Freeh-dom Fighting

A few quick hitters on Penn State before explaining my take on the Freeh Report.


Should the statue of Joe Paterno be taken down?

It's a sad story...with all of the good things that Paterno has done over the years. But, it is what it is. (AP Photo/Centre Daily Times, Nabil K. Mark)

It's got to go. It has to come down. It will forever be associated with this scandal. If the university is condemning the scandal, and in turn the football program for its involvement....Why would there be a statue to honor Paterno?


Isn't it ironic that there were kids willing to camp out around the statue to "protect" it from vandals? A statue of a man who himself had an opportunity to "protect" kids - and did not.



Should the NCAA levy the "death penalty" on Penn State?

The NCAA - a borderline criminal organization in its own right - has a tough decision to make. Regardless of how people want to spin it, the Sandusky scandal would not have been possible without the role of the football program in both looking the other way, and in allowing him access to his victims despite his previous indiscretions. (Photo from Houston Press)

My first impression was that a harsh NCAA cleansing of the PSU football program would punish all the wrong people. The football team members were 4-8 years old when the first Sandusky incident went down. They, along with the current coaching staff, have done nothing to warrant getting the death penalty.


That said, I'm starting to change my tune a bit seeing all of the outpouring of support that Joe Paterno is getting out in Happy Valley. These people apparently have blinders on, or are unwilling to accept the facts of this case, and in that regard a message needs to be sent. They just don't get it.

The "death penalty" is a bit harsh, but some debilitating sanctions are certainly not.

And now, without further ado...



Freeh Report Vibe

In two previous blogs on Sandusky and the Penn State scandal, I've been highly critical of those at Penn State who were involved in looking away from this. That being said, I was waiting to see the outcome of the Freeh Report before passing further judgement on the involvement of PSU's highest in command.

Even with Joe Paterno, as critical as I was when the initial media reports came out, I was willing to see what the Freeh Report would turn up before fully damning him for his involvement.

After reading the Freeh Report (all pertinent parts at least), I do not see how it is feasible to defend his involvement in all this. Any opinion that I have formulated comes as a direct result of reading quotations from e-mails uncovered in Freeh's investigation. Assumptions made about what "probably" happened do not carry nearly the clout that this written proof does.

I'll be more clear...There is no written proof that Paterno was intimately involved in the orchestrating of "sweeping it under the rug," but there is proof that he had a mild hand in it (Proof below). What's more, Paterno was keenly aware of the allegations on multiple occasions and said NOTHING while the University continued to allow him uninhibited access to all facilities. Sandusky even had an office in the same building as Paterno!

The Lasch Building at PSU. No need to keep Jerry out. Wonder if they gave him a reserved spot close to his office? (Photo from PennLive.com)

------------------------------------
Proof of Paterno's culpability:

After Mike McQueary reported the incident he witnessed (and after Paterno had reported this to the big wigs) the university administration devised an action plan that included 1) report the incident to the Second Mile, 2) Report it to the Department of Welfare, and 3) Tell Sandusky to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Building.

The AD subsequently e-mailed the other administrators and stated that he had changed his mind about the plan "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe Paterno yesterday." He then proposed that they should offer Sandusky "professional help."

The president accepts this proposal and even states "the only downside for us is if the message is not 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable."

No shit.

--------------------------------------
I will concede that Paterno's involvement seems to pale in comparison to that of Curley (AD), Schultz (Senior VP - Finance & Business), and Spanier (President). They were the ones who had continued to correspond about whether they want to go to authorities or not. They were the ones who knew that in 1998 Sandusky had been warned by an investigating police detective "not to shower with any child" which Sandusky agreed to.  They were the ones who received the report in 2001 of what Mike McQueary had witnessed...in the shower with a child.

So he was told not to do it again. He did it again. And for 10 more years he was allowed full access to PSU facilities.

Let's suppose that at best there was no criminal activity....wouldn't the mere insubordination with something this sensitive merit complete removal from association with the school?

Maybe THIS is what Jerry thought they meant when they told him "no more showers with kids"...Honest mistake. (Photo by Bob's Blitz)

The trio of upper administration (Curley, Schultz, and Spanier) had consistent communication as these incidents were reported. While JoePa could have made more noise in getting Sandusky out of there, these men were the ones that could have most readily made it happen.

And because of their fear for what the exposure of these incidents would mean for the university, they did nothing.

While those fears about the university's reputation have come true and then some, these men need not worry.

They have bigger things to worry about now.