Should Joe Paterno's statue be taken down at Penn State?

[cramx3]

I'm curious, do you know of any instance of confirmed unethical behavior of an institution or program, that was also criminal, where the NCAA did not impose any penalty at all?

Obviously nothing like PSU has happened, but I think the closest is Baylor Mens Basketball.  One team mate murdered the other and the coach lied to investigators.  Now, the NCAA handed down harsh sanctions, none of which was because of the murder, but because of the massive amounts of NCAA violations that they found during the investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_University_basketball_scandal

"The full list of major program violations included:

Bliss paying for tuition for two players, Dennehy and Herring[4] and attempting to conceal it.
Coaching staff providing meals, transportation, lodging and clothing to athletes.
Coaching staff paying for tuition and fees for a recruit at another school.
Bliss's encouragement of school boosters to donate to a foundation tied to a basketball team that included prospective Baylor recruits.
Failure to report positive drug test results by athletes.
Failure by the entire coaching staff to "exercise institutional control over the basketball program.""

None of those violations refer to a crime, all to NCAA bylaws.

[eric42434224]

Well there you go...you are making my point for me.  If you read the NCAA document detailing the violations, you will see that no sanction was delivered specifically for the criminal acts.
They only punished the violations of the NCAA rules on ethics and supervision uncovered in the investigation.

This is what I have been saying all along.  The NCAA punished PS for its violations of the NCAA rules...not the actual criminal acts.  The Law prosecuted those responsible for the criminal acts.

[cramx3]

Well there you go...you are making my point for me.  If you read the NCAA document detailing the violations, you will see that no sanction was delivered specifically for the criminal acts.
They only punished the violations of the NCAA rules on ethics and supervision uncovered in the investigation.
This is what I have been saying all along.  The NCAA punished PS for its violations of the NCAA rules...not the actual criminal acts.  The Law prosecuted those responsible for the criminal acts.

No, that is why I listed the NCAA violations that were found. That is what they were punished for.  Notice there is no reference the ethics in this.  Obviously what happened was unethical, but that is not what the NCAA punished Baylor for.

[wkiml]

The NCAA itself made numerous indiciations they never came across a case like this and wasn't sure if the by-laws they had set in place would even cover something like this. Upon discussion in house they decided they did have to set a 'president' in this particular case. Penn State agreed to the sanctions, similar to a defendant settling a case without agreeing to any wrong doing. If Penn State as a university is willing to "swallow the bitter pill" I don't get why their alumni and student body can't do the same

[cramx3]

The NCAA itself made numerous indiciations they never came across a case like this and wasn't sure if the by-laws they had set in place would even cover something like this. Upon discussion in house they decided they did have to set a 'president' in this particular case. Penn State agreed to the sanctions, similar to a defendant settling a case without agreeing to any wrong doing. If Penn State as a university is willing to "swallow the bitter pill" I don't get why their alumni and student body can't do the same

So you are admitting they didnt violate an NCAA bylaw.  I actually very much agree with this accept the last part.  I dont think myself, the students, the athletes, the fans should have to "swallor the bitter pill" because none of us did anything wrong. We are all going to "swallow the bitter pill" because that was agreed upon and cant be changed, but that doesn't mean I cant argue that PSU didnt actually violate an NCAA bylaw.

[eric42434224]

Well there you go...you are making my point for me.  If you read the NCAA document detailing the violations, you will see that no sanction was delivered specifically for the criminal acts.
They only punished the violations of the NCAA rules on ethics and supervision uncovered in the investigation.
This is what I have been saying all along.  The NCAA punished PS for its violations of the NCAA rules...not the actual criminal acts.  The Law prosecuted those responsible for the criminal acts.

No, that is why I listed the NCAA violations that were found. That is what they were punished for.  Notice there is no reference the ethics in this.  Obviously what happened was unethical, but that is not what the NCAA punished Baylor for.

Penn State was sanctioned for supervisory violations as well you know...you should focus on the ethics issue alone.

Baylor case supervisory: "Failure by the entire coaching staff to "exercise institutional control over the basketball program."

and ethics were indeed addressed, you conveniently left this out....

Baylor case ethics: "The NCAA also imposed a 10-year "show-cause penalty" on Bliss for "despicable behavior" and "unethical conduct."

The NCAA itself made numerous indiciations they never came across a case like this and wasn't sure if the by-laws they had set in place would even cover something like this. Upon discussion in house they decided they did have to set a 'president' in this particular case. Penn State agreed to the sanctions, similar to a defendant settling a case without agreeing to any wrong doing. If Penn State as a university is willing to "swallow the bitter pill" I don't get why their alumni and student body can't do the same

So you are admitting they didnt violate an NCAA bylaw.  I actually very much agree with this accept the last part.  I dont think myself, the students, the athletes, the fans should have to "swallor the bitter pill" because none of us did anything wrong. We are all going to "swallow the bitter pill" because that was agreed upon and cant be changed, but that doesn't mean I cant argue that PSU didnt actually violate an NCAA bylaw.

Of course they violated NCAA bylaws on supervision.  How do you conclude they didnt?  Also, the ethics rules were violated.  They state specifically that the ARE NOT LIMITED to only the examples shown.

Sorry, you are 100% factually wrong if you think there were no NCAA rule violations here.

[cramx3]

Well there you go...you are making my point for me.  If you read the NCAA document detailing the violations, you will see that no sanction was delivered specifically for the criminal acts.
They only punished the violations of the NCAA rules on ethics and supervision uncovered in the investigation.
This is what I have been saying all along.  The NCAA punished PS for its violations of the NCAA rules...not the actual criminal acts.  The Law prosecuted those responsible for the criminal acts.

No, that is why I listed the NCAA violations that were found. That is what they were punished for.  Notice there is no reference the ethics in this.  Obviously what happened was unethical, but that is not what the NCAA punished Baylor for.

Penn State was sanctioned for supervisory violations as well you know...you should focus on the ethics issue alone.

Baylor case supervisory: "Failure by the entire coaching staff to "exercise institutional control over the basketball program."

and ethics were indeed addressed, you conveniently left this out....

Baylor case ethics: "The NCAA also imposed a 10-year "show-cause penalty" on Bliss for "despicable behavior" and "unethical conduct."

The show cause penalty is on the coach, not the school or program. It means he needs to comply with the NCAA if he wants to work for an NCAA institution again.  And Failure by the entire coaching staff to "exercise institutional control over the basketball program." means that they withheld all of the NCAA violations.  Once again, nothing that involves the criminal acts.

[wkiml]

The NCAA itself made numerous indiciations they never came across a case like this and wasn't sure if the by-laws they had set in place would even cover something like this. Upon discussion in house they decided they did have to set a 'president' in this particular case. Penn State agreed to the sanctions, similar to a defendant settling a case without agreeing to any wrong doing. If Penn State as a university is willing to "swallow the bitter pill" I don't get why their alumni and student body can't do the same

So you are admitting they didnt violate an NCAA bylaw.  I actually very much agree with this accept the last part.  I dont think myself, the students, the athletes, the fans should have to "swallor the bitter pill" because none of us did anything wrong. We are all going to "swallow the bitter pill" because that was agreed upon and cant be changed, but that doesn't mean I cant argue that PSU didnt actually violate an NCAA bylaw.

No what I said was the NCAA questioned themselves initially whether the by-laws were written to handle such a situtation upon internal review they agree that the by-laws did cover the infractions

[cramx3]

The NCAA itself made numerous indiciations they never came across a case like this and wasn't sure if the by-laws they had set in place would even cover something like this. Upon discussion in house they decided they did have to set a 'president' in this particular case. Penn State agreed to the sanctions, similar to a defendant settling a case without agreeing to any wrong doing. If Penn State as a university is willing to "swallow the bitter pill" I don't get why their alumni and student body can't do the same

So you are admitting they didnt violate an NCAA bylaw.  I actually very much agree with this accept the last part.  I dont think myself, the students, the athletes, the fans should have to "swallor the bitter pill" because none of us did anything wrong. We are all going to "swallow the bitter pill" because that was agreed upon and cant be changed, but that doesn't mean I cant argue that PSU didnt actually violate an NCAA bylaw.

No what I said was the NCAA questioned themselves initially whether the by-laws were written to handle such a situtation upon internal review they agree that the by-laws did cover the infractions

Setting a precedent and agreeing bylaws were broken are completely different.

Here is someone else who understands where I am coming from:

https://www.fanblogs.com/penn_state/008463.php

[eric42434224]

Well there you go...you are making my point for me.  If you read the NCAA document detailing the violations, you will see that no sanction was delivered specifically for the criminal acts.
They only punished the violations of the NCAA rules on ethics and supervision uncovered in the investigation.
This is what I have been saying all along.  The NCAA punished PS for its violations of the NCAA rules...not the actual criminal acts.  The Law prosecuted those responsible for the criminal acts.

No, that is why I listed the NCAA violations that were found. That is what they were punished for.  Notice there is no reference the ethics in this.  Obviously what happened was unethical, but that is not what the NCAA punished Baylor for.

Penn State was sanctioned for supervisory violations as well you know...you should focus on the ethics issue alone.

Baylor case supervisory: "Failure by the entire coaching staff to "exercise institutional control over the basketball program."

and ethics were indeed addressed, you conveniently left this out....

Baylor case ethics: "The NCAA also imposed a 10-year "show-cause penalty" on Bliss for "despicable behavior" and "unethical conduct."

The show cause penalty is on the coach, not the school or program. It means he needs to comply with the NCAA if he wants to work for an NCAA institution again.  And Failure by the entire coaching staff to "exercise institutional control over the basketball program." means that they withheld all of the NCAA violations.  Once again, nothing that involves the criminal acts.

Because it was a violation by the coach alone and not shown to be an institutional violation.  It doesnt matter what the sanction is, it is still a sanction given by the NCAA in the Baylor investigation directly due to ethics.

[eric42434224]

The NCAA itself made numerous indiciations they never came across a case like this and wasn't sure if the by-laws they had set in place would even cover something like this. Upon discussion in house they decided they did have to set a 'president' in this particular case. Penn State agreed to the sanctions, similar to a defendant settling a case without agreeing to any wrong doing. If Penn State as a university is willing to "swallow the bitter pill" I don't get why their alumni and student body can't do the same

So you are admitting they didnt violate an NCAA bylaw.  I actually very much agree with this accept the last part.  I dont think myself, the students, the athletes, the fans should have to "swallor the bitter pill" because none of us did anything wrong. We are all going to "swallow the bitter pill" because that was agreed upon and cant be changed, but that doesn't mean I cant argue that PSU didnt actually violate an NCAA bylaw.

No what I said was the NCAA questioned themselves initially whether the by-laws were written to handle such a situtation upon internal review they agree that the by-laws did cover the infractions

Setting a precedent and agreeing bylaws were broken are completely different.

Here is someone else who understands where I am coming from:

https://www.fanblogs.com/penn_state/008463.php

And he is just as wrong as you are.
But opinions are like assholes.
We all have them, and some really stink!
LOL.

Anyway, we are at an impasse.  Im out.  Peace!

[wkiml]

The NCAA itself made numerous indiciations they never came across a case like this and wasn't sure if the by-laws they had set in place would even cover something like this. Upon discussion in house they decided they did have to set a 'president' in this particular case. Penn State agreed to the sanctions, similar to a defendant settling a case without agreeing to any wrong doing. If Penn State as a university is willing to "swallow the bitter pill" I don't get why their alumni and student body can't do the same

So you are admitting they didnt violate an NCAA bylaw.  I actually very much agree with this accept the last part.  I dont think myself, the students, the athletes, the fans should have to "swallor the bitter pill" because none of us did anything wrong. We are all going to "swallow the bitter pill" because that was agreed upon and cant be changed, but that doesn't mean I cant argue that PSU didnt actually violate an NCAA bylaw.

and the Athletes were free to change schools without having to redshirt

Students are free to change schools if the feel the education they are entitled too will not be up to par because of the fines and sanctions

Only one's  left in the cold are the fans

[cramx3]

The NCAA itself made numerous indiciations they never came across a case like this and wasn't sure if the by-laws they had set in place would even cover something like this. Upon discussion in house they decided they did have to set a 'president' in this particular case. Penn State agreed to the sanctions, similar to a defendant settling a case without agreeing to any wrong doing. If Penn State as a university is willing to "swallow the bitter pill" I don't get why their alumni and student body can't do the same

So you are admitting they didnt violate an NCAA bylaw.  I actually very much agree with this accept the last part.  I dont think myself, the students, the athletes, the fans should have to "swallor the bitter pill" because none of us did anything wrong. We are all going to "swallow the bitter pill" because that was agreed upon and cant be changed, but that doesn't mean I cant argue that PSU didnt actually violate an NCAA bylaw.

and the Athletes were free to change schools without having to redshirt

Students are free to change schools if the feel the education they are entitled too will not be up to par because of the fines and sanctions

Only one's  left in the cold are the fans

OK... so what is your point?  The NCAA manipulated thier own bylaws by allowing a "free agency" atmosphere for this case.  Bending thier own rules just to punish the school.  I dont understand your point, but it leads me to another area that the NCAA went too far in terms of punishment.

[Sigz]

Students are free to change schools if the feel the education they are entitled too will not be up to par because of the fines and sanctions

Just for the record, transferring schools is hardly as simple as saying "I want to go there". It's almost always a long, complex, expensive, and not always successful prospect.

[wkiml]

Students are free to change schools if the feel the education they are entitled too will not be up to par because of the fines and sanctions

Just for the record, transferring schools is hardly as simple as saying "I want to go there". It's almost always a long, complex, expensive, and not always successful prospect.

I fully understand that as I changed schools , but in CRAM's arguement and most others I have seen its all about how those not involved are being punished as well

The NCAA took that into consideration and bent their own rules to not punish the student athletes currently attending the university

As per the rest of the student body, the football program has been shown to generate 60mm dollars for the school per year so in essense they are being ask to find another way to generate that income , will this effect programs within the school, absolutely , but those students effected by the cutbacks (if and when they occur have an option to change schools ) they are not tied down to strictly attended Penn State

[cramx3]

https://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-congressman-discusses-sue-paterno-report--20130208,0,4963302.story

Lehigh Valley Congressman Charlie Dent said Penn State's culture is not to blame for Jerry Sandusky's decades of child sexual abuse, according to a review of the university's internal investigation by Joe Paterno's family.

Dent, in a telephone interview Friday, said he had read summaries of the review commissioned by the late head football coach's family. The review is set to be published Sunday morning.

"To blame the culture of Penn State for Sandusky's crimes is a horrible mistake," Dent said Friday, characterizing the findings of one of the experts commissioned by the Paterno family. "To blame the culture of Penn State or even the football program … is not supported by the facts."

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh led an investigation commissioned by Penn State into the school's handling of sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky. The National Collegiate Athletic Association used that investigation in determing sanctions against the school and its football program.

Dent said the review cements his conclusion that Penn State has been "horribly mistreated" by the NCAA. After the college sports governing body hit Penn State with a $60 million fine and stripped the one-time Big10 powerhouse of football scholarships last summer, Dent called on NCAA president Mark Emmert to keep the money in Pennsylvania and restore opportunities for student athletes.

"The entire Penn State culture was punished based on this report," Dent said, adding that he will call for congressional hearings on the NCAA's decision.

Dent said the Paterno family's review comprises reports by four experts, including a former U.S. attorney general whom Dent would not identify. "The former attorney general says the Freeh report is seriously flawed, very flawed," Dent said.

Dent said the other expert whose summary the congressman had reviewed was a former FBI official, who worked with and expressed respect for Freeh. Dent characterized him as one of the nation's leading experts on sexual predators.

[Zook]

I can understand both side's case now, so I'm neutral on it.

There is no other side.

Paterno prevented a child rapist from going to prison, which allowed other children to be raped.  He is virtually as responsible for their being raped as Sandusky.

Nothing else he ever did matters.

There's no ambiguity.  No sufficiently redeeming quality.  Joe Paterno is a bad person.  Honoring anything he did is directly or indirectly honoring a supporter of a child rapist.

The statue should be melted and the metal sent to a recycling plant.

I didn't know anything about this story, but this looks like a good summary, and I completely agree. He's an accomplice to the raping of children. The statue is a permanent reminder of those awful acts, and should be taken down. Who cares if he helped do whatever, he also helped let a child rapist continue to rape kids. He deserves the same fate as the rapist which hopefully will come swiftly in prison.

[millahh]

The statue came down a loing time ago, and Paterno has been dead for almost a year...?

[cramx3]

I can understand both side's case now, so I'm neutral on it.

There is no other side.

Paterno prevented a child rapist from going to prison, which allowed other children to be raped.  He is virtually as responsible for their being raped as Sandusky.

Nothing else he ever did matters.

There's no ambiguity.  No sufficiently redeeming quality.  Joe Paterno is a bad person.  Honoring anything he did is directly or indirectly honoring a supporter of a child rapist.

The statue should be melted and the metal sent to a recycling plant.

I didn't know anything about this story, but this looks like a good summary, and I completely agree. He's an accomplice to the raping of children. The statue is a permanent reminder of those awful acts, and should be taken down. Who cares if he helped do whatever, he also helped let a child rapist continue to rape kids. He deserves the same fate as the rapist which hopefully will come swiftly in prison.

Thats actually a pretty terrible summary.

[Zook]

lol didn't see the date of the thread...

I told you I knew nothing about this story.

[KevShmev]

Lehigh Valley Congressman Charlie Dent said Penn State's culture is not to blame for Jerry Sandusky's decades of child sexual abuse, according to a review of the university's internal investigation by Joe Paterno's family.

 

'Nuff said.

[Orbert]

This again?

I know, I know... there was a new report, so it's back in the news, so all this shit will come back up again, and the same arguments will go back and forth, with no one learning anything and no one changing their opinions.

It comes down to this:  The guy did some stuff people thought was really cool, so they put up a statue.  Then we found out that he did some stuff people think is pretty heinous.  The question is whether or not that bad stuff "cancels out" the good stuff he did which meant a lot to a lot of people.  Some people think so, others do not.

There.  Now if people want to go back and forth on this for another five pages, they can, but it won't change a damned thing, including anyone's opinions.  It will just be people spouting their opinions, just as it was for the first seven pages.

[cramx3]

The question is whether he (Joe Paterno) did anything wrong in the first place.  Its obviously that PSU dropped the ball, but Paterno took most of the blame when the evidence hasn't supported that at this point.  Being the biggest name, thats obviously where the media and even the PSU board of trustees pointed the finger.

[Orbert]

But to most people, that's already decided.   He knew.  He admitted that.  The question becomes whether that brought upon him a moral obligation to do something.  So he did something, but some would say that that wasn't enough.  He didn't actually stop it.  It continued, and he knew.

To some people, that makes him an accomplice, and to some, that's as guilty as the perpetrator.  I've never seen anyone change their stance on that.  That's what I meant when I side people's opinions won't change, regardless of how many pages of banter.

[cramx3]

He only admitted to McQuerry telling him that something inappropriate happened in a shower between a kid and Sandusky. He never admitted to knowing anymore than that. I agree that most people won't change their minds and most don't even care at this point, but that doesn't mean the paternos and PSU people don't care. Most just want to know the truth. He also didn't know it continued.

[King Postwhore]

Stop defending him.  Joe P was a man in power and his years and stronghold at Penn State proves it.  Great coach that made one hell of a mistake not pushing the issue further.

[Orbert]

Stop defending him.  Joe P was a man in power and his years and stronghold at Penn State proves it.

See, that's what I'm talking about.  People have made up their minds and are not interested in the facts.  They have their opinions and will not sway from them.

[King Postwhore]

It's simple Bob, He knew about it.  Didn't get the results from the school who buried it when he went to them and should have went to the police when they did nothing.  He sat on his hands while children we being raped.  I think that says enough about a man.

[efxf]

He only admitted to McQuerry telling him that something inappropriate happened in a shower between a kid and Sandusky. He never admitted to knowing anymore than that. I agree that most people won't change their minds and most don't even care at this point, but that doesn't mean the paternos and PSU people don't care. Most just want to know the truth. He also didn't know it continued.

This.

[King Postwhore]

If it happened once he should have got rid of him right away.  Blinders are not an excuse.

I walked in on my Nephew being molested by an adult.  I had to get in a knock down, drag out fight to stop this guy from running away, and held him down while a neighbor of my nephew's called the cops.  No body will ever change my mind that Joe did enough.

[cramx3]

Then it seems you are comparing your situation to Mike McQuerry as he was the one who witnesses the crime and ran away instead of stopping it, not Joe Paterno.  And in fact, Joe reported this to the head of campus police who was not a uniform officer, but none the less was a man in power of the police and the campus police at PSU are real police FYI.  People can say he didn't do enough or morally should have done more and that may or may not be true, but he did fulfill his legal olbligation.

[Jaq]

He only admitted to McQuerry telling him that something inappropriate happened in a shower between a kid and Sandusky. He never admitted to knowing anymore than that. I agree that most people won't change their minds and most don't even care at this point, but that doesn't mean the paternos and PSU people don't care. Most just want to know the truth. He also didn't know it continued.

This.

So it's okay that he knew it happened once?

Fuck.

No.

[King Postwhore]

Then it seems you are comparing your situation to Mike McQuerry as he was the one who witnesses the crime and ran away instead of stopping it, not Joe Paterno.  And in fact, Joe reported this to the head of campus police who was not a uniform officer, but none the less was a man in power of the police and the campus police at PSU are real police FYI.  People can say he didn't do enough or morally should have done more and that may or may not be true, but he did fulfill his legal olbligation.

Joe knew of the transgression, went to the school, they did nothing and so did he after.  He is just as guilty for every kid being molested for not getting rid of that monster.  Joe did all those kids wrong.  His "Obligation" was to protect those kids. you use the words may or may not.  You should be ashamed of yourself for that lawyer speak.  Joe didn't stop that monster.

EDIT: BTW I know your talking legally about Joe, but I would think that Joe should have gone past the university or at least got rid of this monster.  That's the real tarnish on him as a person and why most will look at him in a different way.  I always have felt bad for any student or anyone who worked at the university that wasn't involved, but I do look at the leaders and Joe is included in that differently.

[KevShmev]

kingshmegland is hitting it out of the park here.  And that sucks that you witnessed something like that, man, but kudos for doing the right thing.

Then it seems you are comparing your situation to Mike McQuerry as he was the one who witnesses the crime and ran away instead of stopping it, not Joe Paterno.  And in fact, Joe reported this to the head of campus police who was not a uniform officer, but none the less was a man in power of the police and the campus police at PSU are real police FYI.  People can say he didn't do enough or morally should have done more and that may or may not be true, but he did fulfill his legal olbligation.

I am sorry, but that is an awful defense.  This isn't about what his legal obligation was.

[black_biff_stadler]

Exactly. Using the "legal obligation" defense is basically saying it's okay to not be 100% committed to protecting a child from molestation as long as you haven't left yourself vulnerable to prosecution.