some stranger's kid, McQueary had told him his "grandson" was the one on the receiving end of Sandusky's antics.

by **willaaaaaa** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:59 am UTC

Well, I'm sure most have heard by now, but Sandusky was found guilty on 45 out of 48 charges.

Here's a bit about his memoir from 12 years ago, "Touched," which people are now scouring for hints of his deviant behavior... hindsight is 20/20.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/19/us/sandus ... index.html

by **New User** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:44 am UTC

Anybody here have any info on the American legal system?

I heard that Sandusky was found guilty of 45 out of 48 charges against him. The three not guilty charges were each against a different victim. Does that mean the jury had to review the evidence for 48 individual crimes, and determine which of those crimes has enough evidence to make him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, that seems like a lot of evidence to examine. Also, is there a limit to the number of individual charges filed against someone in a single trial? I can imagine a person being accused of a thousand crimes, and that just seems like too much evidence to examine.

I also heard that the jury deliberated for 21 hours. What kind of breaks are expected for a deliberation period that long? Would there be concern that the jury became exhausted, and that exhaustion affected their decisions? The 21 hours could have easily been broken up over numerous days, of course, but I just don't know much about the legal system.

by **Ghostbear** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:59 am UTC

New User wrote:Anybody here have any info on the American legal system?

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can answer these questions accurately. If someone thinks any of this is wrong, feel free to correct me.

New User wrote:I heard that Sandusky was found guilty of 45 out of 48 charges against him. The three not guilty charges were each against a different victim. Does that mean the jury had to review the evidence for 48 individual crimes, and determine which of those crimes has enough evidence to make him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, that seems like a lot of evidence to examine. Also, is there a limit to the number of individual charges filed against someone in a single trial? I can imagine a person being accused of a thousand crimes, and that just seems like too much evidence to examine.

I believe that interpretation is correct -- they would have had to determine which individual instances for which the person was guilty. I think generally when the counts go up so high, they're able to "bundle" them together into a greater crime, though that crime would need to be on the books, and at some point you'd have to encounter a case where there is no higher crime to go up to. At the same time, I think they also sometimes don't press the less provable charges, and instead stick with the stronger cases if the persecution feels the net punishment is sufficient.

It's also worth keeping in mind that those 48 charges aren't necessarily 48 counts of the same crime. Murder and theft would be two separate charges, for instance.

New User wrote:I also heard that the jury deliberated for 21 hours. What kind of breaks are expected for a deliberation period that long? Would there be concern that the jury became exhausted, and that exhaustion affected their decisions? The 21 hours could have easily been broken up over numerous days, of course, but I just don't know much about the legal system.

Deliberations can be broken up over multiple days -- the recent Edwards trial was, as an example. I think they try to keep it to blocks of no more than 4-5 hours long, but that's more a gut feeling than anything I can back up with facts.

by **Nordic Einar** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:45 am UTC

I've had friends who've been involved in long deliberation processes for trials, and they generally spent ~4 hours deliberating, with occasional food breaks or 10 minute breathers, for what it's worth.

by **Endless Mike** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:35 pm UTC

Following the release of the Freeh Report, the NCAA has penalized Penn State with $60 million, four year bowl ban and loss of 10 scholarships during that time, five years probation, and vacating all wins from 1998-2001.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co ... 5116.story

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:12 pm UTC

Very disappointing. The sanctions brought against Penn State were not nearly punitive enough to indicate to other athletic departments that attempting to cover up incidents such as those that happened at PSU isn't a risk worth taking. That Penn State sports teams will take the field/court/track/pool and compete in NCAA-sanctioned events next year means that, IMO, the NCAA didn't properly do its job. Which, I suppose, is what should be expected from the NCAA.

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Wait, you're suggesting an appropriate penalty would have been to suspend the whole athletic program for a year?

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:32 pm UTC

I'm suggesting it wouldn't have been an inappropriate penalty, because the athletic department as an organization took measures to cover up an egregious crime, and the athletic department is not limited to the football program. Perhaps more logically, I would have been perfectly satisfied with a ban on the revenue-generating sports (football and men's basketball), as athletic departments really don't give a flying fuck about any other sports and largely fund them solely at the behest of the university presidents to boost enrollment, or otherwise to meet Title IX requirements.

Anyway, I'm suggesting the problems here are bigger than the football program, and I think the precedent set in this case should have been extreme enough that no school in the future would even consider hiding something like this. I don't think that's the case here, and that's what disappoints me.

Edit: What I was suggesting in my previous post was a (temporary?) removal of Penn State from the organization that is the NCAA.

by **Dark567** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:37 pm UTC

Well it wasn't just the athletic department, the university administration covered up too. Should we take away Penn States accreditation for a year?

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:44 pm UTC

As the NCAA has no jurisdiction over the university administration, that's kind of a moot point, isn't it? Besides which, the lack of revenue from the athletics department and alumni, as well as the decreased interest in future enrollment, would hit the university quite significantly.

by **Dark567** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:03 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:As the NCAA has no jurisdiction over the university administration, that's kind of a moot point, isn't it?

Sure, but Pennsylvania and the accreditors do.

by **Tirian** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Very disappointing. The sanctions brought against Penn State were not nearly punitive enough to indicate to other athletic departments that attempting to cover up incidents such as those that happened at PSU isn't a risk worth taking. That Penn State sports teams will take the field/court/track/pool and compete in NCAA-sanctioned events next year means that, IMO, the NCAA didn't properly do its job. Which, I suppose, is what should be expected from the NCAA.

That's not my impression. A penalty this severe was only applied once, against SMU twenty years ago, and they're only now starting to pull out of the irrelevance. No one with even a whisper of professional aspiration will want to be at Penn State over the next four years, because there's no post-season for them to make a name for themselves. After four years, Penn State will be able to build from nothing, but it wouldn't surprise me if it took decades to attract a critical mass of talent that they would go back to being a team that is expected be a source of championship. I suppose the NCAA looked at the current athletic leadership and decided that they were making enough of a good-faith effort that it wasn't in the best interests to shutter the entire program for a year, and I'm willing to give them to benefit of the doubt.

The thought that Penn State's accreditation should be suspended -- essentially, that nobody should be allowed to graduate just because the school's leadership (which has also been gutted) looked the other way only on the athletic program -- is simply absurd. The problems weren't in the academic departments; if anything, it would be welcome if Penn State took this opportunity to rededicate itself to excellence in everything except the supremacy of sports.

by **Dark567** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:05 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:The thought that Penn State's accreditation should be suspended -- essentially, that nobody should be allowed to graduate just because the school's leadership (which has also been gutted) looked the other way only on the athletic program -- is simply absurd.

And the problems weren't in other athletics outside of football. That was kinda my point.

by **Puppyclaws** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:02 pm UTC

Athletic programs are incapable of action, and thus incapable of being tried by the law. Saying "Penn State let this go on" is beyond ignorant. Individuals committed crimes and covered them up, and those individuals should be punished. The actual offender has been tried by the legal system, found guilty, and is going to be spending the rest of his life in prison. The individual whose larger-than-life personality allowed there to be a cover-up is dead, and you can't punish the dead. Some other high-ranking individuals who were responsible for this cover-up are awaiting trial by the legal system. Those who were running the university and its athletic program at the time have been fired, so the sanctions will have zero effect on them. At this point, punishing the athletic program of Penn State does nothing to effect the people who allowed this to go on.

There is no possible action that the NCAA could take that will further deter people from doing the same shit. A person raped multiple children and was allowed to get away with it for a number of years. If you think there is somebody out there who is allowing that to go on, but will be deterred by some sort of monetary penalty, well... to put it nicely, you and I clearly think differently about human motivation and criminal deterrence. The social and legal penalties for being associated with child molestation are so high, the only people who would ever risk it are those who believe they will never get caught, or do not think about consequences. Penn State will be paying for this for the next 50 years in their reputation no matter what the NCAA does.

There are two reasons for the NCAA sanctions. First, people are hungry for "justice" (read: punishment) and feel that somebody needs to pay for what happened, regardless of the facts or who is actually paying for it. Second, the NCAA is making themselves look good by taking action and cashing in on that metaphorical blood-lust. It's not going to change how football programs behave, and it's not going to prevent child molestation.

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:40 pm UTC

Except the Penn State athletic department actually did institute a cover-up policy. Maybe they didn't let it go on, but they, as an institution, didn't alert the authorities and, in fact, concealed the evidence and hoped the entire scandal would go away. The child rape itself isn't the reason the NCAA imposed sanctions, because the individual responsible is currently having just a swell time in prison. The coverup, however, was institutionally-based, and since an institution can't be imprisoned for wrongdoing, the umbrella organization known as the NCAA has decided that it needs to let everyone know that this shit isn't acceptable under its auspices.

My issue is I don't think it did a good enough job of conveying that. The sanctions they put in place, while severe, don't indicate to every future generation that, hey, exposing your skeletons is infinitely less undesirable than covering them up, because if you cover them up and get caught, you will more-or-less cease to exist for the foreseeable future.

Remember, in the 80s, SMU was tagged with the death penalty, and were excluded from playing football for (one?) season because they clandestinely paid their players. Penn State, while their program will suffer, will still be allowed to play football, despite a conspiracy to cover up child rape.

by **Chen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:46 pm UTC

It seems like drastic punishment to hopefully deter others in the future while actively causing major problems to the lives of students who had NOTHING to do with this, is not a great idea.

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:49 pm UTC

The football players can transfer to another school without losing a year of eligibility, and the rest of the students are already suffering from the tarnishing effects of institutionally-condoned (or, at least, not condemned, which is essentially the same thing) child rape. If your company commits a major violation and ends up shutting down, it sure as hell isn't fair to the employees who have done nothing wrong, but that doesn't mean we get rid of all consequences of wrongdoing.

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Remember, in the 80s, SMU was tagged with the death penalty, and were excluded from playing football for (one?) season because they clandestinely paid their players.

And it seems to be generally accepted that Penn State's penalty is worse than that. At this point, I don't really see what you're saying besides "Nuh-uh."

by **Puppyclaws** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:05 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Except the Penn State athletic department actually did institute a cover-up policy. Maybe they didn't let it go on, but they, as an institution, didn't alert the authorities and, in fact, concealed the evidence and hoped the entire scandal would go away. The child rape itself isn't the reason the NCAA imposed sanctions, because the individual responsible is currently having just a swell time in prison. The coverup, however, was institutionally-based, and since an institution can't be imprisoned for wrongdoing, the umbrella organization known as the NCAA has decided that it needs to let everyone know that this shit isn't acceptable under its auspices.

I think you are grossly misrepresenting what went on and who was involved. I also think it's disingenuous (to say the least) to say the NCAA didn't really impose these sanctions because of child molestation, but because of the cover-up. The fact is, the public outcry over this particular crime is exactly why they have chosen to act. Do you have evidence that members of the Board of Trustees were involved in covering it up? If so, you could really do the police a favor and turn it over.

My issue is I don't think it did a good enough job of conveying that. The sanctions they put in place, while severe, don't indicate to every future generation that, hey, exposing your skeletons is infinitely less undesirable than covering them up, because if you cover them up and get caught, you will more-or-less cease to exist for the foreseeable future.

I am pretty sure that the public tarring and feathering that PSU has received in the media has already made that frightfully clear. Of course, I am of the opinion that not all of PSU past present and future should be punished for the actions of some of the people at the top, so we obviously have some differences in how we view all of this.

Remember, in the 80s, SMU was tagged with the death penalty, and were excluded from playing football for (one?) season because they clandestinely paid their players. Penn State, while their program will suffer, will still be allowed to play football, despite a conspiracy to cover up child rape.

One thing (among many) that you are missing is that the SMU case is regarded by most pundits and football fans as having been woefully mishandled. People do not regard that case as an example of justice served, they regard it as a case of the NCAA handing out way too much punishment. Oh yeah, and also the players had fault in that, and thus it made sense to punish them. Not so with this case. The people who were involved in this scandal have been ousted from the university and the team coaching staff. To seek punishment upon the people still involved in the football program above and beyond what has already been done is not doing anything worthwhile, and it's not serving justice.

Also, saying "But it was Child Rape!" again and again is just not an argument in itself, especially when we are not talking about the individuals who either committed it or were primarily responsible for covering it up. Just FYI.

ETA:

iamspen wrote:If your company commits a major violation and ends up shutting down, it sure as hell isn't fair to the employees who have done nothing wrong, but that doesn't mean we get rid of all consequences of wrongdoing.

Except that if the crime that individuals in the company were guilty of was raping children and covering it up, the individuals would be punished by the law, not the company. As has happened in this case. FFS.

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:11 pm UTC

I'm saying, subjectively, I don't think the punishment fit the crime, is all. Full disclosure, some of my frustrations might be in response to all the folks trying to suggest the NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction in this case, or the argument that punishments shouldn't have been handed down because it will affect the student body and student athletes of PSU, but even without that, IMO, Penn State shouldn't field a football team next season, and I wouldn't have had a problem extending that to other sports. Not that Penn State will be fielding much of a football team in the coming years, anyway, but that's beside the point.

But I don't know if this will change the perception that an athletic program can be bigger than the school for which its supposed to work, and I think temporarily shutting down that program would have really driven home that point. "You think your football is superior to everything else? Fine. You can live without it for a while."

I think you are grossly misrepresenting what went on and who was involved. I also think it's disingenuous (to say the least) to say the NCAA didn't really impose these sanctions because of child molestation, but because of the cover-up. The fact is, the public outcry over this particular crime is exactly why they have chosen to act. Do you have evidence that members of the Board of Trustees were involved in covering it up? If so, you could really do the police a favor and turn it over.

Who said anything about the Board of Trustees?

by **Puppyclaws** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Who said anything about the Board of Trustees?

You pretty clearly implied that this was an institutional problem going straight to the top. Since the AD, the President, the vice president, the football coach, and most of the assistant staff have been removed and you still feel there is a need for punishment of what remains at Penn State, I can only make the assumption that this is who you mean.

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:39 pm UTC

:Blink: I made no such implication. In fact, I pretty much specifically limited my arguments to include, "the athletic department." You're free to throw as many logical fallacies around as you wish, but doing so will hardly be convincing.

by **Dark567** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:45 pm UTC

iamspen wrote: In fact, I pretty much specifically limited my arguments to include, "the athletic department." You're free to throw as many logical fallacies around as you wish, but doing so will hardly be convincing.

Buy my question is if you are going to include the athletic department, why not include the University as whole ? (Which also instituted a cover-up policy)

by **Puppyclaws** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:52 pm UTC

The word "institution" was thrown around quite a bit, which appears to imply the university as a whole here. Perhaps I misunderstood. though this:

But I don't know if this will change the perception that an athletic program can be bigger than the school for which its supposed to work, and I think temporarily shutting down that program would have really driven home that point. "You think your football is superior to everything else? Fine. You can live without it for a while."

certainly sounds like you think the school as a whole is responsible for not cracking down on the growth of the athletic program and its power.

The point that you appear to want punishment to rain down on the people who remain Penn State (or Penn State's athletic program, though there is a strong link between the two) despite that there is no legal evidence to charge them with a crime is pretty obvious. I am not sure what you are calling a logical fallacy, or which fallacy you mean.

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:19 pm UTC

Buy my question is if you going to include the athletic department, why not include the University as whole ? (Which also instituted a cover-up policy)

Because I clearly limited my talking points to the NCAA sanctions, and the NCAA has no jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania State University system. I can't for the life of me figure out why you're bringing your oranges to my apple party, or why you keep trying to get me to take a stand on an issue on which I haven't educated myself. If you'd care to link me to documentation of a cover-up or continued scandal in the Board of Trustees or University President's office, or elsewhere in the academic faculty, I'd be happy to form an opinion about it, but until then, your question continues to have no bearing on this discussion.

Re: Puppyclaws

When I said, "institution," I meant to limit that to the athletic department as its own institution. I thought I had made that abundantly clear, but if that wasn't the case, my apologies.

...certainly sounds like you think the school as a whole is responsible for not cracking down on the growth of the athletic program and its power.

Not necessarily. I think the fan base and the subculture surrounding college athletics, and possibly sports as a whole, is that which has grown too large. The PSU athletic department felt the need to not only prevent embarrassment, but to protect a deified coach, a deified program, and a fan base who created them as such from falling. While I'm certainly a rabid sports fan, putting that aspect of global culture, and it is quite a global culture, is dangerous, indeed. Though I've used the word in this very thread, what I would advocate wouldn't be as punitive as it would be a deterrence; a message to sports fans that your sport is not so important as to override common sense, justice, and decency. Coaches and programs do not deserve their own cults of personality, nor should any institution or fan base feel obligated to protect such cults.

by **Dark567** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:
Buy my question is if you going to include the athletic department, why not include the University as whole ? (Which also instituted a cover-up policy)

Because I clearly limited my talking points to the NCAA sanctions, and the NCAA has no jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania State University system. I can't for the life of me figure out why you're bringing your oranges to my apple party, or why you keep trying to get me to take a stand on an issue on which I haven't educated myself. If you'd care to link me to documentation of a cover-up or continued scandal in the Board of Trustees or University President's office, or elsewhere in the academic faculty, I'd be happy to form an opinion about it, but until then, your question continues to have no bearing on this discussion.

Gary Schultz, a VP of Penn State was indicted as part of the cover up. There is evidence that Penn State Campus Police knew as well. This goes right to the top of Penn State, not just the Athletic Department. So what I am wondering is that if you feel so strongly that the athletic department needs to be severely punished so that many(mostly) unrelated individuals will suffer due to the actions of a few administrators, would you apply the same logic to the university and its administrators?

Here's a nice chart:

Spoiler:

by **iamspen** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:51 pm UTC

Perhaps, then, the appropriate umbrella organizations should levy punishments against the university. I wonder, though, what would they have the authority to do, and I wonder if the academic institutions in question don't suffer just as much as the athletic department by any NCAA rulings? Certainly, alumni donations are going to plummet because of the scandal, and are going to fall further due to the irrelevance of the football team, which will also impact the number of applicants. While removing accreditation from the university isn't a logical response, if your question is, "What should be done?" the answer is, I don't have the faintest idea. I don't even know what could be done. Would a university with a board of trustees be treated like a corporate entity would if it practiced poor ethical judgment, violating federal and state law in the process? Is the justice system even designed to handle a case like this? Is there an umbrella organization that has the authority to dole out punishments for ethical violations in Pennsylvania academia?

I don't have any clue.

But I know there's one that governs college athletics.

by **folkhero** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Certainly, alumni donations are going to plummet because of the scandal

What makes you so certain?

by **sardia** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:08 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sport ... wanted=all
Lulz, the Paterno family is insisting that the University honor the retirement contract that Paterno jammed down the board of trustees throats. In essence, the family had a large payment and perks rushed through while the scandal was going on. Implying that the family wanted to cash out before their name got tarnished. Pretty greedy of the Paterno family to demand all these luxuries like the school jet in light of the child molestation.

by **Lucrece** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:13 am UTC

They're scum, previously headed by the scum with depraved indifference.

by **pizzazz** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:29 pm UTC

Shutting down PSU's football program for any amount of time would be absurd. JoePa is dead and retired and Sandusky hasn't coached in over a decade. If there was anyone else involved, fire them, imprison them, bury them, etc. But wrecking the football team now punishes tremendously the current players and coaches, who haven't done anything (or haven't been proven to do anything) wrong. Even if they can transfer and play football wherever they go, a rather large assumption, that's a pretty tough process, especially starting two months before the school year. There's also the Penn State students who rely on football revenue to keep their tuition down.

Who is online