Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Bob in Oklahoma on January 23, 2012:

I won't let a single event color my respect for the life and career of an 80-year-old man. He did what he was supposed to do, and expected those above him to do what they were supposed to do.

Where's the outcry against Victim One's HS principal and coach, who tried to get his mother to drop the issue in 2002, and let Sandusky keep taking the boy places?

Where's the outcry against everyone else who failed these kids? I feel like Paterno is the easy target.

---

Bob, did you even read the page? This isn't about a listing of everyone who's culpable, it's my asking why there is idol worship of one man who is culpable. That's the question. What's your answer? But: please do actually read the page first: we're not talking about a "single event" but rather ignoring a pattern for years after he was informed of it. -rc

Posted by Claudia - Thousand Oaks on January 23, 2012:

Now if it were Cardinal Law who had died, the first thing mentioned would be his cover up of clergy abuse, not the good he did for his diocese.

BUT nowhere in the death notices of Paterno did I see his coverup of sexual abuse in the first 10 paragraphs. That is where the sports worship is greatly evident.

There needs to be a quid pro quo, abuse of children in any form, at any time, in any place, needs to be front and center and it overshadows everything till one is acquitted. The damage done to the children is FOREVER, and so should be treated as a dire deed.

Posted by Mike, Weirton, WV on January 23, 2012:

Yes, he should have followed up and certainly not allowed Sandusky to be anywhere near the locker rooms. As for the "idol worship," I think it's not accurate to just label Paterno a "football coach" as though he were the same as any coach out there today. In a world where coaches leave for the NFL or move to better opportunities every few years, Paterno was there for decades. He made sure his players got their education -- Penn State and Stanford have the highest overall (and minority) graduation rate in college football. Paterno lived in a modest house and signed over checks to the school ($100K each year to the library fund, for starters). Whether or not he deserves the "idol worship," he was not on the same level as your typical college football coach. And, to the poster who says it's the players who win the games, it's the coach who recruits and trains those players, who decides who plays and what strategy they will utilize, what plays to run, etc. The coach is most definitely part of the "win."

---

Thanks, Mike: after more than 150 comments on Facebook, you're the first, I think, to actually answer my question (and in a reasonable way). I appreciate your giving me a better understanding your point of view! -rc

Posted by Pete in Virginia on January 23, 2012:

I'm sorry this had to be moved because of one "older writer's" squeamishness -- going through the comments prior to Maxim's first post on the matter I did not see any profanity for profanities sake. Maxim if a frank discussion bothers you then by all means exercise your right to not take part in it but do not interfere with my right to take part in it. Obviously it bothered Robert enough to call me and others "liberal" and to have made the comment of "showing my true colors" by posting a timeline of events from both NPR and CNN.

Honestly I'm sorry that Paterno is dead -- but there should be NO separation of his football career and this scandal. Fact of the matter is Paterno did not do enough to stop Sandusky nor was Paterno the only one who failed to do so.

At any rate it is a really interesting discussion, Randy.

---

More people will see it here, anyway, so I was glad to be "forced" to move it here. -rc

Posted by David, Canada on January 23, 2012:

I actually think you're barking up the wrong tree of a sorts, Randy. Even if the sexual abuse scandal never happened at all (and believe me, I wish it didn't, chiefly for the sake of the victims) why is there hero worship of this man? It seems to be based primarily on the fact that he was a very effective football coach. So? Why does that warrant him being idolized?

I have friends that have made a difference in people's lives -- volunteering at homeless shelters, coordinating microloans for third world businesses, and setting up organizations to encourage righting of injustices (working with victims of the child trafficking industry, the poor, and those who have destitute lives). *Those* people are deserving of hero worship, but I'll bet each and every one of their deaths will be more obscure than Paterno's -- even without his scandal.

---

I'm not sure that agreement with my point means I'm "barking up the wrong tree". I do agree with your more precise point, though. It's exactly why I started the "Honorary Unsubscribe" feature in TRUE in the late 90s: I felt we were giving "celebrity" to the wrong people, such as athletes. -rc

Posted by David, Billerica, MA on January 23, 2012:

I worry about people who elevate Football, or any other sport, to religious levels. I love to watch sports as much as anyone, but both collegiate and professional sports have become such a passion/obsession for so many, that it clouds there perception of reality.

The fact that JoePa spent so many years in one job is remarkable. However, he is a coach of a extra-curricular sports team, not a deity. Since he died, I have heard many extol that JoePa would have "done anything for the college he loved." This apparently was true. He made sure that nothing would sully his precious football team or Penn State. I'm sorry, but putting school/team pride ahead of human life is wrong. Nothing can alter the egregiousness of Paterno's inaction. He may have been fatherly and a great guy, but his morals were not evident when he did so precious little when faced with allowing a predator of young children to continue to run amok in society. If after reporting it to the proper officials, JoePa had seen Sandusky again on campus (or anywhere else), it should have been his #1 priority to make sure Sandusky remained as far away from children as allowable by law.

JoePa was a human being, not a deity. Football is only a game, not a life.

Posted by Marchell in Houston on January 23, 2012:

I have to agree with you Randy. Paterno stated that he probably could have done more and I agree with him. The law defines 'minors' as those that must be cared for, looked after and protected by the majority. It is our responsibility and duty to protect ALL children. When a complaint is brought forward, it is our responsibility and duty to prevent any further instances of possible harm to the child. This is not a liberal point of view. I believe that if Paterno had been told that Sandusky was beating boys instead of raping them, he would have reacted much more strongly. It was the sexual connotation that prevented him from reacting properly. Unfortunately, he didn't view abuse as abuse, whether physical or mental. I can't respect him for allowing abuse to happen without investigating -- it was his responsibility and duty.

Posted by Anne, Mariposa, CA on January 23, 2012:

I agree with David from Billerica "Nothing can alter the egregiousness of Paterno's inaction" and with Randy.

While I'm sure his family is sorry he's dead, I couldn't muster up any particular emotion. He didn't stop Sandusky from further opportunities to molest kids. He could have stopped him.

I do feel sorry for his family; always hard when you lose someone. But Paterno isn't a hero. Not in my book.

Posted by Michael, London on January 23, 2012:

Randy, I would never ever unsubscribe just because you say somthing I do not agree with, not that that has happened so far.

I find your opinions always sound and common sense, sometimes I have to ask myself, how can an intelligent person think otherwise....

---

The key is "intelligent". You aren't so invested in preconceived notions that you can't stand being asked "Why?" You have the ability to answer rationally, and/or to change your mind. What's sad isn't that there are people who thought Paterno was great (and he was great at his profession), it's that any dissonance to their thought pattern causes brain freeze, and the only thing they can do is scream "Liberal!" (or whatever) to put "opponents" in a different box -- the "enemy" box because they insist that others must be "with me or against me" -- and act accordingly. What a sad, tiny world they live in.

And to be sure, I'm not categorizing "anyone who disagrees with me" that way. Mike in Weirton, WV, disagrees with me in a comment above, but he didn't go into brain-lock over it: he calmly stated his reasons "Why" -- and I honestly appreciated learning more about his point of view. See how easy it is? Well, easy if you have (and can use) a brain, at least. -rc

Posted by David, State College, PA on January 23, 2012:

I appreciate the discussion. I live in State College, I work on campus (not for PSU), but my wife is faculty and our oldest is a student. I am not a PSU grad, but my wife and son soon will be. As such, I am very close to this. Furthermore, our middle son participated in some 2nd Mile events. We definitely feel like we dodged a bullet there and our hearts break for those who were victims of this atrocity.

I do take issue with assumptions I have read here. Paterno blew it. He needed to be fired. But that is not the same as covering it up. He did not grasp the magnitude of what he was told...and apparently he was not told everything. But is the myopia of an old man equivalent to an intentional cover-up? He could and should have done more. He did not use the influence and moral authority he had earned over the years to prevent the continuation of abuse. For that he should be held accountable.

Although his influence stemmed largely from the money flowing to and through the football program, his moral authority came from his character and his commitment to PSU, to his players, and to the students. He loved them. He gave to them. He invested in them. He lived in a modest home within walking distance of the campus, despite his wealth. He raised millions for PSU, but he gave millions as well. He truly was a father (or grandfather) figure to everyone. He shopped locally. He was part of the community. He was one of us.

I am not excusing his inaction in the Sandusky matter. He could be oblivious to things...players in trouble with the law being an example. But when he was confronted with realities that he had not accepted before, he acted. Lawbreakers were dismissed. Starters were suspended or expelled. The entire team was made to clean Beaver Stadium after several transgressed to make the point that they all shared responsibility, and he was there cleaning up with them.

Living here, I think the reactions for and against the coach have devolved into histrionic excess. Defend the man and you are condoning child rape. Hold him accountable and you are dismissing an entire lifetime of achievement and investment in the lives of others. Both are ridiculous. He was a man. Flawed and great. Wise and foolish. Prone to excess in both selfishness and selflessness. To one degree or another the same could be said for all of us.

Some months ago you had an Honorary Unsubscribe for that poor Chinese baby killed on the street while people watched. Were those people worse than everyone else? Or were they emblematic of a more deeply seated failure of the human condition? The neighbors who heard Kitty Genovese scream for her life, were they so different? The soldiers at Abu Graib, or My Lai? It is easy for any of us to say what should have been done. And we are right to hold those accountable who had the opportunity to stop an atrocity and failed to do so.

But we need to be careful when riding an ethical high horse, because history and experience tells us that many -- maybe most -- fail that same test. Paterno had an opportunity to act more decisively and failed. That sin of omission haunted him to his grave. We should all learn from that. But he is not the first, he is not the worst, and sadly he will not be the last. He was a great man, but he was just a man. And for good AND bad, we all share that DNA.

---

I did not use the term "cover-up", but others did see it that way, and I allowed them to post their thoughts and conclusions, just as I'm letting you post yours. I do not agree, however, that "maybe most" of us would fail similar tests of ethics. I have reported lawbreakers, I have testified against them in court, I have put myself on the line -- and I do not think I'm unusual in being willing to do so. I also reject that to expect such out of our community leaders -- or any human -- is being on an "ethical high horse". That notion is what gives cowards cover. We all must demand not just high ethics, but action from our fellow citizens, let alone community leaders and, of course, those in education who have a positive "duty to report" such lawbreaking. Or indeed, we should be "haunted to our graves." -rc

Posted by Jane in California on January 23, 2012:

Great post! I've been thinking the same thing. I don't know if Sandusky is guilty, but the issue can't just be ignored amidst all the hero worship.

I am concerned about a comment another reader made. Miriam in California wrote, "People who have been anally raped very often take years to even recall the event -- or they become rapists themselves. (Often, child rapists can't recall their actions, either. Once they realize what they've done, they are often suicidal.)". If we accept this, how is anyone accused of rape to defend himself? And isn't believing this kind of thing exactly what led to the "recovered memory" and "Satanic abuse" scandals in the early 1990s? I'm no psychologist, but as I understand, abuse victims don't forget the abuse -- if anything, they remember too much. The idea of recovering repressed memories left people vulnerable to therapists who, intentionally or unintentionally, created false memories in their clients.

Posted by Pete, Minnesota on January 23, 2012:

Regarding it being "liberal" to be against child rape:

I've seen that before!

I think the basic idea is:

Feminists and stuff like that are liberal. Feminists are always making a HUUUUGE production out of a little gang rape here and there, even though it's no big deal, just boys being boys (and then systematically eradicating the evidence of them being boys). So that's some kind of liberal crap. More generally, making a big deal out of a little rape here and there is just bleeding-heart liberals making a big deal out of everything.

Apparently.

---

Huh. Not being liberal, I had no idea. Thanks for the explanation! -rc

Posted by Charlie in New Jersey on January 23, 2012:

As I've told many people over the years, I believe that the number of perfect human beings who have ever lived is either zero or one, depending on your religious viewpoint. If the number is one, his name was not Joe Paterno.

Paterno was a great football coach and a tremendous ambassador for The Pennsylvania State University. Where fans at PSU sporting events yell "We are Penn State!", Paterno, in many ways, was Penn State. But he was also human, very human. I'm not sure he deserves the complete vilification that some wish upon him, but neither does he deserve to be glorified with the saints. His legacy, like each of ours, is complex. We need to study it all and draw all of the necessary lessons (and there are many) from it.

Posted by Lynn, Wisconsin on January 23, 2012:

As someone who has been molested as a teen, I can say that it is extremely difficult to come forward and tell someone. I didn't tell anyone for years, because I was made to believe that I deserved it (which is a common thought for abusers to put into their victim's minds). I couldn't even handle going to the police to file charges. The thought of standing up in court and telling everyone what happened was just too much for me.

So it is not surprising to me that it took a while for the victims to come forward. They had to come to terms that what happened was not their fault and get past the shame they carried to talk about it. With the abuser being well known, it would be MUCH harder than my situation because what is happening with some people making excuses and looking the other way just because the abuser is well known and respected.

Every single person who knew this even might have happened and did not make sure that it was investigated is responsible, Joe Paterno included.

Posted by Mark in Oklahoma on January 23, 2012:

Randy, we had a difference over a comment a few months back, but for this I promise to renew my premium subscription! This whole story has been a source of personal pain for me; you see, I was molested as a child. For a two year period starting when I was about 7 up until I was about 9 a so-called family friend commited multiple sex acts on me and forced me to do some of them to him.

At the time I don't even think the subject of child molestation was even brought up in "polite society". I do know I was lost, hurt and confused, with nowhere to turn and no one to talk to. It was probably about 15 years later (in the 70s) when the memories started coming to the surface. I had (and still do) horrible nightmares. This case has triggered their return. I'm telling this because I bring to the discussion the point of view very seldom heard, the voice of the victim.

To all the supporters of Paterno, let me say this: Based on the court documents and testimony, Paterno and the entire PSU hierarchy failed those kids in such an abysmal way they should all be fired and have to surrender the pay they received. My life has been completely screwed up from my victimization, frankly burying me in money would not make my life any better. With complete certainty I can say that the victims in this case suffered far more than you can imagine.

Paterno did what he was required to do, they say. Maybe by law, but certainly not from a moral or ethical viewpoint. He failed at being a compassionate human being. And that failure far outweighs any success on the football field. I cannot honor a morally bankrupt person, and I don't think anybody should.

---

The human mind, frankly, really sucks sometime -- that you have nightmares decades later. You addressed this in a way I could not. Thanks for your expert testimony. -rc

Posted by Rick in PA on January 23, 2012:

I wonder if part of what has set some people off is the question you asked, Randy. If Joe Paterno is to be judged exclusively on "failure to act as a human being" versus "being good at a freaking GAME", there is no rational argument in favor of the latter. I suspect even Paterno himself would agree with that. The problem is that, unlike most of his fellow coaches, Paterno's legacy goes far beyond being good at a game. (full disclosure: I am a graduate of Penn State)

Expanding on what Mike in WV wrote about ensuring that his players got their education and his donations to the university, Paterno had a prominent role in countless fundraising campaigns to improve the academics at Penn State (faculty and facilities alike). Two examples: 1. Paterno addressed the board of trustees in 1983 (yes, timing is everything - he was capitalizing on the goodwill from his first national championship) to present a vision of Penn State rising to become one of this country's leading public universities; 30 years later, through the efforts of many people associated with Penn State, that vision is reality. 2. In the 1990s, Paterno and his wife led the fundraising efforts to construct a major addition to the campus library, a building which was named in his honor.

The fairer question: Does the good of the many (Paterno's impact on the growth and improvement of the university) outweigh his failed judgment (not doing more when told of Sandusky's alleged crimes)? Maybe the answer is still "no," but at least then we are considering all facets of his legacy.

---

I definitely agree that my passion narrowed my vision. Your expansion of the view is helpful, even if, as you suggest, the answer is still "no". -rc

Posted by Chris in California on January 23, 2012:

I have forever been amazed that so many people in the world consider professional sports so incredibly important. Important enough to lie, cheat, steal, and all the rest up to and including murder. Civilized behavior in the real world is what IS important, not some silly game.

Posted by Patricia in Chicago on January 23, 2012:

Almost anyone worth revering as a hero has at least one startling vice or act of wrongdoing to their name if you poke around hard enough. I've never been one for sports, but I'm reminded of my musical heroes: Beethoven was a misanthrope. Bernstein was a philanderer. Wagner was horrifically racist. All brilliant, brilliant men who brought a lot of beauty and joy to millions, if not billions, of people. Covering up sexual abuse of children by a coach is wrong, wrong, wrong. There really are no two reasonable sides to this. I guess the moral here is that it's all right to admire somebody for their great accomplishments, but in the end, our heroes are human, sometimes miserably so. It's when we forget that that we find ourselves trying to justify things for which we wouldn't forgive anybody else.

---

Profound! -rc

Posted by Henry, Conn. on January 23, 2012:

My older brother attended Penn State from 1972 to 1976. Joe Paterno
was a hero in our house. Over the years, I have casually followed his
career.

So, as you might expect, I wanted very badly for him to be innocent.

But he was not innocent. His own statements demonstrate that.

I think that this article presents as sympathetic a view of Mr. Paterno as we're going to get:

"I didn't know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was, so I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn't work out that way."

and

"In hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Sure, he did his duty. He reported what had been communicated to him to the proper authorities. But I submit that he deliberately dropped the issue right there, and distanced himself from a disturbing situation.

Having not been there, what can I possibly base such a serious allegation on?

Consider this situation. Suppose someone had come to his office and reported that his star quarterback, an important player who might make the difference between success or failure in the next day's Big Game had been seen smoking a marijuana joint in the locker room. What would happen? I submit that Mr. Paterno would leap out of his chair, find that kid or have him brought to him, and find a way to determine if the charge was true or not. (Do drug tests work that fast?) If he thought that the kid was smoking dope do you think that kid would be playing the next day or sitting on the bench? No matter how big that game was, I submit that his QB wouldn't even need to bother suiting up. Heck, he'd probably need a ticket to see the game.

Now Joe Paterno is dead. There will be no more statements from him. The words above (and any other testimony he gave) are all we have to go on.

I still think that he was a great coach. He made those kids get a real education, to the best of his ability, and he made the lives of hundreds of kids better. Whether it should be so or not, he brought boatloads of money into a fine school by making it a football powerhouse. I think that Joe Paterno was a great man.

But I also think that he did a very bad thing.

It is a false dichotomy to insist that both facts cannot be true at the same time. I agree with the strong wording that you used. It is something that you rarely do; it is clear (to me, at least) that you did it for a reason. I think you did it to make people wake up and realize what, by an act of omission, Joe Paterno enabled.

I wish that people would not continue to either write off his whole career, or to insist that his many accomplishments, and all of the boys he did mentor, and all the lives he made better, invalidated his inaction.

I believe both facts can exist together. He was a great man. And he did a very bad thing. On the whole, I believe that he saved many more lives than the few that his inaction contributed to the destruction of.

But even one person, male or female, adult or child, even one person being raped is too many. To allow it to happen to still-developing children, children whose word and testimony can hardly stand up (even in the child's own mind) to a powerful pair of adults such as Sandusky and Paterno is a sickening act of cowardice and failure.

Even though he was one heck of a great coach, and maybe even a great man.

---

An eloquent statement of the dilemma indeed. -rc

Posted by Kelly in Mineral VA on January 23, 2012:

I agree with Robert (although not enough to go into brainlock over it) and I agree with Mike Weirton. ...and I agree with them *because* of what David of State College had to say.

I am not exonerating Joe Paterno for failing to protect children being abused. He's right: he could have done more. But he made a lifetime of setting a high personal standard, and expecting the best of everyone around him. David said he could have a blind spot for lawbreakers until the facts were made plain, and then he would take decisive action.

The information that Paterno had in 2002 did not include the facts made plain, as we now lather about from the news. He had the uncomfortable, unclear allegations from McQueery about something inappropriate. He did not have enough information to fire or exclude Sandusky from the program. He had enough information to expect an investigation. That investigation could potentially clear Sandusky of suspicion.

McQueery stayed on with the program where Sandusky volunteered; one could suppose the eyewitness to the abuse would have been more squeamish had the rape been so clearly established. Perhaps Paterno hoped for the best for Sandusky: that it was a misunderstanding, or that Sandusky would himself know the truth and seek help and personal wholeness privately.

Joe Paterno turned the matter over to those who were responsible for the necessary investigation, and counted on them to do their parts, as he had done his. Instead, they failed to protect the children, and their community. They covered up the allegations. They got legal help paid for by the college who fired Paterno for having a conscience too late to protect the school reputation.

He believed in people. Yes, he believed in Sandusky. I believe that if charges had been filed, he would have expected Sandusky to take the consequences, and it's a tragedy for those kids, now adults, that charges were never filed. But I think Paterno wanted to expect the best from all involved; that's what he's always done. And that's why so many people around him have risen to meet his high expectations.

He didn't expect the school to cover up a damaging story, at the expense of young boys. If they hadn't buried the story, but Sandusky still remained at the program where McQueery still worked, then (without having known of the horrifying details), couldn't he have concluded the investigation had cleared Sandusky of harmful behavior?

---

I don't agree that the tragedy was that "charges were never filed." The tragedy is, the abuse was allowed to continue, that there were more victims after the abuse was discovered. It could have been stopped, but it wasn't stopped, and even expanded. -rc

Kelly replies: "Ah, but I think filing the charges would have brought the issue to light and therefore stopped the abuse and protected subsequent victims."

Fair enough. -rc

Posted by Anonymous in AZ on January 23, 2012:

I was not the least bit heartbroken to hear that Paterno had died. I have a friend that was molested as a child and is in the process of finally having her abuser put on trial. Sad thing is, she has a grown son by this person who is her father. The son refuses to get a DNA test to prove the rape, and sides with his father. People in her family KNEW what was going on, but no one stopped the abuse, and now more and more victims are coming forward. She is in therapy now, but she tells me how hard it is.

I am also the victim of abuse. My mother's boyfriend abused me when I was 13. I was too scared to tell her because she was emotionally abusive to me and would have turned it around and made it my fault. To this day I haven't told her. We no longer have a relationship.

For people who are willing to "overlook" someone else's illegal transgressions just because they are a "celebrity" grinds my gears to no end, whether it be child molesting, armed robbery, road rage, DWI, shoplifting, or parking in a handicapped spot without a permit. You don't get special rights just because you think you are "famous" or somebody else thinks you are.

Posted by Bob, Alabama on January 23, 2012:

Randy, I'll not comment about JP, I just want to thank you for, as usual, provoking deep thought on an important issue.

Posted by Greg from Pennsylvania on January 23, 2012:

I would never unsubscribe from This Is True due to reading a differing opinion from you, BUT if I did, this could have been the one.

As a 50 year-old man from Pennsylvania, all I have ever known as the coach of Penn State's football team is Joe Paterno. I am not a college football fan, I am not a Penn State fan, but being from PA you know about Penn State.

I'll try hard not to echo too much of some of the other commenters, but here is a man who dedicated his life to the football program AND to the students that participated in it. To even suggest that Paterno chose the football program OVER the safety of children just does not ring true to his character.

Many have quoted Paterno's statement that he wishes he had done more, however all have ignored the context, which was WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, he wishes he had done more. Paterno did what he thought AT THE TIME was the right thing to do. He did not delay reporting the incident to his superiors, who he thought would do their jobs.

The Penn State trustees were quite successful in their strategy to shift the blame from themselves and officers of the university to Joe Paterno by firing him quite publicly. I am mystified how so many people were taken in by this ploy. They publicly shifted the burden to the one man that actually did SOMETHING and didn't try to cover it up or do nothing.

I do find myself confused that so many, and I believe you yourself, felt that Paterno should have fired Sandusky (did he even have that authority?) after hearing a single accusation of child abuse. That sounds like a zero tolerance policy, something that I thought you advocated against. Certainly he (Sandusky) was entitled to being proven guilty before being terminated, or at least being subjected to some sort of investigation and not just fired on the sole basis of an accusation? Administrative leave - absolutely. No contact with children -- yes. Fired -- not without due process.

There are many people that either failed to do their jobs in this matter or even worse, chose not to do their jobs in this matter. But Paterno did do something, and did what he thought AT THE TIME was the right thing. I've heard folks opine that Paterno should have followed up on the matter. Do we really know that he didn't? Could he have tried to follow up, only to be told "this is a personnel matter and we are not at liberty to discuss it" or "this is an active police investigation and we cannot discuss it"? I guess now we will never truly know.

I honestly believe that to Joe Paterno the act of child abuse was so foreign to him that he, at his advanced age, was somewhat confused by the allegations, but that he did do what he thought at the time was the right thing. I don't know how anyone could call that disgusting. What Sandusky has been accused of doing IS disgusting. Anyone who purposely tried to cover up the allegations to protect the program IS disgusting.

I can't take this one incident, one where Paterno actually thought he was doing right, and use that to erase the decades that he dedicated to the university, and more importantly to the future of the students in the football program. Joe Paterno cared about these students.

Sorry for the rambling. Thanks for allowing me to comment.

---

Had it only been "one instance", you'd have a great point. But the incidents kept happening over a span of years (not days or weeks). Had Paterno simply told his entire staff "I want to hear about it if you see anything else," that would have been a huge step. Yet he didn't even do that much. If his age kept him from diligently doing his job, he should have stepped down long ago, and I cannot fault the university for firing him just for that reason alone. -rc

Posted by Joe, New York on January 24, 2012:

I realize that this thread is about Paterno, but the thing that bothers me the most is the failure of the campus police chief and university president to act. Paterno was famous, so his actions or lack thereof are at the forefront of the discussion, but allowing the people he properly reported events to to get a free ride is, I feel, very wrong.

Paterno may (or may not) have felt his program was important enough to justify dropping the ball, but a university president has no excuse whatsoever, and neither does a cop, at least in my not so humble opinion.

Disclosure: I'm in no way a football fan.

---

Yes, the page is about Paterno, but I definitely agree that there's a lot more culpability in this case than his. -rc

Posted by MiKe in NC on January 24, 2012:

I think Kelly hit he nail on the head with the point that Paterno believed the best about people. He would not have wanted to believe that Sandusky had been doing anything seriously wrong, he would have believed that he issue would be investigated after reporting it, and he would have believed that since nothing happened from the investigation that was done that it showed Sandusky had not done anything seriously wrong. I say seriously because there was no question that showering with a young boy was wrong and Sandusky lost campus privileges because of it.

No one has said that Paterno really knew what had happened prior to the grand jury investigation. It was at this point that he said he wished he had done more.

No matter how much power Paterno had on campus, if he truly did not understand what had happened and how the report should be handled, then he acted appropriately in turning the matter over to people who were supposed to know what to do. His de facto position on campus actually required him to back off if he had no clue what was supposed to happen. He easily could have screwed up an investigation by violating procedures and he knew it. This is he point were the example of a QB breaks down. In that case Paterno would not care about the legal process, he would have been judge and jury over the QB. In this case, he had to care about he legal process and university policy and back off because of his ignorance.

I believe that you have to look at everything he did over his career (and I am not counting anything on he football field). From that, I have no doubt that if he had really understood what had happened in the locker room, He would have made sure it would not happen to another child.

The tragedy in this was the failure to investigate properly and possible cover up by university administration. The fact that Paterno had an incomplete understanding certainly contributed to the tragedy experienced by the victims. I do not think there is evidence that he knowingly did anything that permitted someone he believed to be abusing children to continue. If I am wrong on that point, then it doesn't matter what else he did during his career. If I am right, I believe it is wrong to blame someone for taking what he believed to be the best actions in the circumstances even if in hindsight they were far from the best thing he could have done.

Posted by Deborah, Albuquerque, NM on January 24, 2012:

Thank you for taking an unpopular stand. When I win the lottery, everybody in my address book is going to get a Premium Membership to This Is True.

Posted by Tricia in Mississippi on January 24, 2012:

My outrage is directed at Will and his apparent "blame the victim" mindset, as he says "These 'boys' now men, I assume, are likely creating a false story. These accusers should step forward and publicly announce their intentions".

Miriam, the California teacher gave a great answer but I'd like to add this from personal experience. Pedophiles are expert and getting their young victims to feel somehow responsible and manipulating them into keeping their horrific secret. A 30 year old young man I'm close to was molested at age 10 and told no one until he was about 25. This kid was an active, extroverted, even defiant and no one dreamed he would keep that kind of secret. The only reason he told then was because the offender started dating his mother again. He was not willing to report it to the police because of the shame and humiliation which plagues him still.

All that to say this: THANK YOU Randy for standing up for the victims. I appreciate your courage and integrity.

Posted by Scott in Birmingham on January 24, 2012:

I've been a premium subscriber for several years and as I read through this I had to resist the urge several times to ask for a refund of my renewal from last month Randy. (BTW, I renewed the day after expiration and am still missing an issue. :-)

The disappointment for me is the presentation of assumptions as facts throughout your initial post and many of the comments. Can you honestly re-read your intitial post and not see the way you baited the responses that now amaze you?

Let me be clear; In my opinion, Sandusky is scum who will be found guilty of most or all of the charges. In my opinion, Curley and Schultz either covered things up in 2002 to protect Penn State from scandal or tried to cover things up in their 2011 Grand Jury testimony to hide their incompetence in 2002. In my opinion, if Joe Paterno knew and had a full grasp of exactly what went on in 2002 he would have done everything in his power to make sure the abuse stopped and Sandusky was held accountable. If it turns out he participated in a cover up with Curley and Schultz then he deserves to be villified but right now it is just character assassination.

I've read the documents linked from this page and I don't yet see evidence showing what Paterno knew and when he knew it. The Grand Jury report shows McQueary was much less graphic with Paterno than with Curley and Schultz. The CNN timeline shows where McQueary lied about stopping the incident and reporting it to the police. If Curley and Schultz did cover it up who is to say they didn't assure Paterno that it was all just a misunderstanding? I'm not making excuses for anybody here. I'm answering your question of "Why!" It's because there are enough questions to not find Joe Paterno guilty now and call for his head but to instead wait for all the facts to come out. If the facts show Joe Paterno acted reprehensibly then I'll join the mob that, in my opinion, hastened his death. If the facts show Joe Paterno was unlucky enough to be in the wrong situation at the wrong time then I hope the mob can live with themselves for what they did to him.

As to the hero worship, I suspect a lot of people who feel Joe Paterno was railroaded tried to fight back against the mob who wanted the rest of his life erased. The two sides in this are so utterly black and white that I think they are both over-reacting. I prefer to start in the grey area and see where the facts lead.

---

Of course I was baiting: that's how to get responses. -rc

Posted by Jim - Newfoundland, Canada on January 24, 2012:

I was reading the Premium edition quickly before starting work this morning and thought with horror that you had given Paterno the honorary unsubscribe!! I am so glad I was so wrong.

We had our share of sexual abuse by Catholic Priests and Christian Brothers and were probably the first place in North America to make it public and actually hold a judiciary inquiry that found blame through the fabric of our society. The biggest mistake made was the people who saw something, even those who just suspected something passing the information to their superiors and feeling like they had addressed the problem. The higher up the food chain the more political the decisions, so the higher ups "filed the info" or "had a word with the abuser". The result was typically the pedophile being transferred out of the "problem" area without anything on his record to warn the people who got him next. So he could start again in new territory.

You can't give every adult a whistle because the background noise would be indecipherable, but every level of leader should have one and know how to use it.

Posted by Stephen, Idstein Germany on January 24, 2012:

Good thread.

His achievements should be recognized as well as his catasrophic failures. This just applies to everyone and not just some sports personality.

I do have a comment for Maxim:

Penis, anus, vagina and breast(s)!

Dude seriously get a grip on your life. Those are the names of body parts. Nothing obscene about them at all.

Posted by Larry, Canton, OH on January 24, 2012:

I agree with Randy 100%. A local paper (The Akron Beacon Journal) had a headline that Paterno was all about family. How can you be all about family and allow your employee with your full knowledge to rape boys!!! All this because he was a good football coach??? Football is a game and rape is real. As far as I am concerned Joe Paterno flushed an entire life achievement down the toilet because of his inability to deal with a very real problem. I feel that had he lived he should have been charged with complicity.

All this hoopla about how good Paterno was even though he permitted rape of a child and at the same time the same group of people condemned Pete Rose for gambling. I am not defending Rose -- I just can't see how gambling is worse than rape.

Posted by John, Saskatoon on January 24, 2012:

Thanks for writing this, I have been arguing the same point in other places on the internet.

My biggest complaint is that when it was for glory or recognition, he was a moral upstanding person, but when it came to matters that could potentially cause harm to him, his school or his football team, he failed, and he failed miserably. He showed himself to be lacking the very integrity that he preached.

Someone else brought up "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...", and in this case it was true. If Paterno had integrity he would have made it his business to find out if his former assistant was raping small boys, but he didn't. This is why he is condemned.

Posted by Lucy, Texas on January 24, 2012:

It's exactly this kind of dialogue that convinced me to subscribe to This Is True.

Your comments are thought provoking and right on. And shame on Maxim for being so squeamish about proper words for anatomy and the crime committed. It's exactly this kind of puritanism that keeps sexual assault and abuse victims locked in silence and in pain.

Posted by Terri in CA on January 24, 2012:

I am not a huge football fan, specifically don't watch college ball, so I really had no idea who Joe Paterno was until everything broke with the media with Sandusky. As a minor blogger myself, and an admirer of This is True for several years, I read this with great interest yesterday.

To answer your question of Why? This is my guess: people fear thinking ill of those that have passed. They only want to remember the good that they did. Paterno's teams had a great track record for winning, that's what everyone wants to remember. They don't want to remember that he didn't follow through on an atrocity that negatively impacted multiple lives of young boys. For a news agency to remember one for the wrong they've done would not make the sales of the newspapers that they want. (I acknowledge that it is less about physical paper sales now than it was 20 years ago, but there is still the ad time on the net.) Much, not all, of our mainstream media is bound and determine to print what THEY believe is what everyone wants, and by raising Paterno up as a hero, based on the sadness of those that had faith in him, is how they did it. Personally, I'm saddened by it because no one man should ever be raised up as such.

I am also saddened that you simply asking "Why?" has people so upset about that one little word and even has people reporting you on Facebook. Our society has quickly degraded itself to the lowest common denominator to try to not upset, insult, disappoint, shock anyone. There is being polite, and then there is acting as a fairy tale and unrealistic. Nothing that you said was in the realm of inappropriate. I have nephews that on their Facebook pages state the f-word multiple times in one post. Funny how they aren't reported for improper language. Their Dad has to go to them and tell them to knock it off. So, your readers properly using the correct terms, that is not improper, it's the most proper use and should be commended.

This morning, I came across this article in Fox News.

I found it interesting, solely on what you are putting up with through this topic.

---

The Fox article is brilliant. Just one small excerpt.

The most stomach-turning part ... was what Paterno’s wife said about the allegations against Paterno’s long-time assistant.

"If someone touched my child, there wouldn’t be a trial, I would have killed them," she told Jenkins. "That would be my attitude, because you have destroyed someone for life."

This is what everybody expected from JoePa -- not the killing part, but the willingness to fight on behalf of kids because that is what his image was, of a guy who fought those kinds of battles. That he did not is no small thing.

And again, that's a Fox writer. I hope that wakes a few people up, but really: read the whole article. It's comfortably short, unlike this page. -rc

Posted by Gordon in GA on January 24, 2012:

One aspect that I haven't seen covered in all the discussion on Paterno is one that is obvious to me. And I write this not as one who is or was a Paterno fan. In fact I disliked Penn State quite intensely. A big part of this dislike was directly focused on Paterno himself and the way he had treated (coached) some his players in the past. So I'm not making excuses for him or indulging in the sports worship of him that others are. However...

The man was 80+ years old when he died. In 2002 he had to be at least 70 something. The man was from another generation, our parents (or grandparents!). That generation wasn't as open about many things including sex. I'm not sure that he knew about what pedophalic behavior was. Or if even if he was aware, how abhorrent was the concept to him.

He agreed before he died that he should have done more, perhaps he couldn't have conceived doing more at the time (2002). But this doesn't excuse him.

This society is quick to judge past behavior by its current mores. We often forget that the fallible people we are judging by today's values were products of their time. Calling for their current crucifixion for past events lessens both themselves and ourselves.

---

I absolutely agree that it's wrong to use current mores to condemn actions in the distant past. But we're not talking 100 years ago, we're talking 10. We're also not talking about some random old guy, we're talking about an educator who has had specific training in the subject because he has a legal duty to act. -rc

Posted by John Omaha, NE on January 24, 2012:

I've heard the ageism excuse before when justifying Paterno's attions. "The man was 70 years old and couldn't possibly understand the impact of rape and pedophilia." I find that to be just repugnant of an excuse for actively looking the other way.

Joe Pa was an exceptional coach and leader of Penn St. He did honorable and outstanding things, but he will always be remembered for this failure. I think it is just wishful thinking of Penn St. fans that we all move on.

There is absolutely no way he didn't understand what rape meant, what pedophilia meant. I'm more appalled that his defense that he "told" someone gives people the idea that there are mitigating arguments.

Joe Paterno knowingly let a child molester serve as a Penn St. representative, attend functions and serve as an ambassador to his program for TWELVE YEARS after he KNEW something was wrong. It's one thing to not know, but he did and let it continue.

He's lucky he passed, it'll keep him out of court from the lawsuits and future indictments against him. And with his death, the other perpetrators may get off.

Posted by Harvey in WA on January 24, 2012:

As a fan of other sports than football, I had never heard of Joe Paterno before the molestation stories in the press.

The excuse that I've not heard stated directly which I think exonerates Joe Paterno is that (at least at all companies I've worked at) once you report an issue to your supervisor or HR, you are supposed to drop it, not discuss it with anyone, and let the proper department or authorities take care of it. This appears to be what both Mr. Paterno and the witness did. Based on the CNN Timeline, I think it's reasonable to assume that Mr. Paterno was aware of the later meeting of his superior and the witness that his report prompted and so he could reasonably believe that appropriate authorities were actively addressing the issue. Perhaps Mr. Paterno with his "executive-like" position could and should have followed up more, but I have trouble faulting him considering that he fulfilled his basic responsibility, in an area that was not his specialty, and when there were no other reports made to him.

Joe Paterno himself apparently chose not to use the excuse above in this detail. I think he did the right thing and he best he could after the fact by saying he wished he had done more. I liken this to when a ship's Captain accepts responsibility for something outside their reasonable ability to control (such as a batch of defective parts leading to engine failure and shipwreck.) It's unfortunate that I and many others came to learn of a man who clearly had a positive influence on so many young people, not for his career of good works but because through error or omission may have allowed children to be harmed.

Of course, all my opinions and conclusions are based on the media reports I've read and my interpretation of them. I have no expectation that an objective truth will ever be clear to me, so Mr. Paterno gets the benefit of my doubt.

Posted by William, Los Angeles, CA on January 24, 2012:

I have nothing profound to say other than keep up the good work! Someone close to me was abused as a child and it causes horrible pain to this day some 40 years later.

As far as Maxim's comments: has he really looked at Facebook lately? He's worried about a few anatomical names? He must not get the same feeds I do or have very many friends because I see much worse than that passed off as "funny" material. Trying to censor a topic like this is exactly what helps perpetuate horrible acts by "important" people (and others!)

Posted by Luke in DC on January 24, 2012:

I firmly believe that Sandusky's actions were well known by the entire coaching community. It is very interesting to note that Sandusky is the *only* Assistant coach of Joe Paterno's that never became a head coach in his own right. Now, that either points to Sandusky absolutely lacking any ambition (doubtful as Head Coaches of large football schools can earn millions) or something caused schools that would normally snap up a Paterno Assistant coach to shy away from Sandusky. I have to wonder how many job offers were rescinded or never offered due to whatever rumors that surrounded Sandusky.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Paterno worship and think that any man that would ignore a first person account or just do the barest minimum reporting. One fact that escapes most people is that as a person who deals with minors (ie every freshman player under 18), Joe Paterno is a "required reporter". He must, by law, report *any* suspicions of child abuse to the police, not just his supervisor. He failed to do so. He especially failed those children by not following up on the allegations. He has *zero* excuses in my book.

---

I referred to it above as a "duty to report". I don't know the procedure in Pennsylvania, or whether he followed it explicitly. -rc

Posted by Mike in NC on January 24, 2012:

I think you are showing a mistaken assumption in your response to Gordon (and I think it is one that many people are making). In PA, his legal responsibility was to report to the Athletic Director. He did so which means he met his legal duty to act. Paterno is being condemned for not having done more than his legal duty.

His training from the university would have directed him to only report to his superiors at the university -- the failure of superiors to act is the reason that many states now require reporting to the police or social services first.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that he never had any training. When I worked at the university level, I was never given any training in dealing with child abuse -- I was given training in adult issues and legalities, but not child abuse.

I think he was being honest when he said that it did not even occur to him that a man could rape a boy. I doubt that my grandfather (he would have been 5 years older than Paterno) would have understood what had happened without a very graphic accusation. Unfortunately, for many in that generation, it is a completely out of the box concept.

I think you have to judge Paterno based upon how he was raised, the laws in PA, what he was told and what actions he saw he the university take. He was told about inappropriate behavior, he reported to his superior, an investigation occurred, and Sandusky was told he could no longer bring children on campus but no charges were filed. Why at that time should Paterno (based on what he had been told) have assumed that further action should be taken? The actual witness should have been outraged and tried to get more done. If he had done so, if he had gone to Paterno again, etc. then Paterno absolutely should have done more. However none of those things happened. This is why the grand jury said Paterno followed the law. We cannot judge Paterno based upon the grand jury testimony, we must judge him based upon the facts he knew in 2002.

---

"Paterno is being condemned for not having done more than his legal duty." Yes, that is exactly what this entire page is about! -rc

Posted by Brandt, Georgia on January 24, 2012:

Sorry to hear you're such a staunch "liberal" (ref the comments). However I have to say from my POV you have consistently stayed very non-judgmental and middle-of-the-road (very disconcerting for us real conservatives), though your latent "Conservative" views do come thru sometimes. This must have something to do with your “Liberalism”, as we all know anyone in “journalism” is a liberal…!

---

Tell that to the Fox News folks! -rc

Posted by Mike in NC on January 24, 2012:

"Paterno is being condemned for not having done more than his legal duty." Yes, that is exactly what this entire page is about! -rc

I was responding to your comment on Gordon's post:

We're also not talking about some random old guy, we're talking about an educator who has had specific training in the subject because he has a legal duty to act. -rc

As far as Luke in DC's post, it has been stated that at least in 2002, Paterno was supposed to report to either the police or his superiors at the university. So he met the requirement of the law.

My problem with the people pointing the finger at Paterno is that they are not pointing the same finger at the trustees, the AD, the president, etc. These are the people who covered up the incident (and likely lied to Paterno so that he believed there was no reason to take further action). If Paterno lied about what he knew, he should have done more and deserves to be vilified. If he told the truth, he reported the incident and then got out of the way (as he was supposed to do).

The statements regarding what was known in 2002 and what actions were taken show appropriate behavior. If more was actually known back in 2002, then more should have been done. I have yet to hear any evidence that Paterno's knowledge met the higher standard.

This has nothing to do with how much power he had in the university (in a way due to the power he had, he had even more responsibility to back off and let the investigation proceed if he did not know how it should be handled).

What happened to the victims is horrific, Sandusky deserves to pay for his actions for eternity, the people who covered things up and allowed Sandusky to continue deserve to pay for that, the person who reported it in good faith does not deserve to be lumped in with the group who covered it up.

With power and knowledge come responsibility, if Paterno knew sexual abuse was going on, he had a duty to stop it. If Paterno knew something inappropriate was going on, he had a duty to report it and not interfere with the investigation.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe Paterno knew/understood what was happening in the locker room.

I also want to be clear that none of this has anything to do with football.

---

Indeed not. As for the "problem" you mention, that's addressed in the very first comment on this page. -rc

Posted by Jim, Huntington Beach, CA on January 24, 2012:

JoePa was wrong in hindsight. No one should dispute that. But the man IS human. This means he can be wrong and in this case, tragically wrong -- but it should not diminish the positive things he has done either. I think Joe did the wrong thing here BECAUSE of who he was, and his strict code -- they don't really conflict. He couldn't back away from a friend (Sandusky) without absolute proof and hey, the assistant coach that came forward seems a little flakey, didn't he?

I had a friend, who I thought was a good family man with a good moral compass. A picture of the wife and two kids were always on his desk. He wore his wedding ring proudly and prominently. Then I began to hear stories. Women in our office began to avoid him. People told me he was a predator, and did evil things, and I couldn't see it. I defended the man over and over. Then one day, I SAW IT. I was crushed, and in disbelief. I still have a hard time fathoming what happened, I no longer make excuses for him, I helped send him away for good. But he had some bad wiring -- he could seem perfectly normal around me. A young lady we knew told me that he always seemed normal around her also, but one day, his eyes glazed over and he did terrible things. It took a horrible act that I witnessed to break me from my denial. It seems Joe Pa didn't get that. Perhaps he unconciously ran away from it, hoping to keep a friend and stay in denial.

Posted by Michael, Missouri on January 24, 2012:

I admit it and am not ashamed to be a conservative. Whether liberal or conservative everyone has the right to express their opinion. What I resent is Randy continues to make fun of all conservatives if one comes out with a stupid statement. That is the typical liberal way of doing things.

There is nothing right about what happened in PA. And if all the allegations prove to be true each person should accept responsibility. Of course, human nature being the way it is the abuser will not. Sports has become too much of a big thing in not only universities but also high schools. Very few benefit directly from sports and too much money is spent on it. I would rather see that money spent on actual education. This is obviously an emotional issue and many people have strong feelings. The children are the ones that will be dealing with this the remainder of their lives. The persons responsibile deserves life in jail. For those who didn't report this deserve punishment too. Sports are only GAMES and entertainment. I can't figure out why so many people get so obsessed with it. There is so much more in life.

---

You are wrong in your starting position. It is incorrect to say "Randy continues to make fun of all conservatives if one comes out with a stupid statement." The correct statement is, "Randy continues to make fun of anyone -- whether they're liberal or conservative, Christian or otherwise, Caucasian or otherwise, cop or civilian, [etc.] when they do something stupid." -- and I've been doing that way since the start (this example from 1998 is a classic example). Thus, your statement is, dare I say, "the typical conservative way of whining." (Liberals whine too, just about other things -- including that classic example.) You are, of course, entirely correct in your second paragraph. -rc

Posted by Nick in New Mexico on January 24, 2012:

While I have not read the whole page (tl:dnr), let me add my voice to those of a more conservative/libertarian bent who wholeheartedly condemns Joe Paterno's silent complicity in these heinous allegations. Perhaps it's because I'm not much of a sports fan, I don't know, but covering up allegations of child abuse should not be a part of any ideology, be it liberal or conservative or otherwise.

---

"tl:dnr" means "too late: did not read". -rc

Posted by Henry, Morris Cove, CT on January 25, 2012:

Michael, Missouri said: "What I resent is Randy continues to make fun of all conservatives if one comes out with a stupid statement. That is the typical liberal way of doing things."

Bravo, Michael! Excellent satire! Folks, if you read those two sentences and didn't burst out laughing, read 'em again. Now, that's just plain good humor, lightening up a serious topic. Thanks, Michael!

Please allow me to attempt to answer a question that Randy didn't ask.

He asked: if you support Joe Paterno, please explain why.

This question stirred up a huge response, and I'd like to take a crack at suggesting why this might be so. I believe that it was a convergence of two factors.

First, a man like Joe Paterno is rare. I fully agree with the writer who said that he'd be satisfied if he could be half the man that Coach Paterno was. Heck, I'd be satisfied with a much smaller fraction than that. Whether you agree or not isn't the point. The point is that an awful lot of people have an awful lot of respect and admiration for a man who had an unusually long and successful career. A man who represented a model that many dads would proudly hold up as an ideal to their kids. Fewer now, though, than a year ago.

What happened during that year?

I submit that if Joe Paterno had been caught cooking the books, gambling on his games, cheating on his wife, or abusing dogs, the reaction wold not have been nearly so severe. Oh, there wold have been repercussions, I have no doubt about that. His image would be tarnished. But I don't think that his name would have been removed from many trophies.

What I'd like to suggest is that the second, and overriding, reason that this topic has caught fire is that it strikes at the very heart and core of society. And I think that people recognize this, perhaps on an unconscious level.

I agree with those many writers who said that he did his job, that he had every reason to expect that the people who were responsible for following up would do their jobs, that they in fact covered up this alleged crime, and that they might skip away scott free, leaving a man who is no longer in a position to defend himself as the fall guy.

But here's the thing. When it comes to defending the weak, the frail, the helpless, the challenged, the elderly, and all the rest of those whose ability to defend themselves is somehow compromised, we go the extra mile. We take the extra steps. We protect them from the predators. We don't let the weak get eaten so that the wolves don't chase us. If the allegations are true, then Sandusky was a mighty sick wolf.

If the charges are eventually proved to be true in a court of law, then an awful lot of people are to blame, and should (IMO) be held strictly and severely responsible. Joe Paterno (or his reputation) is only one of those actors. But, if the reports are factual, he is one of them.

Not because he didn't care. Not because because he's being accused of tolerating the alleged abuse, and he's certainly not being accused of condoning it. No, I think that the number of responses that Randy's simple question educed was because of the gut-clenching realization that Joe Paterno didn't double back. He didn't stop to check on an injured lamb. He didn't keep the wolf at bay.

There swiftly came a point after which it was someone else's job. But when kids are involved, you don't just assume that someone else is doing their job. You make sure. The rules are different when juveniles are pitted against powerful adults. You go the extra distance. I believe that that's a founding and sustaining principle of any healthy society.

To think that a great man like Joe Paterno didn't do that is a hard sock in the gut. That punch, from such a big man, might be what provoked such an unexpected swell of pained responses.

Posted by Danielle, OKC on January 25, 2012:

I was molested and severely beaten by my father for several years. My stepmom knew. The school counselor knew (at least) about the beatings. The base counselor knew (at least) about the beatings. No one did anything, and when we got back stateside, it became worse. It's been well over 20 yrs, and I'm still haunted to this day by all those adults, authority figures letting me down, not protecting me, being more worried about my dad -- supposedly an awesome marine who'd done so much to help others -- not getting in trouble.

I can't even imagine how the boys abused by Sandusky feel, especially now knowing so many adults -- supposed protectors -- knew of their plight and did nothing, or at best the bare minimum, to "help" them. His career wins aren't going to make the sting of what those victims experienced any less sharp. He shouldn't be idolized.

And those who tried to censor you on FB are part of the problem in turning a blind eye and deaf ear toward those of us who have been abused and those who will be in the future.

---

You wonder the same things I did -- but from the more eloquent position of having been there, and wondered the same things for a long time. I can't imagine how let-down you (and those kids) are. -rc

Posted by Alexis, Maryland on January 25, 2012:

Just another reason for me to LOVE this newsletter, and to think you are AWESOME: I missed the JoePa paragraph on FB (trying to cut back on how much time I spend there), but I've been waiting for someone besides ME to have that reaction publicly!! I've been shouting back at the TV in disgust each time I hear something along the lines of, "in the long run, he won't be remembered for" the scandal, and all the good things he did for Penn State. How anyone can ignore the significance of what he didn't do in that horrendous situation is simply beyond me.

The true measure of a person's character is how they respond to difficult circumstances -- do they do the bare minimum required by law, or do they put their own ego and personal comfort aside to do the morally correct thing? He put the protection of the Penn State football program ahead of the lives and safety of children, for goodness' sake -- and even though we're all "innocent until proven guilty," and even if the law didn't "require" him to do more than he did, his much-vaunted character/morals should have made him take more action. There is no measure of games won or winning seasons or good publicity or money raised (which is what folks are really talking about when they sing his praises) for Penn State that can wash away the fact that he failed, BIG time, when it came time to do the right thing. He chose to protect the almighty dollar instead of some poor defenseless children. If there's anyone to answer to on the other side of this life, he's got a hell of a lot of "s'plainin'" to do.

Keep up the fantastic work -- I think I need to go and renew my subscription for another few years now!

Posted by Michael, Pittsburgh on January 26, 2012:

I agree with Randy and most people I know think Joe was a scumbag for not following through and making sure children weren't raped at the Penn State football facility anymore. Even Joe said he should have done more.

Posted by Dave, State College on January 26, 2012:

Thank you for your reply. I hope that you are right, and my "maybe most" characterization is an overreach. And by no means do I mean to let Paterno or any other leader have a free pass for inaction. The fact is that many people with the opportunity and obligation to intervene do not. That is sad...but it is true.

---

Yes it is true! That's why I wanted this discussed: to show that inaction can be as bad as complicity. That helps people think about what they might want to do when faced with a similar situation. With that, maybe some kids will be spared having to go through something like this. -rc

Posted by Sean from Canada on January 26, 2012:

I personally found Maxim's comments and threats to get the thread removed from Facebook offensive and harassing, and marked them as such. Censorship is a form of violence.

I have nothing useful or relevant to add to the discussion -- as a non-sports fan, I never heard of this Paterno guy. But if someone I did know of and look up to was revealed to have responded so feebly to a similar situation, I would immediately stop looking up to them and begin looking down on them.

Posted by mark, alpharetta GA on January 27, 2012:

Thanks for the facebook post. It's great to see there are plenty others who are also disgusted by the Joe P "worship". But I am not too surprised, remember this is a culture that calls an athlete a hero because he does his job which he is being well compensated for, but hardly acknowledge the true heroes who are many people who truly sacrifice to help others. How sad.

Posted by Jack in Texas on January 27, 2012:

In many states it is a CRIME to fail to report to law enforcement and/or the local Children's Protective Service agency when one has "REASON TO BELIEVE" that child abuse or neglect has occurred. You don't have to KNOW it happened, you don't have to (and shouldn't) investigate or question anyone, particularly the child. If you have "reason to believe" in any way, shape, or form and fail to report you can be held criminally liable. It is the job of the authorities to determine the facts.

You cannot, in most jurisdictions, delegate, transfer or pass on this responsibility to any other person. If you attempt to do so, by telling a supervisor, employer, co-worker, friend, or family member and they fail to report, YOU are still criminally liable. In most jurisdictions the report is confidential and the reporter protected as long as the report was made "in good faith" (not knowingly false). Obviously, the Pennsylvania law is different. (I believe the Governor is planning to address this with the legislature).

The bottom line: EVERYONE has a responsibility to protect children. And it seems EVERYONE in the "chain of command" at Penn State, including Joe Paterno, failed miserably in that responsibility. Had this occurred in many other states they would ALL face charges.

Posted by Stuart, Melbourne australia on January 27, 2012:

As an Aussie reading this,it's easy to think, yeah "well only in America". But you have to look at celebrity everywhere can try to get away with. And they do.

There is an Australian actor, son of a very well known celeb, who was convicted of physical assault of his girlfriend. His sentence was in essence a slap on the wrist, because as the judge said, anything further would have a detrimental effect on his career as an actor.

The cults of personality that is within the entertainment industry, and I do also place sports here as well, is extreme. The celebs buy into it, and were left with what seems to have happened with JoPa and Sandusky. I do think it is completely reprehensible that such a thing has happened. But until people start taking responsibility for their actions, there will be more of it.

In this day and age it seems nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions. It's always someone else who is at fault, not me. so until this happens, Randy, you will continue to have stories for This is True.

---

I don't anticipate ever running out of material. -rc

Posted by Karron in Mississippi on January 27, 2012:

Wow, you woke up a lot of people who were snoozing through this topic. Congrats. Look, if you are in charge and responsible for a staff, then you must take action upon any information considering wrongdoing. JP didn't and it tarnished his carefully built empire. Why move to the NFL or anywhere else, when you are king of your world?

Why worship any coach or sports figure? I think it is a bit, well, scary that people do that. After all, just because they are good at running down a field with a football, does not guarantee they are good people at heart.

JP acted as he did for one simple reason, he didn't want to tarnish his empire and all the money football brought to Penn State. As long as he remained mute, and only reported to the food chain, he knew that nothing would happen to Sandusky. And that he allowed the creep to continue to bring kids to the locker room tarnishes him indeed. Like my mother always said, "You are known by the company you keep."

Posted by Laura, California on January 27, 2012:

Randy, Thank You for stepping up to the plate.

I'm glad "JoePa" was not my kids coach.

Apathy is the same as guilty!

Posted by Mortimer, Leicester, England. on January 27, 2012:

I don't know who Joe Paterno is nor do I care. Bringing this to the public's attention is correct, it should be investigated by the proper authorities, who don't seem to care, and the proper sanctions applied if found guilty.

Posted by Katy, Athens, GA on January 28, 2012:

I wanted to say that you shouldn't be so sure that Facebook will not censor you. I have had several friends on Google+ lately be banned from Facebook for such "offensive" posts as 1) posting links to news articles in support of gay marriage and 2) posting a video in which two women, conservatively dressed, sit and talk about sex and sex education. These were considered to be so offensive, that the posters were BANNED ... so you get an idea that bashing on sports (which, BTW, I whole-heartedly agree with), which many people are more interested in than anything, including the personal rights of people who think the whole thing is nonsense, might cause you some problems. I hope not, but ... I thought I'd warn you! OK, I'm going to go and read the whole post now -- I am basically commenting based upon your comments in this week's This is TRUE! post.

Posted by Bob in NC on January 28, 2012:

While I am not going to defend Joe's actions, Sandusky was no longer an assistant when Joe was informed of the situation. So that part of your story was in error. This allegation of sexual abuse was made by another assistant (who was also fired) to Joe. Since Joe did not observe the "scene", he should have told the assistant to go to the school administration and the police and Joe would accompany him if needed. Also, this was happening on school property and Joe probably assumed by informing the administration of what he was told (hearsay), he did what was the correct thing. What if the administration told him they would take care of the situation and it was NOT his problem? Remember, he did not actually see what happened, it was another assistant. Also, Sandusky was the school's responsibility at the time, he was NOT Joe's assistant.

Let's assume that your neighbor told you he saw another neighbor (through the other neighbor's window) taking sexual advantage of an underage child. Would you go to the police alleging sexual abuse based upon what the first neighbor claimed s/he saw? And what if it was made up (maybe neighbor 1 has a grudge against neighbor 2)? What if Joe had gone to the police and reported "hearsay" and it turned out to be false? It should be the responsibility of the person who actually witnessed the incident.

Maybe Joe should have staked out (or had someone stake out) the showers or wherever the school gave Sandusky access. I think if Joe has seen the act himself, it might have been another matter. The question is "did this go on after he had informed the administration?". Did the administration take any action after this was reported to them? Did Joe follow up on this incident with the administration -- especially if he ever saw Sandusky back on campus? There are a lot of unanswered questions here and too much knee jerk reaction from the "lame-stream media" and uninformed because it involves a famous person. Maybe the real truth may come out and maybe never. Sandusky will have his day in court and, if convicted, will find out what its like to be on the receiving end in prison. BTW, if there was a cover-up by the school administration (and if they did discuss this with the police) will we ever find out?

---

The page already addresses that Sandusky had retired -- yet was still there, still had keys, and in his retirement had more time for his ...uh... hobbies. As for whether he "should have" gone to the police, what part of the "duty to report" law do you think he should have ignored? -rc

Posted by Amanda, New Zealand on January 28, 2012:

I have read the comments that the coach in question might not have known about such behavior because of his age. Child rape is not something new. I used to be a social worker with the elderly and it was not uncommon to be told by people who I had got to know well,of incidents of abuse and rape that had happened many years before when they were children. Often I was the first person they had told, and they wanted to tell someone before it was too late. I never forget one woman asking me to attend with her the funeral of her brother who was 'a pillar of society'. After discussion it turned out that she was afraid that when he was lauded during the service she thought she might stand up and tell everyone what he had done to her almost 70 years before.

As adults we may not be able to prevent such trauma happening to young people and children today. But we can make pretty damm certain that if we are told by them about it, we make sure it stops. This coach a person in a position of trust did not make it stop. We should all learn from his failing.

Posted by Phil, Queens, NY on January 28, 2012:

Well said, Sir..Well said. The guy didn't do jack, nor diddly to stop this guy, and letting him hang around as a volunteer was amazing. He basically enabled this Sandusky guy to continue his antics, and (shock of shocks), he did.

Posted by Gary L., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada on January 28, 2012:

To "Jane in California," who said, "I'm no psychologist, but as I understand, abuse victims don't forget the abuse...if anything, they remember too much."

You're right, you're no psychologist! If you were, you'd probably be aware that many people who were sexually abused as children can never consciously recall the abuse itself, but only have vague impressions and negative feelings towards the abuser themself. (Or "themselves," as the case may be.)

I can remember some of the physical and psychological abuse I was subjected to by my mother and some siblings, but of the sexual abuse (or the abuser himself) I recall not a thing. In fact, most of the first decade of my life is a tabula rasa, from which I get only an occasional glimmer, a hint of a recollection, a rare glimpse of something I might have done, or seen back then.

For instance; I recently found some old pictures of Ottawa from 1940, including an image of the old Mason Gamble store and the Centre Theatre on Sparks Street. I shared those images with my elderly father, who often spoke of shopping at Mason Gamble's department store as a young man. Seeing the Centre Theatre brought back a glimmer of a recollection, so I asked my father if we saw "Born Free" at the Centre Theatre back in the 1960s, to which he replied, "Wow, your memory really amazes me sometimes!"

The fact is that I didn't consciously "remember" anything; I merely got a vague impression of liking the curioius texture and feeling of the Centre Theatre's crushed red velvet wallpaper under my hand, and of hearing the theme song of "Born Free" in the back of my mind.

I can't remember what was done to me, but I get a very bad feeling whenever I remember a certain "friend of the family," and how the mere mention of his name makes me feel queasy and slimey dirty. A psychiatrist later characterised the highly sexualised behaviours I began displaying at the age of 8 and 9 (which, coincidentally, was when this "friend of the family" was being entrusted with our care) as "highly alarming," and "indicative of violent sexual abuse."

So no, "Jane in California," abuse victims don't always "remember too much." Sometimes, we can't remember ANYTHING because the subconscious mind is forced to take such drastic steps as wiping an entire decade from our memories; this is done in order to protect us from things that are too painful or difficult to bear.

If you were a psychologist, "Jane in California," you'd know that.

Posted by CathyAC, Titusville Fl on January 28, 2012:

Though I do not follow Football in any form, I can agree that JoePa could and should be admired for his LIfe's Work. His failure to act in the Sandusky case does not detract from that. However, his failure to act and continue to do so, does detract from any admiration of him as a person. I would hope that any one seeing a child in a compromised position, or told of it, would reach out not only to the campus police but child welfare and the local police. If in reporting it to his superior he thought he had done the best thing, he obviously missed the many notices, pamphlets, classes and commercials that abound regarding reporting, the majorioty of which are required for teachers, coaches, etc.

The bigger problem lies in the insular nature of College Campuses. Far too often allegations of Rape, and assault are handled by a Campus Committee and Campus Police, rarely adeqautely, rarely to the aid of the victim and by the time it reaches the Local Authorities and Courts, evidence is lost, confused or no longer exists. Neither Campus Police or Committees are equipt or trained to handle such problems or to determine and punish or absolve someone involved in such crimes. This is something that needs, nay, MUST be addressed if our children are to be safe on campus.

I understand that false accusations do occur almost as often if not more so than true ones, but they need to be reported to the Local Authorities, and documented by Dr.'s and Nurses that are trained to handle sexual assault cases. I understand that no school wants parents to look at higher incidents of crime and assault on a campus if they are reported to someone other than the school, as it means they would be more reluctant to send their children there, BUT for the protection of the young adults attending that school and so that actions can be taken to lower the incidents, it needs to be done.

Posted by Neal, Calif. on January 28, 2012:

I too am saddened by the events that took place at Penn State. I believe that much could have been prevented if all parties did what they could to stop the abuse, rather than what appears to be not enough concern for children and too much concern about rocking the boat. More boat-rocking, please!

We have used this as an opportunity to review our church's "Safe Place Plan", our church's strategy to avoid the possibility of child sexual abuse happening at our church.

Posted by Angi, Texas on January 28, 2012:

Hey, the same thing happened with Michael Jackson. I'm disgusted every single time he's honored, or we remember his birthday. The nation is full of people who care more about their entertainment than the fate of a small, defenseless child.

Posted by Bob, New York on January 28, 2012:

Enough has already been said here but I saw a comment made by Chris in California that to me says it best:

"I have forever been amazed that so many people in the world consider professional sports so incredibly important. Important enough to lie, cheat, steal, and all the rest up to and including murder. Civilized behavior in the real world is what IS important, not some silly game."

Chris -- now I know at least 1 person other than me and my wife think the way you do. Well said.

Posted by John Peoria, IL on January 28, 2012:

So the Governor of PA declared flags flown at half mast last week in honor of Joe Paterno. Huh? I thought that honor was reserved for fallen military and dignitaries, not a man that turned a blind eye to repeated abuse of children by a member of his staff. As a Vet and American I am appalled. (More fuel for the fire!)

Posted by Dustin, Ohio on January 28, 2012:

I want to preface this comment with one thing. I do not watch sports, I do not read about them, and in general feel those in sports make way too much and would be a prime target of mine in a wealth redistribution scheme. Or to put it bluntly, by default, I don't like sports or the stars of sports. As such I didn't even know this man existed before I got my thisistrue issue.

With that said I have no issue with people who hold him in great respect (just because a lot of folks who deserve respect don't get it doesn't mean that those who do get it should be lambasted). From what I have read it seems he was indeed a man worthy of respect, at least more so than any.

At the same time I do not have an issue with those who say he made a mistake in this case (as he himself admits). However, I do think his failure to follow up is being overblown purely because of the fact that he is a respected figure. Perhaps because people expect his 'armor' (reputation) to be strongly defended and thus come out with their strongest lashings.

From what I have gathered he did what most reasonable folk would do. He followed procedure and law as it applied and got the fok out of the way when told to. Basically as stated by another officials running an investigation effectively tell you it is no longer any of your business and you are NOT to interfere in any way (including questioning the perp, etc). Most people would trust the authorities that they reported to, as he did. In my eyes his failure here, while tragic, is reasonable enough.

Should it diminish the respect people hold for him. Sure, however, some of that lost respect, in my eyes, is regained by his admission that in hindsight he should have done more, that he made an error in judgement. Everyone makes mistakes, some more costly than others, but these days getting a person to admit they should have done more rather than pushing the buck to another person is rather rare in my experience.

So effectively by bringing Paterno to my attention you brought to my attention someone who I think has earned my respect as well as brought to my awareness that one can't trust your superiors to do what is righ. . . screw that one. I already knew that. Often seems the less able you are the more likely you are to be in a 'superior' type position.

A bit on a tangent, but I don't find it hard to believe that he wasn't convinced by McQueary's account. I have had a hell of a time convincing people just in my parents generation, let alone my grandparents generation, that men and boys can be sexually assaulted and raped. And Paterno is of my great grandparents generation. . . so it isn't hard at all for me to believe he would have a hard time 'understanding' what had been reported to him.

I wish to end by saying that the people I blame strongest are those whose failures aren't reasonable. McQueary reporting it to a trusted faculty member (from what I have gathered your go to guy at Penn when Paterno was around was Paterno, i.e. respected and trusted to do the right thing) and then again to others as he was called to do so. Assuming his statements I have read are the full truth it seems he acted rather reasonably. I don't see any strong reason to lay blame on him, though as with Paterno who could have done more. The real blame, assuming the statements I have read are accurate and that we are blaming someone other than the perp himself, lies with the upper officials who Paterno reported to and other officials who recieved reports and brushed it under the rug while letting the reporters believe it was 'being taken care of'.

That is my 2 cents. . . well I gather it is more than 2 cents by this point :D

Posted by Mike from Dallas on January 28, 2012:

So far, I'm seeing posts that list the great things that Paterno did, which is true. And posts that list the terrible things Paterno did (or failed to do), which by his own admission also seem to be true. So the issue here, as I see it, is not whether he was a great man or a failed man. It's all about the efforts to CENSOR any criticism of a man on a public forum like Facebook, even when it's public knowledge.

THOSE are the people who are questionable. Those who would patently ignore the man's shortcomings as though it were inconsequential in the grand scheme. Just sweep it under the carpet, right? How many other sports celebrities continue to play and earn millions while their drug convictions would get any ordinary person several years in prison?

Posted by ANNETTE - TX on January 28, 2012:

I believe it is very telling that Sandusky was the heir apparent, and then Joe tells him, he is no longer in line. Sandusky retires because Joe basically put his career at an end. Joe allows the on campus visits and bringing children to continue -- until an actual witness speaks. Is it possible that Paterno took Sandusky out of the running because of knowledge of his activities.

I understand the admiration for Joe's success as a winning coach. But, I wonder how many of the former players would want one of their sons to be allowed to be abused on campus -- and be happy that everyone in charge chose to look the other way.

Posted by Mike Chicago, IL on January 28, 2012:

I agree that Paterno did not follow up and should have, but I wonder if his bosses who he reported the incident to were fired. I'm pretty sure they were not crucified in the media as he has been. I am not a JoePa fan, but I am not happy about the way the media chose him to be the only one held responsible. They routinely pick out the biggest name to increase their ratings and as a result do not report the facts, and democracy needs the facts to survive, not just a press free to be as sensational as they can in thirty seconds.

Posted by Stacey in Ohio on January 28, 2012:

CathyAC, Titusville Fl wrote, "I understand that false accusations do occur almost as often if not more so than true ones...."

This isn't even remotely true. False accusations of sexual assault happen at the same rate as other crimes -- about 2% of reports. This page has more information on that statistic, including citations, and this is a quick discussion on why people think false accusations are common. If you want to jump straight in to a scholarly critique of the few flawed studies that promote a higher number, that's here (PDF). Finally, I present information on why it's incredibly difficult for childhood sexual abuse survivors to step forward here:

It's incredibly difficult for any survivor of sexual violence to admit that it happened, and this is compounded when the admission is public and even more so when it's the focus of media attention. On a more personal note, I can verify that dealing with the courts is a traumatic experience. I was sexually assaulted as a college student at a large university (and one that was embroiled in a football-related sexual assault scandal at the time as well). I had to repeatedly recount, in explicit detail, every single moment of what happened. The first time, it was for a preliminary hearing (the equivalent of a grand jury investigation). During the actual trial, I had to go over it again, still in excruciating detail, in front of a room packed full of strangers, reporters, and my own parents. I lost many friends, and because the person who assaulted me was someone I knew before the incident, the media not naming me didn't preserve my anonymity (they named him, and gave enough back story that even passing acquaintances could and did identify me). I endured cast attacks on my character and personal history, despite laws that are designed to protect sexual assault victims from exactly that. They're easy to circumvent. The trial went on for days, and when I got home, I couldn't turn on the tv or read a newspaper without encountering coverage of the trial. All this, without a well-known person being involved. At the most, I sincerely doubt anyone would willingly subject themselves to that level of scrutiny and aspersions cast on their character without an incredible reason.

Posted by madeleine Missouri on January 28, 2012:

I, myself, was amazed at the amount of people on Facebook that stood up for this man. He covered this up when he found out. If the University and the police did nothing, why did he just drop it? I would have been hounding them day and night. I didn't see your post, but i would have agreed 100%. I don't get the hero of everything and everyone involved in sports, and it should stop. Worship the real heroes, not these men with feet of clay. And as to what someone posted about bad-mouthing someone who just died? So what. There is nothing sacred about someone who just died that we shouldn't tell the truth about him.

Posted by Kevin, Mo. on January 28, 2012:

I'm not a sports fan much ... but I love movies. This reminds me of the case of Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13 year old, fled the country rather than go to jail, and has legions of Hollywood stars who instead of condemning him defend the man because he's an artist.

---

I think they've sympathetic to the judge changing his mind after Polanski agreed to plead guilty, using the case for personal gain. Even the victim criticized the judge, saying he caused "way more damage to [her] and her family than anything Roman Polanski has ever done" for "personal gain". (Summary of case) Another example of "forget the victim" in order to score points. -rc

Posted by Lee, Athens GA on January 28, 2012:

The fabric of rationality has many rips in it, some gaping. Thanks for featuring the comments from the Paterno/Sandusky supporters to remind us that in evolutionary terms we live in the Pleistocene present with hunter gatherer brains that confronted with tribal dissonance still can confabulate the most stunningly anti-factual scenarios. Delete this last sentence if you wish, but I suspect that most of these P/S supporters also inhabit the far right fringe of the political spectrum.

---

I still don't understand that. Being conservative means you support the ass-raping of little boys? Being against same means you must be liberal? Funny, but I thought being against child rape just meant you were human, not political. -rc

Posted by Scott in PDX on January 28, 2012:

You said "It's all well worth a read, even if you don't give a rat about Paterno."

I really don't (give a rat about Paterno).

However even before his passing, I was fairly sympathetic to his situation.

Rape is terrible and child rape is worse if that's possible.

However what was presented to Paterno was an accusation. From all accounts he did not want to believe the accusation. Indeed nothing has been proven so far in the courts, though the media have certainly published a compelling narrative.

Joe has not been accused of participation in the crime. He did not directly witness a crime. He did his legal duty and reported it up the line, where others had responsibility for investigation and prosecution.

"Harvey in WA on January 24, 2012" posted on your blog a perfect articulation of my attitude on this:

...once you report an issue to your supervisor or HR, you are supposed to drop it, not discuss it with anyone, and let the proper department or authorities take care of it.

I have a long friendship with a Foster Mother whose specialty is girls who've accused a family member of sexual improprieties. She tells me that about 1/4 of the girls she fosters have probably made up the accusation. I suppose it is a way to get some power in an otherwise dysfunctional household. Perhaps and they're too young to understand the full "nuclear option" nature of the accusation.

Anyone who works with kids for a few decades can probably tell similar tales.

Posted by CathyAC, Titusville Fl on January 28, 2012:

@Stacy in Ohio: I did say ALMOST, not as often or more often. False accusations and allegations do happen, unfortunately. Having worked for a Rape Crisis Spouse Abuse Center I am very aware of how often it is NOT false. But we have had in the past cases of false memory and allegations that have ruined lives even when proven to be false. But please understand something: I have not just been a counselor, but I am also a survivor of rape, both incestous and non, and I am well aware of the aftermath involved. Moreover at the time of the incest I went to police, teachers, pastor and was told over and over again, middle class families don't do things like this -- you need to stop lying. I was lucky there was one person who did believe me and helped as much as she could but it wasn't until I was pregnant with my father's child that I was actually able to get out of my home situation. At the time I was able to get out thanks to the courts; they tried to force me to tell them who the young man was who fathered my child, and refused to believe it was my father. He got away with it. I was punished by being forced from my home, my school, my friends. You truly are not the only one who is a survivor. At least these days they listen. In the 60's, they barely admitted it happened at all.

Posted by Carol, NJ on January 28, 2012:

The Paterno worship is ridiculous! I'm an RN, understand childhood sexual abuse, and one thing I do know for sure is that it changes the victim permanently. The victim will never be the same person again, lives a lifelong sentence while perpetrators continue to abuse without having to take responsibility for their behavior and conseequences of same. And to NOT do anything about the abuse and abuser is unconnscionable, and is absolutely worthy of destroying the 'legendary coach's' reputation. He might have required players to maintain a GPA, and he is morally bankrupt, and by extension, so is the system in 'sports' that encourages such cover-ups.

Also, thanks for publishing the obits of little known folks. I am grateful to the little known scientists who buck the politicos for the benefit of scientific information -- that is priceless.

Posted by Mike, Florida on January 28, 2012:

Bravo. I live in a high end golf community on the ocean in North Florida. At first glance it would appear we have NO democrats or liberals but they sneak in everywhere and look like everyone else. A lot of our members are from, hell, most of our members are from "up north" and are football fans, baseball and basketball and tennis and croquet, not to mention golf fans. Personally I enjoy golf, watching golf, playing golf but not necessarily listening to other people talk about golf. The rest of the sports not so much. Collegiate sports not at all. I believe education is more important but then again I'm an individual old fogey who has actually watched basketball players attempt to speak during interviews.

You may imagine I don't make a secret of my opinions and believe it or not the vast majority of the folks here believe as I do that Paterno was not railroaded, was not doing his job and is guilty of omission. Not as guilty as Penn State Administrators or their Security but guilty for not determining the truth of the first accusation. This assumes the first public accusation was the first time he, as the man in charge, was the first he knew of Sandusky's activities. Oh wait, could it be he was afraid of scandal?

Posted by Robin, Missoula, MT on January 28, 2012:

Your post on facebook was the exact same reaction I had. I am not on facebook, so I did not see your facebook posting until you put in your blog. Thank you for doing so.

You have shown yourself to be a true man of courage, character and conviction. Your moral compass is not overshadowed by greed and I believe you are a far greater man than Joe Paterno could ever be.

I live in Missoula, Montana, where the University of Montana football players are worshipped both on and off campus like some sort of lesser gods. Last June, UM quarterback Nate Montana (yes, son of Joe) was pulled over in Missoula for going 39mph in a 25 zone. He was then arrested for DUI after failing a sobriety test and refusing to take a breathalyzer test. The charges were later reduced to reckless driving and his license was suspended for 6 months (for refusing the breathalyzer, not the reckless driving.) The speeding charge was dropped. He was sentenced to 90 days in the Missoula County jail, all suspended, and ordered to complete a chemical dependency evaluation. UM athletic director Jim O'Day said Montana will "be subject to the same internal disciplining as any student athlete convicted of a misdemeanor traffic offense. The discipline will be administered by the head football coach, and the offense violated neither the UM student code of conduct nor the code of conduct for student athletes," he said. And to top it all off, his lawyer tried unsuccessfully to have his license reinstated, claiming the cops had no legitimate right to stop him in the first place. Speeding is a valid reason to stop a vehicle last I knew.

This is the kind of culture that college football breeds. "HIS BEHAVIOR DID NOT VIOLATE EITHER THE STUDENT OR ATHELETIC CODE OF CONDUCT!" Not true: The Student-Athlete Code of Conduct specifically states that "violation of civil or criminal laws is subject to disciplinary action(s)." Football players obviously don't have to live by the same rules as the rest of us. But wait, there's more...

On September 10th, an inebriated young man, Dan Thew, streaked naked across the UM football at the beginning of the second quarter of the game. The local newspaper, the Missoulian reported, "While some people found the stunt amusing, UM administrators are not laughing. 'We're not going to tolerate that at all,' said UM Executive Vice President Jim Foley. In all likelihood, the student -- presumably a UM student -- 'will be suspended or expelled for violating the student conduct code come Monday morning,' Foley said. 'I assure you, that won't happen again,' he said."

Although he was charged with disorderly conduct and obscenity by the Missoula Police, UM has not disclosed the results of its disciplinary hearing. "Students are typically suspended or expelled from UM only in cases involving rape, sexual assault and violent physical assault, depending on the severity of the case", said Dean of Students, Charles Couture, who oversees violations of the student conduct code.

I don't know what ultimately happened to Dan Thew... I could find no followup articles regarding either the outcome of the charges against him or the action taken by UM. But I do know that, unlike Nate Montana, he made a public apology for his actions.

If you look at the comments posted on the Missoulian website after the articles for each of these incidents, the reactions of local football fans speak volumes about the tolerance for bad behavior by foot ball players. They excuse Nate for drunk driving, but want Dan imprisoned and the key thrown away for drunk streaking. A woman claiming to a founding member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Susan Campbell Reneau, publicly called">http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/LettersToTheEditor/archives/2011/09/15/not-cute">called for his expulsion from the university, charging him with a felony AND putting him on the sex offender registry. But she was silent at the time of Nate Montana's arrest for drunk driving!

And now we have several football players facing rape charges. At first, the university refused to get involved saying it was a police matter, but it has now grown too big to sweep under the rug. (article)

And yet... the defense of the football players actions (and blaming the victims) continues.

Posted by Danielle, OKC on January 28, 2012:

In retort to Gary L., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada's post & in defense of Jane in California, I'm one of the ones who remembers too much of the sexual and physical abuse suffered at the hands of her father. I can understand wanting to educate those who haven't been abused as to the plight we've suffered (at least as much as possible if only in hopes more knowing about it would help keep it from happening more), but IMHO it's better to save the anger & attacks for those who prey on the innocent, those who aid the asshats, and those who turn a blind eye toward it.

Posted by Jim in Colorado on January 28, 2012:

Let me tell you from personal experience.

A long time ago when I was a young boy I was involved in a similar situation with an older man who was supposed to be a community leader. In those days nobody would even consider the word of a kid against such a man... so I grew to be a man, now 62.

The end result for me was major problems in relationships, multiple personality disorder. I guess satisfaction came when the guy died (a terrible death) and I could go back to that little town and piss on his grave.

Posted by Bill, Mexico on January 28, 2012:

Leaving out the characters that are involved in the PA Scandal, I can say BRAVO to Randy for bringing this subject into the light of day.

As a father, I depend on others in the "village" to watch out for my children when I am not there, i.e. when they are in school, at the movies or whatever.

I can honestly say that I am ashamed of those who defend a lackadaisical reporting of the offense of child abuse but also doing all that they can to keep it from continuing.

Thanks, Randy!

Posted by Camille, Montana on January 28, 2012:

Thank you for writing this post. I must have missed the original post on Facebook, so thank you also for mentioning it in your newsletter.

I do not follow college football and until this scandal became news a few months ago, I would have had no idea who Sandusky -- or Paterno -- was. When I first saw the news, I read quite a few articles (in part to have a better grasp of the case before I replied on Facebook to a friend who had put up posts indicating they cared more about what might happen to Paterno's reputation than the actual details of the case).

With regards to Paterno, I agree with many (most?) of the posters here, Paterno may have done many good things in his life but when faced with the assistant's report of what the assistant saw in the showers, Paterno failed -- he took the easy way out, when he shouldn't have.

It does not negate all the good he was said to have done. But all the good he was said to have done does not negate his looking the other way and deciding Sandusky was someone else's problem.

I think part of the reason discussion about Paterno gets so heated is some of his defenders seem to see him as the standard-bearer for all that is good and right about college sports, and some of his detractors seem to have made him into a symbol for everyone who looked the other way throughout the years Sandusky was abusing kids.

As a few other posters have noted, there were a lot more people than just Paterno who looked the other way and took the path of least resistance and least public scandal when accusations were made against Sandusky. Even with the accuser who finally came forward and started the latest investigation, both he and his mom were asked numerous times by high school officials were they REALLY sure they wanted to go to child services with these accusations? (In the articles I saw, the accuser's mother was still quite angry about those repeated questions and cautions, YES she HAD "thought about it" and DID want to go to child services, thank you very much!)

I am appalled by the political obsession of some who want to make this into a liberal vs. conservative issue. I tend to lean conservative but have both conservative and liberal friends (as well as a couple anarchist friends); given the predilection of some of my liberal friends to endlessly discuss their efforts to "understand" someone's actions, I could just as easily argue there's a conservative bias in your post because you don't waste any screen space on "understanding" Paterno's lack of action or discussing possible "issues" he might have had, you just state that he did the minimum required and in your opinion that wasn't good enough. (*gasp* How very judgmental and unysmpathetic!!!)

As you noted in one of your comments, a person being against child abuse does not make them "conservative" or "liberal", it makes them human.

Posted by Tina in Fairfax, VA on January 29, 2012:

Here's what I wonder: suppose Joe Paterno had been, say, a drama professor in an award-winning theater department instead of a football coach, and someone reported seeing one of his assistants raping a kid backstage. I bet that those who've defended Joe-the-football-coach would be down on Joe-the-drama-teacher like a ton of bricks, outraged that he could let something like this go on.

---

Sadly, I think you're right. -rc

Posted by Gary, Canada on January 29, 2012:

Have you noticed that the appellation "LIBERAL" seems to have replaced "COMMUNIST"?

---

Actually, no: I've found for some time that they seem to be synonyms to the people using them. -rc

Posted by Mag, Idaho on January 29, 2012:

I agree with you. The way the people in this country worship the sports world is quite pathetic. If people would use this energy for something useful, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't be in the shape we are in. Sometimes, I think sports and the hysteria it causes is done to keep people from caring about what is really important. No excuse for what Paterno and the others failed to do.

Posted by Pat, New York on January 30, 2012:

Oh Thank God, some people still think like my husband and I. We thought the world had gone crazy. If Paterno did not do anything within the first ten minutes and do it decisively (meaning thrash Sandusky) it was wrong, thoughtless, inhumane, contemtuous and stone hearted, sadistic and barbaric.

Why are celebrities lionized and so adored after they die when they were skunks in life? Sports has nothing to do with it.

Posted by Jason, Pennsylvania on January 30, 2012:

The ignorance of the comments here is appalling. Joe Paterno did more good for more people than probably all of the posters here combined. The fact that he is the winningest coach in college football is a FOOTNOTE to his legacy. It was the LEAST of his accomplishments.

Joe was first and foremost an educator, second a philanthropist, third a molder of character, fourth a winning football coach. He used his status and the college football program to better equip Penn State to provide the best education possible through the public land grant institution.

FACT: Joe and Sue Paterno donated over $4 million back to Penn State. Mainly to the wing of the library that bears his name and the campus spiritual center. This was mainly when he was earning a very modest $500k per year when other college head football coaches are making $2-4 million per year. He's also a tenured faculty member...name another college coach that is actually faculty! He also helped raise millions and millions more for academic programs. AFTER he was fired from Penn State by telephone, he wrote a $100,000 check to Penn State to further the library and to help students earn an honors education through the Paterno Fellows program (source).

FACT: Joe Paterno built a football program that emphasized academics over athletics. It was called "The Grand Experiment." He wanted to show the world that you could have student-athletes who were students first. Penn State football has consistently had one of the highest (if not THE highest) graduation rates for the entirety of the Joe Paterno era. Not only that, but football players are routinely going to graduate school, law school, etc. and then returning to their communities to help them in any way possible. (source)

FACT: Joe Paterno leaves a legacy that will live on in the lives he touched in so many ways. ESPN was one of the first to berate him for not "doing more." However, this article does his legacy a tiny bit of justice.

Yes, he made a horrible mistake. But he is not nearly the coward or horrible man people have made him out to be from this. You all probably say you would have done more, but "statistically you're full of crap".

What we have here is a wonderful, upstanding and honorable man that *possibly* made a terrible mistake. One that ANY of us could have made, especially when the accused was someone we thought we knew for over 30 years. That mistake should not take away a legacy of excellence and honorable actions built over 60 years.

For those that think Penn Staters love JoePa for his football success, you are most ill-informed. Educate yourself on who this man really was, and remember that you shouldn't point out the splinter in your neighbor's eye when you have a 2x4 in your own.

---

Interesting how you berate everyone for commenting while not knowing enough about a man who had thousands of articles written about him, and then you go on to castigate everyone when you know nothing at all about them. It's further interesting that you don't even bother to disclose your own bias -- that you either work or study at the university. -rc

Posted by Crystal, Pennsylvania on January 30, 2012:

I live in Central, PA. I asked a similar question on my Facebook page. People deleted me and I don't care.

Posted by Robin Missoula, MT on January 30, 2012:

The thing is: if Paterno really were such a saint of a man, who cared for others so much, how could he have made such a terrible "mistake"? I don't buy it. He refused to put himself in the position of being connected with a scandal, to protect HIMSELF.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on January 30, 2012:

I will agree with Jason, PA in his assessment that MOST people are not leaders of men, much as they'd like to imagine themselves to be. There have been many studies about what people REALLY do when faced with an unusual situation, and most end up going with the status quo rather than risking embarrassment or ridicule for stepping outside the box of safety. Basically, most people are followers. And then my agreement ends there.

That's why true leaders of men are rare. There are some who praise leaders for rising above the status quo, to do what MUST be done. But more often, those leaders risk criticism and condemnation. After all, who died and made THEM God, huh?

Well, Paterno WAS a leader of men. A PROVEN leader of men. He'd already established that he was the kind of guy to rise above the status quo and make the hard decisions, regardless of the potential cost. And didn't! As a leader, it was his own duty to go beyond the status quo for what's right, not simply follow it. Do any of you REALLY think Paterno would have lost all his credibility just for rocking the boat to do what was right for his students, his team, for his people? A lifetime of greatness is not washed away by momentary embarrassment. No, Joe embarrassed himself, after the fact, as he himself admitted.

As for any political connotation, I consider myself to be a conservative. Yet I can find lots of conservatives who insist that I'm a liberal. But whichever I am, I'm bored with radical lunatic fringe idiots on both sides who spew dogma rather than intelligent thought. This story is not political on either side of the spectrum.

Posted by Crystal, Pennsylvania on January 30, 2012:

I've been reading these comments all day. I have yet to read, "I am the parent, mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, etc. of one of Sandusky's victims," or better yet, "I was raped by Sandusky" and I think JoePa is a saint and he did his job because he followed protocol. I am also wondering how differently JoePa supporters would feel if it was their child being raped in the showers at Penn State, and all the Saint did was follow protocol?

I also did a little research and I can't find a former football coach that was canonized into sainthood. I'm thinking it is because FOOTBALL is just a SPORT! I view JoePa's actions as more of an ethical and moral issue. He guesses he could have done more. And I believe the victims were hoping and praying someone would do something MORE to save them. For me, it's as simple as that.

Posted by Linda, Canada on January 30, 2012:

Let's take it one step further:

Let's insist that the media stop referring to it as a "sex scandal". It's not a sex scandal. It's the repeated systematic rape of young vulnerable boys who were entrusted in their care, not just the rapist's. A proven leader of men doesn't turn his eyes away from rape; he stands up for the vulnerable and does what is right for humanity and his integrity. Some of you conveniently forget: an assistant coach, an eyewitness to the rapes, reported what he saw to Joe Paterno. No wonder victims stay quiet if some of these posts reflect the lack of empathy toward victims of sexual abuse and rape.

---

My first reaction when this was really heating up in the media was similar: "Memo to headline writers: Child sex abuse is not a 'sex scandal'" (view the tweet from 11 Nov 11). There were a lot of thumbs up ("Likes") when it was repeated on Facebook. -rc

Posted by Anonymous on January 30, 2012:

Your comments regarding coach Paterno's late career are more important than people realize. He might have been a successful football coach, but he was a complete failure as a community minded citizen, ignoring the needs of the very young men who were being destroyed by the man he kept by his side.

Too many people bury their heads in the sand, saying things such as, "Oh, it's only a few boys. He told him not to do it. He reported it to the school. He did all he could do." I daresay he likely passed it off as "boys being boys." It is directly due to these people that this travesty will remain unchecked and countless innocents will be introduced to a lifetime of mental stress that cannot be imagined.

I know...I am a victim, in another city and another country, just across the 49th Parallel.

He was my cubmaster. He was also a newspaper route carrier supervisor. His full-time job and so-called community work exposed him to young boys from 8 to 14 years old...a real smorgasbord. I will not go into great detail, suffice to say my teenage years were destroyed and remain a memory of guilt, longing, shame, self-loathing, and hurt. It destroyed my first marriage, which did last more than 20 years. Suicide remains a welcome thought. I know what these boys are going through and will continue to go through. Counselling and medicine will dull the pain; but the scars will never completely heal.

I kept it inside for 45 years. I finally went to the police with the story. My videotaped interview lasted 90 minutes. He was arrested and charged. His defense: "consensual sex". He finally agreed to a plea of sex with a minor. He got one year of house arrest. He was not even mentioned in the media, thereby denying other victims the chance to step forward and ease their pain.

I am a father, grandfather and active community volunteer, having received many plaudits for the work I've done. Most especially, a great deal of my time has focussed on community based policing. I do it to try to keep my brain busy. I can't sit still. I can't erase the memory of what was done to me. I was a victim in a spider's trap.

Coach Paterno, you might be resting in peace; but there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of us who will never have a good night's sleep.

Posted by Crystal, Pennsylvania on January 30, 2012:

Dear Anonymous:

Reading your post brought me to tears. My first reaction was to respond. Then I realized that there was nothing I could say that would ease the pain you have to live with every day, because I am not you. What I can tell you is that I commend you for sharing your story and fighting to have the man that tortured you punished, even though the punishment was minimal. You still stood up for that broken little person inside of you. Please keep fighting because we, society, need people like you to speak out and let the world know how having a respected and trusting person, in your young life, rape you has affected who you are, your hopes and dreams; your entire and life.

In my thoughts -

REALLY PEOPLE! OPEN YOUR EYES!
Statistics estimate one out of four children will be molested. The majority of children will be molested by a family member, friend, or mentor. Many children will never speak out because of fear and shame.

http://nctsn.org/nctsn_assets/pdfs/caring/ChildSexualAbuseFactSheet.pdf

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/can/stat_sexAbuse.cfm#statelocal

Posted by Robin, Kansas City, MO on January 30, 2012:

Well, Robert at least wrote level headedly and is correct in that we do not have all the evidence to declare JoPa guilty of anything...but this whole blog is about why should a person be worshiped as a sports icon when a cloud of suspicion hangs over him. I would change that to why should be be worshiping any sports figure. What has any sports figure done in a sports game that has benefited humanity for more then the length of the game? This is a football coach that got paid more then most of the departments' of the university entire annual budget. Einstein didn't get a hundredth the worship JoPa did and Einstein's contributions to humanity are still being realized. The fact that Penn State has a winning football year does not increase the value of a degree from there, nor does a losing football year decrease the value of a degree. I would mourn more the death and/or retirement of a professor than a coach any day.

Posted by Kim, Texas on January 31, 2012:

I subscribe to your column and saw your reference to this "joe Paterno" discussion today. Thank you for taking the stand that I should have published on Facebook myself. I am a tea party conservative but like you do not see this as a liberal/conservative issue. The fact that no one pushed for an investigation when this first happened to either save children from peril or to prove Sandusky falsely accused are paying the price for not doing the RIGHT thing at the RIGHT time. I hope the true lesson in this (that I see you and many of the commentators promoting) is when you see something that is wrong ACT -- Innocent lives are always at stake in some form or another.

Posted by John, Arkansas on January 31, 2012:

One thing this whole tragedy brings to mind to me is the irony of the mainstream media who are so quick to savage what appears to be a "good" man over the very same thing they have done. My own experience with pedophiles like Sandusky is alleged to be, is that a well thought of son of a powerful judge molested my brother. For nearly a decade after my brother spoke out against him, he continued to molest, continued to be lionized for his "charitable" works. And the newspapers and editors who so loudly called for and lauded the firing of Joe Paterno, refused to print the accusations of my brother because of concern over "legal ramifications". Even when he was prosecuted, it was only for providing a minor with alcohol and a token suspended sentence was handed down (Interestingly, by a judge who once clerked for his father and owed his very career to him. ) The whole episode was reported in vague legalistic terms in the very back of the paper, not more than two paragraphs. And not even his name was used, only a "local community volunteer".

Only nearly a decade later when one of this pedophiles victims butchered his own family at this beasts behest and another killed himself, was he seen for what he was. And then the investigation took nearly two years before he was finally arrested and released on bail. Three years and six months later he was finally sent to prison for life. His victim? He was whisked to prison before the calendar page changed to become prey for even more sadistic individuals our society has produced. The ability of Sandusky, like the pedophile who defiled my brother, to continue his deprivations for years after his first brush with the law, have not to do with sports or fame, but power. In this country we all too often grant power not based on the character of the person, but on the bounty he lays on the table, whether it be a pennant, votes for a local politician or graft for the politicians' supporters.

On the other side of the coin, I know too the strain and power a false allegation of this kind can have. My own father was subjected to such ironically at the behest of a pedophile in an attempt to silence him. The reason such beasts are allowed to roam among us and safely continue their predations, is our fear of sexuality. If I stand for this child who has been preyed upon, what is to stop such a powerful allegation from being levied against me? Can I truly account for every second of every day and defend myself? Even if I am not found guilty in a court of law, I would remain an outcast.

Too often, the scales of justice allow too much sway by the coins of power. We blindly leap to the defense of the beast, unaware we are protecting not a good man, only a powerful one. We should dream of the day when men are not judged by their abilities on the gridiron, or their talents for getting votes, or their public deeds, but on the whole, the content of their character.

I know myself I am no great man. But I believe, based on what is in the record of your beloved JoePa, I have more character in my pinkie than he showed on that day. On that day, he failed, but others failed too. Almost anyone associated with his program, or the charity from which Sandusky used to find victims, failed. Either by outright knowledge, or willful ignorance, they stood by while a beast fed on the lambs. I myself, was conflicted when my brother's allegations were told to me. I worried of the ramifications of our family setting itself against such a powerful family. But, I stood on the line, shoulder to shoulder with my brother, that he should know he had no reason to be ashamed, the one who had done this deed owned the shame.

In your own life, take this as a lesson, not of whether to lionize JoePa or demonize Sandusky. I know not whether Sandusky is innocent or guilty. My experience would color any determination I would make so I could hardly be an impartial arbiter of such facts.

Instead, look out into the community around you. There are children all around you walking as sheep among the lions. Take up a staff, watch over them. When you see something amiss, confront it. Ask the hard questions. Risk being wrong. Bring more eyes to bear on the suspicious. The innocent will not chafe under such scrutiny, only the guilty. Become not a part of the problem, but one of a million cogs in the solution. As for Sandusky, the authorities have him in hand now. And for JoePa, he now faces the only judge who knows the whole truth, including what was in his heart. I pray his judge will be merciful.

---

Powerful testimony from someone who knows what he's talking about. Thanks, John. -rc

Posted by Duncan (Thunder Bay, ON) on January 31, 2012:

Thank you very much for making this forum, and for allowing and not censoring the discussion.

I don't "do" Facebook, so I missed the sections there.

This whole episode is a re-play of the Canadian experience of the same issue, only involving hockey (see Graham James et al.)

Posted by Bill/NJ on January 31, 2012:

Given the thought process from our friends in red, it's no wonder this type of pederast behavior continues and all too often remains unreported.

But, to give this behavior some historical context, in ancient Greek times pederasty was rather prevalent and accepted. Has our puritanical beliefs defined this behavior as unacceptable in today's society? And have these beliefs created what we now define as predators? Believe me, I am not condoning or accepting the alleged actions but wanted to look at a societal perspective.

And please, no Greek jokes.

---

I'm not well versed in the practices of ancient Greece. I can only look at today, when violating other people without coerced consent is, obviously, predatory behavior. Doing what you want with consenting and willing adults is fine with me. But children cannot give that informed consent, and whether it was prevalent and accepted in the past or not, there is no doubt that it isn't now. -rc

Posted by l.d. Ohio on January 31, 2012:

I was (excuse me, that should read "am") a victim of rape ... not "date rape" but rape through coercion by someone who had the ability to destroy my career. I live with PTSD, occasioned by living with rockets pointed at me and a base-wide lock-down, and the frosting was the rape connected with my being able to get a new assignment after my in-country tour was over.

Was I weak? Was I a chicken, afraid to speak out and protect my rights as a human being? Possibly. Or possibly I wanted to be able to care for a child who depended upon me for everything, or possibly I simply was a weak-kneed idiot who allowed things to be done to me.

Regardless of who or what *I* was, the rape was still a criminal act. The blackmail was a criminal act. The sonuvabeech got away with it because I was too afraid, and I've lived with the consequences for over three decades now.

Abuse cuts to the heart, the inner workings of an individual, the very soul. If someone knows of such activity and fails to take personal responsibility for reporting the abuser, and hopefully preventing further abuse, that someone is even worse than the abuser. The abuser thinks it's "ok"; the person who fails to stop what s/he knows is wrong, does even more harm than the abuser.

Silence is not golden. Silence is black and blue and blood red and dirty dirty filthy non-innocence. What makes me saddest is that there are people who are actually attempting to excuse the silent ones, protect the reputations of the more-guilty-than-the-perpetrators.

What kind of world are we living in?

Posted by CathyAC Titusville on February 1, 2012:

@Bill/NJ According to what archeologists and scholars have found re greece and rome of ancient days, most children did not survive 10 years, those who did could expect (barring war, famine, disease, accident) to live to age 50. A few a bit more. However they married YOUNG, often not for love but alliances and had children young themselves. A very different time than now. Pederasty and homosexuality did not carry the same onus it does now and in fact was encouraged to help keep population growth from outstripping food supply.

I won't say our children are not just as savvy now about sex as they were then, BUT as it is NOT acceptible in our society, and carries a great deal of stigma, the child is betrayed by the very people he is supposed to rely on for safety and guidance. The damage rape does at ANY age is immeasurable both psychologically and physically. It is not an act of love, it is an act of coercion and power that damages it's victim far longer than it takes for the perpetrator to move on to the next prey. It is even worse when the child is not or believes they will not be believed because of the person's standing in the community.

Posted by James, Minnesota on February 1, 2012:

Is it too late to unsubscribe because of the Paterno thing? Apparently some have figured out that by unsubscribing all the bad things go away. It doesn't generally work that way in my world, but if you think it will help, please unsubscribe me. I'm even willing to get more subscriptions so I can unsubscribe more.

It shows how really biased journalism has become. In all the news reports I saw, no one even hinted that this was all your fault until your own subscribers pointed it out.

Regrettably, sayin' it ain't so doesn't make it not so. Reality is cruel that way.

---

Now that's funny! -rc

Posted by Angie, Kansas on February 2, 2012:

Bob in NC said "Let's assume that your neighbor told you he saw another neighbor (through the other neighbor's window) taking sexual advantage of an underage child. Would you go to the police alleging sexual abuse based upon what the first neighbor claimed s/he saw? And what if it was made up (maybe neighbor 1 has a grudge against neighbor 2)? What if Joe had gone to the police and reported "hearsay" and it turned out to be false? It should be the responsibility of the person who actually witnessed the incident."

Would I go to the police? Jesus jumped up Christ in a motorized sidecar, why WOULDN'T I go to the police? Sure, maybe neighbor #1 misinterpreted an innocent event, or worse, made it up. But that's why the police department has these things called detectives who are responsible for investigating allegations. When we're talking about serious harm to a child (or an adult, for that matter), how can anyone sit back and say "Well, he might be wrong, so I'm not going to say anything to the people who could find out for sure."

The fact that neighbor #1 failed to do the right thing does not absolve me of responsibility if I don't do the right thing and someone else gets hurt.

Posted by John, Arkansas on February 2, 2012:

Just to add to Angie in Kansas response to Bob: Child molestation is not something one needs to be spreading rumors about in any case. It's nothing less than slander. I would just be forthright with the police from the get-go, "Neighbor X said Y."

Yes, friendships will be burned, people will get hurt. But, better two feuding dumbasses than one child.

Posted by Steve, Washington State on February 3, 2012:

Paterno did do the minimum required by law and did remove unescorted access to the facilities by Sandusky. However, by law, the supervisor and school officials were required to report it to the police. Paterno did not follow up but should he have? How would he? He would not be allowed to know if anything was reported due to privacy laws. Investigations are not discussed by the police to non-witnesses. The crime was committed by the university officials that did not follow the law. Paterno did follow the law. He did not cover it up but made an official report. The university never fired or punished those that violated the law but fired Paterno for following the law. Lets put the most blame on the illegal activities of the university officials that did the cover up. Paterno was not that person. Should he have done more? That depends on your moral standards. However, do you have a right to make a moral decision for another? Was it moral to follow the law and stop the person from coming on campus to do his evil deeds? I think that was moral. He did more than the MINIMUM. Should he have done more? I think so but let us at least acknowledge that he did more than the minimum and what he did do was by law enough to insure the police were notified. The big problem was not Paterno but his superiors at the university. They behaved illegally not Paterno. Let us hear the noise over the university protecting those law breakers and firing the person that obeyed the law. Where is the outrage at that? You are concentrating on someone because he is famous. Turn your wrath on the truly evil still at that university. Paterno is not evil, he did do something. Others did NOTHING.

---

All of your points are already covered on this page. What more could he have done? PAID ATTENTION when Sandusky was found alone with young boys at the university again and again and again over a period of years. This should get anyone's attention, let alone with the later information that he was raping boys on campus. Second, "Yes, the page is about Paterno, but I definitely agree that there's a lot more culpability in this case than his." (January 24). Yeah, this page is long, but you seem to expect people to read your comment. I think the least you can do is to read others' to see if your points are already covered. -rc

Posted by Kim, Japan on February 3, 2012:

My husband was talking about "sports worship" the other day -- why do we call sports stars "heroes" and give them millions whereas firefighters and police receive rare accolades?

It's certainly not the end of the world. It's entertainment. It's not going to change. However, it IS frustrating -- especially when it really does seem to turn into a form of worship. It's surreal, and more than a little creepy.

Also, I feel that we shelter kids too much -- they need to know about people like Sandusky and events going on in the world. People seem to think that kids are stupid or can't understand things. They can. They need to.

On the up side, if we're all arguing about sports and what someone wore on a reality TV show, it must mean our lives overall are fairly peaceful and problem-free (hence those jokes about "first-world problems").

Posted by CharlesS, Calif. on February 4, 2012:

There was so much wrong with the way this was handled by grown men of Penn State, How can we expect the college boys to behave? I commend you Randy for speaking out and allowing others to voice their opinion.

Posted by Peter, Alabama on February 6, 2012:

Randy, thanks for your comments, you agent provocateur. As you mentioned in one of your comments, you often overstate something to prod a response. So, here are two things that I've reacted to, based on your post, and many of the comments.

The first item is the whole sports idolatry/cult of personality thing. I'm in the heart of "Crimson Tide country". We know a thing or 8 about coach idolatry! Paul "Bear" Bryant has been dead, lo, these last score and 9 years. But by golly, you wouldn't know it if you wandered around Tuscaloosa. His trademark hounds-tooth hat has become the defacto symbol of the town. There are numerous landmarks, streets, etc. named after him. There are pictures EVERYWHERE of him. (Disclaimer: UA grad, mildly interested in UA football) There are people who have UA football/Bear Bryant rooms dedicated to the worship of their idols; I'm not at all exaggerating. I just don't get it.

To so identify with a GAME and the players therein that you take personal offense when anything negative is said is the height of lunacy to me. But I see it every day. Sure, I'm happy when the team for my alma mater wins, but the next day... so what. It has no bearing on my life. But that is not the case for many. So, Randy, you called the spade a spade: idolatry. That's it plain and simple. And much can be "excused" in "reverence to one's god".

Which brings us to the second issue. I saw a lot of folks tossing about whether Paterno had an "obligation" to report to the police or not. While the circumstances of how the initial event was reported to him seem like hearsay, he was obligated by Pennsylvania statute, Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311 and § 6312, to report the incident in writing. (Oddly, the website that I found this information: http://www.childwelfare.gov, doesn't say to whom this report should be made.) As a school teacher or administrator, Paterno was under obligation to submit a report of "suspected abuse" in writing to, I would presume in this case, the child protective services and/or police. I don't know if the campus police would suffice, but there should have been a paper trail, according to PA law.

OK, there's a third thing that comes to mind after all this: should he have followed up? Well, considering many of the other people outside PSU that had "suspicions" and "concerns" SOMEBODY should have!! Yup, Paterno held some culpability, as did the McQueery, as did the AD, the campus PD, whoever in the administration knew of the report, that wrestling coach, etc., etc. The fact that Sandusky continued in an organization that was aimed at kids absolutely astounds me. Why wasn't that mom who tried to report abuse listened to?! Who in her situation dropped (or covered up) the ball?

I think there's plenty of criminal and civil blame to go around. Paterno just happens to be a prominent and easy scapegoat, especially now that he can't defend himself (not to take him off the hook either). Unfortunately, I've seen not just university officials, but local officials work together to "minimize" the effect of "adverse events" on the school and town. All for the mighty dollar, and "reputation" of the school. It's pitiful and sinister at the same time. The precedence of a game over a human life (lives).

P.S. to all the posters who were victims of such abuse and shared their story and perspective... thank you. I hope you can leave such things behind and have peace.

---

Yeah, they have a lot of guts to tell their stories in public, even if there names are obscured enough for anonymity. They relived terrible experiences in the hopes that others would become educated enough to stop someone else from having such a terrible experience -- and that just might happen, making it worth the pain. -rc

Posted by Marco, Florida on February 10, 2012:

Randy,

Just curious, was there any push-back from Facebook caused by Maxim's actions? Was there any push-back at all from Facebook because of the discussion content rather than from prompting by complainers?

---

Short answer: no. Longer answer: one of my friends had contacts at Facebook, and he contacted them to counter Maxim (on his own; it was not at my request). The contact looked at the page and said there was nothing to worry about, and thus didn't bother to ask the team to leave it alone, since he was confident they would leave it alone. Apparently, his confidence in the team was well founded, since I didn't get any sort of warning or expression of concern. Still, I'm glad I took action to move it here, since it eliminated any worry and widened the discussion to a wider audience. -rc

Posted by Bill/NJ on February 10, 2012:

Suppose Joe P was, say, Joe the plumber. No status in the community, just an everyday guy. And, just to add another supposition, let's assume there are no laws, "requirements" or restrictions, period. Common sense prevails as unspoken law. How would we and the press pass judgement and who then would we blame? Our friends in red would string up all involved who failed to do the right, common sense thing, I think. And we would applaud.

---

By "in red" I assume you mean conservatives. As with the conservatives who used the epithet "liberal" to degrade this discussion, I just don't agree that there is a political component to this. A difference of opinion is fine, but give concrete, thoughtful reasons for your opinion, rather than make the horrible mistake of assuming politics are behind other opinions. -rc

Posted by Preston - Colorado on February 28, 2012:

I'm going to front this with the following, just to avoid discussion of any "bias" which I will almost certainly be accused:

1) I do not watch football, or traditional sports of any kind, more than a few times each year.

2) Before this scandal, I had never heard of Joe Paterno.

3) I am a right-of-center conservative and a registered Republican, though I do not vote in the primaries. I am registered as a Republican only because I find it more likely that I will vote for a Republican than for a Democrat.

4) I am absolutely and radically opposed to any form of pedophilia. Note that this does not mean that I agree with the "age of consent" laws in every state; if a 21-yo and a 17-yo have consensual sex, well... that's not pedophilia. Sorry.

The rest of this will be addressed to Mr. Cunningham.

Now, on to the main point: why are you crucifying Joe Paterno? Did he make a terrible mistake... maybe. Was he an upstanding, contributing, generous community member and leader? Absolutely.

Now, I'm sure many of you have already started to ignore what I'm writing, simply because I'm not raging at Mr. Paterno's "duplicity in not apprehending a CHILD MOLESTER!" However, I do not see any evidence, much less proof, that anything was done incorrectly here. Paterno just had "some guy" tell him that one of his close friends MIGHT have engaged in POTENTIALLY illegal/unethical activities. What exactly is he gonna do? The fact that he immediately reported it to the President of the U and the Campus Police Chief was the correct response. End of story.

Well, according to one of your readers, he should have "thrashed" him within "10 minutes" of hearing the accusation. Excellent advice, right? The irony of it is that, despite the fact that you regularly attack the violence of society, you did not make a single comment in opposition to this. Why? Because you've already convinced yourself of his guilt, apparently.

On top of that, you make false statements in your responses to reasonable people (i.e. those who simply want the trial to be completed before Sandusky is damned) by saying that Joe Paterno "did nothing." You are really out to get this guy, even though you do it under the guise of "asking why."

Furthermore, you REVEL in the hero worship that the members of your site lavish upon your every word. You once said that you "expect politicians to be hypocrites." I advise taking it one step further: expect PEOPLE to be hypocrites. You have become one, even if you weren't always.

Additionally, I'll add a bit of personal perspective to this situation. I was accused, in the months leading up to my wedding, of cheating on my wife (to-be) "all the time." This accusation came from one of her bridesmaids, no less. So what did her friends and mine do? They warned us that a nasty rumor was circulating. None of them accused us or even asked us if it were true. Why? Because they were our FRIENDS.

No, this is obviously not of the same severity as an accusation of pedophilia/rape. But the same thinking applies. Paterno and Sandusky had worked together for a LONG time. Paterno had loyalties, and that's no surprise - nor is it a crime or a wrongdoing.

And let's be truly honest. Sandusky had been involved in charitable childrens' organizations for some time. Him being around kids all the time would come as no surprise. And if someone had a grudge and wanted to see him go down? What better accusation that pedophilia. Is it even so unthinkable that someone might make a mistake in what he saw and make a potentially false accusation? No, it really isn't.

Of course, we all "know" now that Sandusky is "probably" guilty. Then again, we all "knew" the same thing about Michael Jackson. Was he guilty? We don't know. And that's really the issue. WE. DON'T. KNOW. And Paterno knew even less than we do.

So yes, having looked at the evidence, I can say I still respect Joe Paterno. It appears that he made a terrible mistake. It appears that he could have done more. We can;t be sure. What we can be sure about is that he did many good and great things for the students at the college and in his athletic program. That is what we KNOW.

As for hero worship... well, it's not really a surprise. People are attracted to greatness, and Paterno was a great man. He was a good man. But the only thing the public loves more than a hero is seeing a hero fall. It lets us feel better about ourselves. "Hey look, Joe Paterno was a ****-up who covered for a pedophile. What SCUM. I'm gonna go back to being an alcoholic/abuser/sloth/whatever now, content in the knowledge that everyone is as bad as I am."

Think on that.

---

"Now, on to the main point: why are you crucifying Joe Paterno?" Wow: how sensationalistic. Did you really even read what I wrote? I pointed to his several failures -- which he agreed he had failed at -- and simply asked the question: "Really: if you still respect the man, tell me WHY." Only one person actually answered that question (and I thanked him for that answer.) You're running around in circles with your hair on fire ...why? -rc

Posted by Preston - Colorado on February 28, 2012:

Um, I answered your question... and responded to the bit about hero worship. Last 2 paragraphs. So glad you're reading for content instead of just reacting aggressively.

Oh. Wait.

So do I get a thank-you? Or is it back to accusing me of "running around with my hair on fire?" I mean, any reasonable person who reads my post can see that it is OBVIOUSLY not rational or forthright and that I am foaming at the mouth. I always forget that.

---

I didn't see the answer to my question -- I glazed over long before the end. If you say it's there, great. Glad to have it. -rc

Posted by Chuck, MD on March 18, 2012:

Sorry for posting to this so late but I've fallen way behind in my reading. Do you have a link to your facebook post or has it been pulled?

---

I don't have the link, no. It hasn't been pulled, but it has been buried, since I post quite a bit. I'm pretty sure it was on my personal page, as opposed to This is True's page. You may find it by scrolling ever back to mid-March. -rc