Sexual abuse charges Rock Penn State University (Page 2)

I’m sorry, I’m the biggest JoePa fan but he should have done more and reported this to the authorities.  The “I reported it to my superiors” line may work in any other professional organization but not there, JoePa is Penn State and he should have followed up.

It seems like everyone that had knowledge of this were disturbed by the actions, but not enough to get their hands dirty and report the actions to the appropriate authorities.

Under no circumstances is understandable for an adult to have knowledge of child sexual abuse and not go directly to the authorities. 

And that grad student that witnessed the actual sexual abused, didnt go to the authorities, and was also fine with just washing his hands, should have a very guilty conscience.

It is despicable how these adults in position of power, that demand accountability from students are so quick divert the blame.

Spot on, but even more compelling to me than your bolded question, what if you were the parents of the kid that was molested 3, 4, 5, years later.  Had someone actually done something other than wash their hands of it, those kids could have kept their innocence.  Their molestation is on Joe Paterno's hands, IMO

Everyone in this sickens me - the FIRST step for all of them should have been going to the police. I wish they all could be charged for something. JoePa and the rest of them should resign immediately.

I would assume if you actually witnessed this like what happened here you can go to the police directly. Any school who would say you have to go through a bureaucratic mess when you witness any assault is jsut wrong.

x2billionty.

First, whether anyone in the PSU administration is 'legally guilty' is up to the courts. But the more important point is that ALL of them are guilty of moral abdication of their duty to other humans. It was clear that the administration put their jobs, and their relationship with their institution, before the well being of another human. That says everything it needs to. Pathetic. 

Second, I cannot and will not buy the 'chain of command' and 'it is our policy' excuse for not taking action. Any institution, whether it be universities, churches, or corporations are neither chartered with or professionals at gathering facts, protecting young people in harm's way, etc. Police and grand juries and courts have this as their job, and there are safeguards in the system to protect both the harmed and the accused. The 'chain of command' policy serves to do nothing other than protect the institution. At best it alerts people in the institution to begin conducting an amateur investigation, and at worst, it invites immoral administrators to brush things under the rug.  See the past 20 documented years of church coverup for exhibits A-ZZZ of these exact behaviors.

Related, I also don't buy the 'name dragged through the mud' reason for justifying using a chain of command as opposed to going to the authorities. There are remedies in the court - both civil and criminal - for accusations that result in financial harm. That's the way our system works. Is it optimal? Maybe not. But it's how it works. Can't use that as justification of any behavior

Bottom line, for me, is that each of those 4 had a duty - regardless of institutional affiliation - to protect other humans in harm's way. Those 4 people didn't. Guilty morally, that's their legacy, period. Could care less what the courts say, although I think it'd be spiffy if they all were convicted.  

PS. Anyone hear Tim Curly's attorney give an interview?  If that macaw didn't sound like Edith Bunker, I don't know who did...

Scout, while I can see your argument it's flawed in one very important respect:  Paterno forwarded the allegations on to a group of people with a vested interest in making sure that the allegations went no further.  It is perfectly reasonable to assume that he's smart enough to know that.

This is not a hypothetical for me. I once personally became aware of potential sexual abuse of a child so I have some experience upon which to draw. I was most definitely aware of all of the potential consequences for everyone involved before I called the police. While there was no direct physical evidence of abuse, there was certainly enough to make me want to take action. And that action involved making sure that everything was followed through on.  It's not something you can just let go of. It was a moral imperative.

There is no way, none, that passing it up the chain to people who have an interest in keeping it out of the public eye and then washing your hands of it is an acceptable course of action unless you yourself have the exact same agenda.

While his actions may have met the legal baseline for "plausible deniability", it was morally indefensible. 

He placed protecting himself, his friend, and his employer above protecting those kids.

Sorry to divert from the PSU issue, but your post is puzzling me.

I think you are, perhaps, confusing two scenarios. In one scenario, a person witnessed a rape of a child. In the second scenario, a person received an account of a rape of a child. So, I'd like to ask a question to better understand your school's procedure and your perceived imperative to act.

In the first scenario, would you immediately call 911, or would you go to the principal and let him/her deal with it? Regardless of school rules and the limitations the school might try to set on your actions, you are obligated to follow society's rules. In the case of witnessing a crime, wouldn't it be imperative to immediately and first-hand report it to law enforcement?

NYTimes is reporting that Penn State is planning an exit strategy for Joe Paterno.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1&hp

where does it ever say that part of their job responsibilities is to cover up ALLEGATIONS (your word) of child molestations?

Their vested interest should be in making sure that Penn State continue to project an image of a clean institution of higher learning and by those standards would hopefully report the ALLEGATIONS to the proper authorities.

Why would Joe Paterno believe or even doubt that they wouldn't do that? And if he believes that they will indeed take care of it, why would he feel any need to follow up himself?

This thread is brutal...

we still don't know and may never know the true details of the incidents, but to begin lynching a guy based on the small amount of information to be made public to this point is unbelievable. The amount of information needed for a grand jury to move forward is minimal...

Obviously I'm not defending what Sandusky did or didn't do, but to drag Paterno through the mud is unnecessary.

renee is right, the Graduate assistant should have contacted the police immediately knowing that what he was witnessing was definitely a criminal act.

now I'm going to go and get my popcorn...

While JoePa may not have any reason to believe that they are going to follow-up on his reports, and while he fulfilled his responsibilities of his job, he has a MORAL obligation to press the issue and contact anyone necessary to ensure that the matter is appropriately dealt with.  Joe Paterno is an Ivy League grad and, by most accounts, a generally wise man.  I would think that he would know when smoke is being blown up his backside and be able to make the determination/decision to escalate the issue.  If he is fine sleeping at night and believing that he is "clean" (from a moral perspective) in this, I wouldn't want my son to play for him.  I've taught my children better morals than that.

While we don't know all the details, we do know that a 10-year old child was raped in the shower by an employee of the university.  It has also been reported by the local ESPN affiliate that as late as 2007, Sandusky had children on campus at a team practice.  I'm not sure how the administration, including Joe Paterno, could have continued to turn a blind eye to this.