# Joe Paterno fired



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

Joe Paterno fired over Penn State child abuse scandal


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Probably a little early for a poll. Might want to find out whether the man is guilty or innocent of the accusations first.


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

armophob said:


> Probably a little early for a poll. Might want to find out whether the man is guilty or innocent of the accusations first.


I didn't ask about his guilt. I asked whether you thought it was appropriate for them to fire him, or if they should have let him retire.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

armophob said:


> Probably a little early for a poll. Might want to find out whether the man is guilty or innocent of the accusations first.


There are no accusations against Paterno. He himself, admitted he should have done more than was legally required. I agree.

He was given the opportunity to retire, but chose to "finish the season", which gave the board no choice.


----------



## SWORDFISH (Apr 16, 2007)

Although Paterno has not been accused of commiting a crime, he was the most powerful man in Penn State sports. He should have done more. The inaction of Paterno and those above him resulted in Sandusky claiming many more victims.

Paterno's service to Penn State earned him the opporunity to respectfully resign his position. When he failed to do so, he had to be removed.







SF


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

"...when good men do nothing..."


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

photostudent said:


> "...when good men do nothing..."


Exactly


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

A good man who didn't do enough is what Paterno himself admitted to. While I don't condone child abuse/rape etc, I'm surprised more people aren't defending him. I think they should have let him resign or retire after this season. He did a lot for the school but he's going down in flames instead of going out in glory because of someone else's crimes. I read there was riots on campus though and just heard they were pimping the kids out to the highest bidder too.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I will say as a moderator that I have no objection to this poll. As a person I wonder why there is no poll, or any uproar whatever, for the firing of the university president.


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

Well if Madden's latest allegations are true these are just the first two dominoes to fall...


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I will say as a moderator that I have no objection to this poll. As a person I wonder why there is no poll, or any uproar whatever, for the firing of the university president.


Because Paterno ran the University, so it's a big deal. Paterno was the face of Penn State, not someone who will be forgotten tomorrow. That's not a reflection on the man, but of the over-inflacted role JoePa played at Penn State. Just my two cents.. I have no vested interest in this at all.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

He ran the university? Is this true? Keep in mind that I really don't follow college sports and was only marginally aware that there was even a football team in Pennsylvania. But I thought he was the coach of the football team. Are you sure he ran other aspects of the university? 

I went to college at a school that was not well known for its sports programs, and the head coaches there most certainly did not run the university.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> He ran the university? Is this true? Keep in mind that I really don't follow college sports and was only marginally aware that there was even a football team in Pennsylvania. But I thought he was the coach of the football team. Are you sure he ran other aspects of the university?
> 
> I went to college at a school that was not well known for its sports programs, and the head coaches there most certainly did not run the university.


He was being fecetious. While Paterno did not "actually" run the University.... he is nearly on equal footing with God in State College, PA.

As to why a poll about the Paterno and not the President. Paterno did what was 'required by law'. The President failed to do even that.

So, I think most people would agree that the president's firing was 100% justified. Those people's feelings on Paterno's firing boil down to whether they believe he had a moral obligation to do more than the law required.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Ah, I get it.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

photostudent said:


> "...when good men do nothing..."


He didn't do nothing.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

There are many points of view regarding this horrible situation.

Paterno did what he should have done. And as coach of a team sport, you rely on the other members of your team to do their job. They didn't.

Had they done what they should have, Paterno was doing exactly what should have been done.

Since they didn't, and since Paterno is a senior person at Penn State, he probably should have followed up. Or should have verified that the matter had been turned over to the police. 

As for Paterno's status at Penn State, my understanding is that Paterno built the football program that built Penn State. Yes, something existed prior to Paterno, but it wasn't much. Plus Paterno was there a long time, which also tends to elevate one's stature. 

Again, had he used that stature in this instance, as he had in so many other ways, he would have saved children from abuse. 

All in all, this is a very sad situation. Especially because children were hurt that could have been prevented.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Drucifer said:


> He didn't do nothing.


And he didn't do enough. Rarely are things truly black or white.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Even eggs are kind of eggshell-colored, while licorice is, for the most part, cool grey.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Tom Robertson said:


> And he didn't do enough. Rarely are things truly black or white.


I would advise everyone to hold back their opinion until there is a full detail actuate report of what Paterno was told.

So far, the range of what he was told goes from unusual horsing around to full penetration from a third party that witness it.

I wonder how everyone who's against Paterno now, would see things if the shoe was on the other foot.

How would they like having their own boss investigating their private life because someone reported to them that they saw you do something strange in their eyes?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Drucifer said:


> I would advise everyone to hold back their opinion until there is a full detail actuate report of what Paterno was told.
> 
> So far, the range of what he was told goes from unusual horsing around to full penetration from a third party that witness it.
> 
> ...


I think I have miss-characterized my own feelings with my reply. I think I mostly agree with you.

I would like to think Paterno could have done more, but I don't really know what he was told nor in what manner.

Paterno did the legally right thing. And he probably relied on "his team", the people above him, to do their part.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> I would advise everyone to hold back their opinion until there is a full detail actuate report of what Paterno was told.
> 
> So far, the range of what he was told goes from unusual horsing around to full penetration from a third party that witness it.
> 
> ...


I said this is the other Paterno thread: It does not matter one iota whether Paterno got the details of the incident or not. By his own admission, in grand jury testimony, Joe Paterno says that he was told by Mike McQueary of "fondling, or something of a sexual nature".

Whether he was told that there was fondling or full penetration doesn't change the fact that the authorities should have been notified without a seconds hesitation. We're talking about a 60 year old man and a 10 year old boy. ANYTHING of a sexual nature - even remotely sexual - should have put an investigation in motion so fast it would make your head spin. Even if Paterno felt notifying the AD was the proper course of action, in the following weeks when it became apparent that nothing had happened, he should have followed up (The same is true of Mike McQueary, in my book).


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> I said this is the other Paterno thread: It does not matter one iota whether Paterno got the details of the incident or not. By his own admission, in grand jury testimony, Joe Paterno says that he was told by Mike McQueary of "fondling, or something of a sexual nature".
> 
> Whether he was told that there was fondling or full penetration doesn't change the fact that the authorities should have been notified without a seconds hesitation. We're talking about a 60 year old man and a 10 year old boy. ANYTHING of a sexual nature - even remotely sexual - should have put an investigation in motion so fast it would make your head spin. Even if Paterno felt notifying the AD was the proper course of action, in the following weeks when it became apparent that nothing had happened, he should have followed up (The same is true of Mike McQueary, in my book).


Ah, the old "certain crimes are guilty before proven innocent ploy."

In most work places, if someone reports this info to you, you do not act on your own. You give it to the HR department to investigate thoroughly. What if McQueary had been lying? Exaggerating? Mistaken?

You hand it off to the people who's job it is to reliably investigate.

Now, Paterno should have been given a full report of the investigation. He was a senior manager of the department involved. So "presuming" he didn't get a satisfactory report, he should have pushed for one. But if the AD lied to Paterno that "everything was correctly handled", what should have Paterno really done?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That's why, and the only reason why, I can hedge a bit with Paterno. I know he didn't do what I like to think *I* would have done in his shoes... I am pretty sure he didn't do what I actually would have done in his shoes...

but I am less certain that he didn't do everything *he* thought he could do at the time... and I can't chastise someone for not being me in that kind of situation.

As others have noted... if this happened in your workplace, you wouldn't necessarily be kept in the loop once you reported something to your boss. Legally, some stuff becomes a closed loop with upper management to protect the company.

I *feel* like Paterno should have asked more questions and done more... but it's hard to go a lot farther than that.

Though, at the same time... I'm ok with him being let go as he was... because I can't stand up and defend him as someone who upheld the morals/honors he had proclaimed all of his life.

So... I wasn't on the lynch mob, but I can't rally to his defense either.

Especially... when I see students decrying how "unfair" Paterno is being treated... while I'm not seeing those same students talk about the infinite ultimate unfairness it had to be to be one of Sandusky's alleged victims. Crying about Paterno being let go pales in comparison to thoughts of those kids.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ah, the old "certain crimes are guilty before proven innocent ploy."
> 
> In most work places, if someone reports this info to you, you do not act on your own. You give it to the HR department to investigate thoroughly. What if McQueary had been lying? Exaggerating? Mistaken?
> 
> ...


Not "guilty until proven innocent" at all. As you point out, Tom, you hand it off to the people who can investigate it. If they fail to investigate - and you *know* they've failed to perform their duties as required - I believe you have a responsibility to go outside of the normal chain of command. I'm not suggesting that someone should go rogue on a whim, or because they didn't receive the outcome they desired.

In this instance, the law REQUIRES that it be handed off to certain law enforcement agencies. The absence of any law enforcement involvement should have been a clear indication that the AD was not fulfilling his responsibility in the scenario.

If law enforcement was involved, they should - at the very minimum - have asked Paterno and McQueary for a statement, which we all know never happened. Even if the AD said "I've got it handled", they should have known better.



Stewart Vernon said:


> As others have noted... if this happened in your workplace, you wouldn't necessarily be kept in the loop once you reported something to your boss. Legally, some stuff becomes a closed loop with upper management to protect the company.
> 
> I *feel* like Paterno should have asked more questions and done more... but it's hard to go a lot farther than that.


And again, if law enforcement was notified, as required by law, they should have at the very least taken a statement from Paterno and McQueary. In the absence of that law enforcement involvement, I believe it falls on the shoulders of Paterno and McQueary to pursue the matter farther.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

It was not a "punishment" for Paterno. It was the school protecting itself as best it could by firing a man who did not do the moral, responsible thing when told of a horrible crime. How could the college allow an employee like that to continue in his position?

"Punishments," if there are any, will come later.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

paulman182 said:


> It was not a "punishment" for Paterno. It was the school protecting itself as best it could by firing a man who did not do the moral, responsible thing when told of a horrible crime. How could the college allow an employee like that to continue in his position?
> 
> "Punishments," if there are any, will come later.


Good point. And it wasn't just JoePa; the top guy's out, too.

There are two benefits from this mess, one important- the publicity of this will make lots of folks and institutions much more aware, and motivated/educated to do the right thing. The tiny one is that this obviates the awkward situation about Paterno's "normal" retirement.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The top guy? Does this top guy have a name? I hate to keep coming back to this but at least to me, Mr. Paterno was not some sort of beloved godlike figure. In fact I do not recall hearing his name before this came up. What about the other unnamed person whose head rolled over this? Did he not also have a record of service to the university?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The President of the University is who I was referring to, fired for not meeting his responsibilities under the law. 

I am guessing that there may be additional reasons why the Board was unhappy with the administration.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> Good point. And it wasn't just JoePa; the top guy's out, too.
> 
> There are two benefits from this mess, one important- the publicity of this will make lots of folks and institutions much more aware, and motivated/educated to do the right thing. The tiny one is that this obviates the awkward situation about Paterno's "normal" retirement.


But the one who spotted the offense is still employed. So why ain't he be fire too? If he saw what he claimed to have saw, calling his dad sounds like a strange decision.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> But the one who spotted the offense is still employed. So why ain't he be fire too? If he saw what he claimed to have saw, calling his dad sounds like a strange decision.


The best explanation I've seen is that the university is afraid to fire him for fear that he might be protected by some whistleblower laws. Most likely, PA has a law which prevents prosecution of someone who fails to intervene in a crime, as well.

So, he finishes out the last two games, they bring in a new regime who will conveniently clean house.

Curley, the AD who took Paterno's report, is also still employed - though he's on administrative leave. I've seen speculation that he remains employed for the same reason McQueary does. To fire someone _*because*_ they've been accused of a crime could open the university up to more lawsuits.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Everyone in this mess is doing their best to make themselves to look good and Penn is willing to throw out the baby with the wash water in their attempt to get this behind them.


----------



## la24philly (Mar 9, 2010)

paterno shouldn't be fired. everyone says he is god at penn state. with football yes, but thats it.

He is an employee, he has bosses like anyone else who he reports to.

a coach who is also a staff member tells him of a problem, joe pa does alert his superiors first of it. the police did get involved and it made it to the DA, who dropped the charge or didn't even file it.

So that's not joe's fault. He didn't witness anything. 

I would have done the same thing.

then the guy sandusky was allowed back on campus with full access, the president should have prevented that.

all of us are looking at this from heniz site. the fact is, joe did report it and an investgation did happen, because it did make it to a DA's office.

There is alot of corruption, with alot of the Admin people and board members, and state officals.

Tom corbett, now PA gov - he was the attonery general who could have taken action. but he gets up on mic and says he wishes things were acted quickly, give me a break.

Also the parents should have brought this up when it happened. 

then they fire joe, and let the guy who witnessed it all remain, until today they finally put him on admin leave.


but joe is 84, he doesn't need this aggrevation and i wish him the best.

11/19/1949 hire date 11/10/2011 term date. 9 days shy of employment of 62 years at penn state great career.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

la24philly said:


> paterno shouldn't be fired. everyone says he is god at penn state. with football yes, but thats it.
> 
> He is an employee, he has bosses like anyone else who he reports to.
> 
> ...


You've got your incidents mixed up, I'm afraid.

1998 a boy & his mother filed a complaint, which was investigated by university police, and handed to the DA who decided not to file charges.

2002 Mike McQueary witnesses Sandusky in the shower with a young boy, alerts Paterno, who in turn alerts Shultz & Curley.. and it went no further than their office. No investigation by university police, or any other law enforcement agency.

Had there been an investigation, and subsequent decision by the DA not to press charges in 2002 (as there was in 1998), we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

As for laying the blame on parents who should have said something when it happened... that's one of the more insulting things I've read/heard with regards to this whole situation. Do you really think 10 and 11 and 12 year old boys were running home and telling their parents all about how they had been molested? And the one mother who we know figured it out DID alert authorities, who did absolutely nothing (and we don't know why they did nothing because the DA at the time has been missing since 2005).


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

la24philly said:


> ...
> 
> Also the parents should have brought this up when it happened.
> 
> ...


You can't be serious? Are you actually putting some blame on the parents? That's disturbing that anyone could think that.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> You can't be serious? Are you actually putting some blame on the parents? That's disturbing that anyone could think that.


It's beyond disturbing.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The top guy? Does this top guy have a name? I hate to keep coming back to this but at least to me, Mr. Paterno was not some sort of beloved godlike figure. In fact I do not recall hearing his name before this came up. What about the other unnamed person whose head rolled over this? Did he not also have a record of service to the university?


I am not now nor have I ever been a football fan but I still know the name Joe Paterno. If I were asked to name 10 famous football coaches, I would name Joe Paterno, Bear Bryan and my coach from high school. I wouldn't know 7 others.

Bottom line is that Joe, Whathisname Top Guy and the Assistant Coach all should have been fired for knowing what they knew and doing nothing. The assistant was a witness to one of the crimes and did nothing to stop the crime. That should make him an accessory to the crime and he should be locked up.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

One thing that always comes up in abuse cases... whether it be children like in this case, or women in other cases... there is always at least a faction of people who take the "blame the victim" stance and that is always disturbing to me.

Imagine being that 10 year old boy, for example... scared and abused... and what if that boy saw McQueery? What if that boy knew someone witnessed and was hoping help was coming... and no help came... how does that boy go home and find the courage to believe someone will help him after that?

I'm never on the blame the victim side of things.


----------



## la24philly (Mar 9, 2010)

yes, im putting some blame on the parents. you can tell when your kid doesnt look right or has something wrong with him.

so this kid makes it home, obviously he would have shown some type of emotion of something being wrong.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

la24philly said:


> yes, im putting some blame on the parents. you can tell when your kid doesnt look right or has something wrong with him.
> 
> so this kid makes it home, obviously he would have shown some type of emotion of something being wrong.


You're absolutely...never mind. I'll get banned. :nono:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

la24philly said:


> yes, im putting some blame on the parents. you can tell when your kid doesnt look right or has something wrong with him.
> 
> so this kid makes it home, obviously he would have shown some type of emotion of something being wrong.


Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Maybe this wasn't even the first time that particular kid had been abused. But maybe he was embarrassed and felt shame and was afraid to tell his parents... so instead he tells his parents he was picked on by another kid of something... or maybe the parents just think their son is sick and that would explain the weird acting that day.

Some abuse victims are really good at hiding when they aren't ready to come forward... and unlike adults, kids usually aren't in a position where they can easily walk away and change their situation.

An abused wife can sometimes pick herself up and leave her husband/boyfriend... an abused kid can't support himself, and its easy to fall into the "this is how life is" melancholy and start to go numb to the abuse.

That's why when an adult does hand knowledge or witness something... it is SO important to do something immediately. It is so rare to have that kind of abuse witnessed by a (supposedly) neutral party... so for a kid not to get that support, would have to feel even worse than feeling abandoned... that kid, if he saw McQueary, might have felt sure someone was coming to help... then no help comes... and the kid starts to think, what good is it for me to tell if an adult saw and did nothing?

It's like in those movies where you're about to go to the police to report something, then you recognize an officer in the squadroom as the burglar you were about to describe... and you don't know where to turn.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> You're absolutely...never mind. I'll get banned. :nono:


Full of bad information?
Misinformed? 
Wrong? 
:sure:


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

la24philly said:


> yes, im putting some blame on the parents. you can tell when your kid doesnt look right or has something wrong with him.
> 
> so this kid makes it home, obviously he would have shown some type of emotion of something being wrong.


Like Sigma... I can't say what I really think or I'd get myself in trouble. You might want to invest some time learning about abuse, and the damage it causes to the victims before you make any more ridiculous claims like the victims and their families have some culpability - especially when the victims are 10 and 12 year old boys.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't have any children of your own.

What teenager doesn't look out of sorts every other day, and sometimes more than once a day. And no matter what you think, you can't force them to tell you something if they don't want to tell you.

The mother of the child in the first report did, eventually, figure out something was wrong, but the child wouldn't tell her. Eventually he asked a question which led her to the conclusion that Sandusky was abusing him - and he still wouldn't talk. So she told the school counselor what was going on, and after some time, they were eventually able to get the story out of the boy. I read somewhere that it took years for the boy could face his mother and tell her the details of what had happened.


----------

