Sandusky Investigation Findings

[seeline]

Not sure if anyone's referenced this article on pedophile teachers at the Horace Mann HS in NYC, but I think it might be relevant: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/magazine/the-horace-mann-schools-secret-history-of-sexual-abuse.html?pagewanted=all

There were teachers like the ones discussed in the article at my HS; they were after both boys and girls. I don't think the gender of the person being preyed on matters so much as does the intent and actions of the predator(s).

I do not think this article would have been published were it not for both the ongoing pedophile scandals in many churches (not just Roman Catholic) and the trial of Jerry Sandusky. And - as at PSU - the predators at Horace Mann were protected by their colleagues, as well as by the administration. I think that's likely the case in all situations of this sort. Few pedophiles are reported, and even fewer are prosecuted. The victims are left in limbo or worse.

As to your question, Larry, I would rather plead the Fifth. I thought the thread was about the Sandusky verdict as well as the Freeh report, not so much about the sexual identities of those who prey on children. I find it ironic, given how Sandusky's defense team tried to play the mental illness card (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) to get him off the hook. Anything to protect the firm, be it PSU or a so-called charity (The Second Mile). I don't think the significance of The Second Mile - and its influence (i.e., Sandusky's influence) on social services for troubled kids has hit home for reporters, either in-state or from the national news media. The Second Mile was incredibly well-respected and highly recommended as a way to help kids. To know it was a front at very best is quite a shock - and the repercussions are going to last for a long time.

Edited July 14, 2012 by seeline

[Jazzmoose]

Many of my students wouldn't be able to attend college without the help of an athletic scholarship. Punishing them would be an epic mistake. All that does is make the list of victims even longer.

I seriously doubt anyone on a football scholarship at Penn State would have that much of a problem finding another school to take them...

[seeline]

Seeline -- OK, Sandusky preyed on boys of that age. Does that invalidate the rest of what I said on my post? In particular: "...that if the both the gender and the age of a pedophile's victims remains consistent, then a male-on-male pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to maleness, and a male-on-female pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to femaleness." To this, I would add (should have said the first time) "...something about his own young male self in relation to" etc.

I'm not say BTW that it doesn't invalidate what I said. I'm asking a honest question. Also, I didn't say anywhere that this isn't about pedophilia; rather, it's that I think (perhaps mistakenly) that pedophilia arises from grave distortions in the process of human development and thus is not utterly unrelated to the normal processes of human development, that these are not acts of alien-to-the-human-condition evil but acts of all-too-human evil.

The standard answer is that most abusers were abused - makes sense to me.

But this is a complex subject and not one on which I feel I can speculate. It's a very difficult thing - almost like trying to put oneself inside the mind of an abuser, and I definitely don't want to go there. I find it hard enough to deal with the news about Sandusky et. al. as is.

[Dan Gould]

Reading this about Paterno almost feels like piling on. But if we need evidence of consciousness of guilt:

In January 2011, Joe Paterno learned prosecutors were investigating his longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexually assaulting young boys. Soon, Mr. Paterno had testified before a grand jury, and the rough outlines of what would become a giant scandal had been published in a local newspaper.

That same month, Mr. Paterno, the football coach at Penn State, began negotiating with his superiors to amend his contract, with the timing something of a surprise because the contract was not set to expire until the end of 2012, according to university documents and people with knowledge of the discussions. By August, Mr. Paterno and the university’s president, both of whom were by then embroiled in the Sandusky investigation, had reached an agreement.

Mr. Paterno was to be paid $3 million at the end of the 2011 season if he agreed it would be his last. Interest-free loans totaling $350,000 that the university had made to Mr. Paterno over the years would be forgiven as part of the retirement package. He would also have the use of the university’s private plane and a luxury box at Beaver Stadium for him and his family to use over the next 25 years.

The university’s full board of trustees was kept in the dark about the arrangement until November, when Mr. Sandusky was arrested and the contract arrangements, along with so much else at Penn State, were upended.

Or could it really be just a coincidence?

[Larry Kart]

Seeline -- OK, Sandusky preyed on boys of that age. Does that invalidate the rest of what I said on my post? In particular: "...that if the both the gender and the age of a pedophile's victims remains consistent, then a male-on-male pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to maleness, and a male-on-female pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to femaleness." To this, I would add (should have said the first time) "...something about his own young male self in relation to" etc.

I'm not say BTW that it doesn't invalidate what I said. I'm asking a honest question. Also, I didn't say anywhere that this isn't about pedophilia; rather, it's that I think (perhaps mistakenly) that pedophilia arises from grave distortions in the process of human development and thus is not utterly unrelated to the normal processes of human development, that these are not acts of alien-to-the-human-condition evil but acts of all-too-human evil.

The standard answer is that most abusers were abused - makes sense to me.

But this is a complex subject and not one on which I feel I can speculate. It's a very difficult thing - almost like trying to put oneself inside the mind of an abuser, and I definitely don't want to go there. I find it hard enough to deal with the news about Sandusky et. al. as is.

Well, I do want to put myself inside the abuser's mind insofar as that's possible because I think that is necessary; one needs to grasp (or try to grasp) what's going on there before reaching for a solution that better than "Put the heads of those aliens on pikes." Not that putting heads on pikes might not be what one wants or needs to do, but again IMO not alien heads; rather, all-too-human heads.

[Pete C]

[Tim McG]

It's always other players years later when the NCAA punishes a team.

What does this mean? Why should players even be considered here? The NCAA could just allow them to transfer without penalty on a case by case basis.

What happens if that creates a financial hardship [via scholarships or distance traveled to school, etc.] or, more to the point, there is a degree major at Penn State they want? The crime was not perpetrated by them or for any athletic benefit to them.

TBH, punishing the students is not the solution to the administration's idiocy. Lawsuits and jail time, however, would be.

With all due respect, I think you need to rethink this point of view.

Likewise, JetMan.

I would ask: How so?

Many of my students wouldn't be able to attend college without the help of an athletic scholarship. Punishing them would be an epic mistake. All that does is make the list of victims even longer.

Look at it this way: If you had a problem with your neighbor, would you take it out on his kids? Neither would I and neither would most reasonable people. The same logic applies here: Sandusky [and those who allowed him to continue his abuse] are the problem, so why take it out on the student athletes?

In short, the self-entitlement of the few is more damaging to society than the ignorance of the many.

The longer answer:

1. Are students with God-given athletic talents more deserving of a free ride than students without?

2. Do Division I schools hand out an amount in academic scholarships which at least totals the amount handed out in athletic scholarships? (THESE are supposed to be learning institutions after all!!!)

3. How do I feel when a guy like Plaxico Burress happens to accidentally shoot off his gun in a club I happen to frequent on the night I am there, and the bullet hits me? OR How do I feel when a guy like David Diehl happens to get pasted while watching a soccer game at his favorite Croatian Club and "accidentally" hits my car head on while I'm driving my children to wherever?

Get FUCKING real! These idiots are getting free scholarships (ie., a salary) to attend universities and learning nothing about how to behave when unleashed upon society! Is THAT not the bigger problem? Yes, Sandusky is a "damaged" human being. But, I can guarantee you that he's also contributed to the damage displayed by many of his football proteges.

Think things through before you say some of the things you're saying.

With all due respect, don't pressume I haven't thought this through...I have, numerous times. OK?

For starters, you have too many issues going on here. Some, like the Plaxico example, which are totally unrelated to the original premise of students getting into college who otherwise would not be able to afford it and on an athletic scholarship. One idiot does not predispose the entirety of student athletes Nation wide to piss poor behavior. That is endemic to society, not sports. A former student of mine [one of several dozen I could refer to] is attending a University of California campus on a full ride for tennis. Probably one of the brightest and best behaved students I have had who wouldn't be able to attend college without that scholarship. Is she planning on turning pro? Nope. She is going into the medical field. A Plaxico she is not and neither are the vast majority of other student athletes on scholarship. Most of whom will be going into academic fields of endeavor and use sports as a way into college.

Secondly, if you have a problem with a student athlete getting a scholarship to college, should they abandon the scholarship process for all students? Think of what you are saying here: Because a kid is good at a sport he shouldn't be rewarded for that by a university which will make bucket loads of money from that/those athletes? Further, is it fair that one kid is better at Biology vs. a kid who hasn't decided on his major? Should that Bio student not be rewarded either? So, only the elite few with money enough to attend college should be given access to higher education?

The scholarship program is designed to reward entering under grads for their excellence in either academics and/or sports. Where, one might posit, does that scholarship money come from? Donors is one way, but sports gate sales is a larger sum of money and a lot of it is used for general college scholarships. It is also used to help keep costs down relative to tuition...especially at the larger schools.

Lastly, as was the case with my own son [who EARNED an 80% scholarship for his musical prowess; also a "God-given" talent], in order to keep that scholarship the student must keep a 3.0 GPA, perform on the playing field/stage and at the highest levels. It's like having a full time job in addition to the student's academic responsibilities at the unniversity. Who, BTW, charge a gate fee to all their concerts and performances to help pay for scholaships. Now if you are seriously saying all student athletes are all junior Plaxico's then, with all due respect, you need to think things through before you respond. Fair?

Edited July 14, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Many of my students wouldn't be able to attend college without the help of an athletic scholarship. Punishing them would be an epic mistake. All that does is make the list of victims even longer.

I seriously doubt anyone on a football scholarship at Penn State would have that much of a problem finding another school to take them...

At a Big 10 school? The competition is unbelievable for the few spots available!

I have two former students playing for Pac-12 schools and even as good as they are [one on a full ride who wasn't a starter until his sophomore year] there were several other guys better than they were coming in. One might try to go pro, but the other is looking at a couple academic options.

Not only that, but you dump all those Penn State football players on the Big 10, that means the competition has become abitrarily tougher. Many will need to go to other schools at a smaller program where their degree field may not be offered. And what of those who might go pro? Do we also assume it will be no trouble for them to get into the draft without the Big 10 exposure? The NFL is a job/career choice, too.

This a Jazz BBS, right? How many musicians would tell you if a school shut down its music program, that wouldn't make it that much tougher to get into another college on a music scholarship? Who gets punished then? It sure as hell isn't the school's administration.

Easy, it is not, my friend.

Edited July 14, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[JETman]

I am saying that the majority of professional athletes are encouraged into a feeling of "self-entitlement". I am even saying that the majority of professional athletes are NOT what I would call model citizens.

Let's go even further back along the lines of your argument: I am even saying that maybe, just maybe, the fact that these schools DO make tons of money from the use of athletes is the cause of the problems encountered in this arena (no pun intended, obviously, since more of this bs happens in the basketball world than in the football world!).

I would contend that there are NOT "too many issues" going on in my argument. It's really only comes down to ONE issue. Don't be fooled into thinking that the schools are making athletic scholarships available in order to give the poor and disenfranchised a fair crack at college. These kids are being used and turned out. Nobody's really minding the store (despite the perception of minimum GPA requirements) and many, if not most, are coming out no smarter than when they went in. After how many soundbytes of athletes being interviewed have you come away thinking "boy that guy REALLY sounds intelligent"???

To go even further along the lines of your argument: shouldn't ALL students with ANY kind of prowess be EQUALLY entitled to some sort of scholarship? I noticed that you just glossed over my 2nd point above!

[Dave James]

I see that Penn State is planning to tear down the building where the Sandusky abuse took place. Out of sight, out of mind? NIce try. You'd think they might want to leave it standing to remind themselves that when it comes to choosing between their football program and the protection of vulnerable children, you absolutely, positively must put the children first.

[Tim McG]

I am saying that the majority of professional athletes are encouraged into a feeling of "self-entitlement". I am even saying that the majority of professional athletes are NOT what I would call model citizens.

Let's go even further back along the lines of your argument: I am even saying that maybe, just maybe, the fact that these schools DO make tons of money from the use of athletes is the cause of the problems encountered in this arena (no pun intended, obviously, since more of this bs happens in the basketball world than in the football world!).

I would contend that there are NOT "too many issues" going on in my argument. It's really only comes down to ONE issue. Don't be fooled into thinking that the schools are making athletic scholarships available in order to give the poor and disenfranchised a fair crack at college. These kids are being used and turned out. Nobody's really minding the store (despite the perception of minimum GPA requirements) and many, if not most, are coming out no smarter than when they went in. After how many soundbytes of athletes being interviewed have you come away thinking "boy that guy REALLY sounds intelligent"???

To go even further along the lines of your argument: shouldn't ALL students with ANY kind of prowess be EQUALLY entitled to some sort of scholarship? I noticed that you just glossed over my 2nd point above!

Again, you have too many moving parts here, JetMan.

Because schools give scholarships to attract the best athletes, are you saying students shouldn't take advantage of those scholarships in order to go to college? Is the only plausible answer a nefarious one and not a benevolent one? Do you honestly believe the only reason athletic scholarships are given out is to create monolithic football programs?

Your "nobody's minding the store" point is way off base and completely without merit. Are there abuses? Of course. Just like in society there are those who will circumvent the rules. I think the NCAA sanctions and punishes schools who do this, don't they? But your answer to that was to broadstroke all student athletes as entitled, self-involed Plaxico's. That would be the same thing as saying all computer tecnology majors are nerds. Nothing is 100%, my friend. Sports programs are many times corrupt pieces of athletic shit. The ACC/SEC manipulated BCS should tell you that much. But if that is the case, are you also advocating for the elmination of college sports all together? Football isn't the only system that does this kind of under handed crap. So I did address that issue.

Do I think all students should gain equally in scholarship monies offered? In a perfect world, sure. But like I tell my whiney students who loudly proclaim I'm not being fair: Life isn't fair. Get used to it. However, that does not extend to the arbitrary punishment of Penn State football players who had absolutely NOTHING to do wth the adult's inability to do the right thing.

Oh, and for the record, I paid my own way through college by way of student loans. I, if anyone, should be pissed about the athletic scholarships. However, I tell my own students that the playing field isn't level, but do anything/use anything [like race, gender, ethnic background, socio-economic status, and sports etc.] to get that degree. Even a partial scholarship will help. Because here's the deal: There may be only a small window of opportunity to get that degree, but once you have it, nobody can take it away.

Punishing those athletes would be an epic fail and a slap in the face to innocent victims of a system gone wrong. Abuse should not begat abuse and if dropping the Penn State football program is the answer to a completely unrealted tragedy then that is exactly the message being sent. Some things are wrong and they are always wrong. Punishing more innocent kids because of the abuse of a pediphile is, IMHO, absolutely absurd.

Edited July 14, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Captain Hate]

I am even saying that maybe, just maybe, the fact that these schools DO make tons of money from the use of athletes is the cause of the problems encountered in this arena

School athletic departments generally don't make money. That doesn't stop the dimwitted whores that run the places from pursuing the golden calves continually; but they run athletics as inefficiently as they do everything else.

Are there really some comments here that are extrapolating what Penn State specifically went through to every other program? I've long said that there's too much fucking money involved in college sports that perverts the mission of incorporating it into a well-balanced life; for example the ESPN Thursday night games makes me wonder if college presidents wouldn't sign off to playing at 2 in the morning if there was some extra jack in it for them. But to accuse every large program of running dens of sexual abuse of minors is making a ridiculous leap. This is a horrible cautionary tale about letting a program run amok with no accountability at any level and may manifest itself in other ways at other places. And an example should be made of this to prevent anything like it happening elsewhere again.

[Tim McG]

Jail time and lawsuits would be a great example to show other programs this is what will happen.

Punishing kids is arbitrary and utterly spiteful.

[Captain Hate]

Where are the mods?

[JETman]

But to accuse every large program of running dens of sexual abuse of minors is making a ridiculous leap.

Where did I say THIS?

This particular issue is but one of MANY issues that point to the LARGER problem.

School athletic departments generally don't make money.

THIS may be the most ridiculous statement I've read in these parts!

And Goodie, I am not pissed about the scholarships. I am pissed about what they engender. I am pissed about the message they send to kids who do not have athletic talent. I am pissed that athletes can get away with behaving like scum and still succeed in life while acting like they are above the law. I am pissed that these kids are not generally using these scholarships to become more intelligent and well rounded human beings. I am NOT advocating for the elimination of college sports. I AM advocating for placing a greater emphasis on producing human behavior which is normal and clearly within the confines of the law. An education helps to guide people towards this goal. These athletes are, unfortunately, more concerned with other things. AFAIC, how the big-time college sports programs are perceived and promoted is an indirect, if not a direct cause of this.

Funny thing -- you do not usually see professional hockey players popping up in the news on a regular basis. Many of them go to college, and participate in big-time NCAA programs. Have you ever wondered why these guys are so humble and law-abiding when compared to players in the other 3 major sports?

[Tim McG]

And Goodie, I am not pissed about the scholarships. I am pissed about what they engender. I am pissed about the message they send to kids who do not have athletic talent. I am pissed that athletes can get away with behaving like scum and still succeed in life while acting like they are above the law. I am pissed that these kids are not generally using these scholarships to become more intelligent and well rounded human beings. I am NOT advocating for the elimination of college sports. I AM advocating for placing a greater emphasis on producing human behavior which is normal and clearly within the confines of the law. An education helps to guide people towards this goal. These athletes are, unfortunately, more concerned with other things. AFAIC, how the big-time college sports programs are perceived and promoted is an indirect, if not a direct cause of this.

Funny thing -- you do not usually see professional hockey players popping up in the news on a regular basis. Many of them go to college, and participate in big-time NCAA programs. Have you ever wondered why these guys are so humble and law-abiding when compared to players in the other 3 major sports?

On this point, we completely agree, JetMan. Well put.

As to hockey, well...if slashing an opponent or beating the crap out of somebody after a hard chuck against the glass is humble and law abiding, then perhaps we are at cross purposes. That stuff is punishable by arrest/jail on the street, but hockey gets a free pass. I have a real hard time with that.

[Captain Hate]

School athletic departments generally don't make money.

THIS may be the most ridiculous statement I've read in these parts!

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html

[JETman]

And Goodie, I am not pissed about the scholarships. I am pissed about what they engender. I am pissed about the message they send to kids who do not have athletic talent. I am pissed that athletes can get away with behaving like scum and still succeed in life while acting like they are above the law. I am pissed that these kids are not generally using these scholarships to become more intelligent and well rounded human beings. I am NOT advocating for the elimination of college sports. I AM advocating for placing a greater emphasis on producing human behavior which is normal and clearly within the confines of the law. An education helps to guide people towards this goal. These athletes are, unfortunately, more concerned with other things. AFAIC, how the big-time college sports programs are perceived and promoted is an indirect, if not a direct cause of this.

Funny thing -- you do not usually see professional hockey players popping up in the news on a regular basis. Many of them go to college, and participate in big-time NCAA programs. Have you ever wondered why these guys are so humble and law-abiding when compared to players in the other 3 major sports?

On this point, we completely agree, JetMan. Well put.

As to hockey, well...if slashing an opponent or beating the crap out of somebody after a hard chuck against the glass is humble and law abiding, then perhaps we are at cross purposes. That stuff is punishable by arrest/jail on the street, but hockey gets a free pass. I have a real hard time with that.

Well, there could be a couple of reasons you feel that way. SF isn't exactly a hockey town, ya know? Checks against the boards are well within the rules of the game. There have been a few hockey players, btw, who have been prosecuted for actions clearly outside of the rules of the game -- but still taking place on a rink, NOT in a public place where the rest of us reside! This is a key point. Hockey players in general are more humble because a) many come from humble beginnings and b) most have a respect for the sport which far exceeds the respect they have even for themselves. Try teaching these things to football, basketball or even baseball players.

School athletic departments generally don't make money.

THIS may be the most ridiculous statement I've read in these parts!

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html

Has the NCAA's actions gained so much respect from you that you actually believe everything that it says?

[Tim McG]

And Goodie, I am not pissed about the scholarships. I am pissed about what they engender. I am pissed about the message they send to kids who do not have athletic talent. I am pissed that athletes can get away with behaving like scum and still succeed in life while acting like they are above the law. I am pissed that these kids are not generally using these scholarships to become more intelligent and well rounded human beings. I am NOT advocating for the elimination of college sports. I AM advocating for placing a greater emphasis on producing human behavior which is normal and clearly within the confines of the law. An education helps to guide people towards this goal. These athletes are, unfortunately, more concerned with other things. AFAIC, how the big-time college sports programs are perceived and promoted is an indirect, if not a direct cause of this.

Funny thing -- you do not usually see professional hockey players popping up in the news on a regular basis. Many of them go to college, and participate in big-time NCAA programs. Have you ever wondered why these guys are so humble and law-abiding when compared to players in the other 3 major sports?

On this point, we completely agree, JetMan. Well put.

As to hockey, well...if slashing an opponent or beating the crap out of somebody after a hard chuck against the glass is humble and law abiding, then perhaps we are at cross purposes. That stuff is punishable by arrest/jail on the street, but hockey gets a free pass. I have a real hard time with that.

Well, there could be a couple of reasons you feel that way. SF isn't exactly a hockey town, ya know? Checks against the boards are well within the rules of the game. There have been a few hockey players, btw, who have been prosecuted for actions clearly outside of the rules of the game -- but still taking place on a rink, NOT in a public place where the rest of us reside! This is a key point. Hockey players in general are more humble because a) many come from humble beginnings and b) most have a respect for the sport which far exceeds the respect they have even for themselves. Try teaching these things to football, basketball or even baseball players.

School athletic departments generally don't make money.

THIS may be the most ridiculous statement I've read in these parts!

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html

Has the NCAA's actions gained so much respect from you that you actually believe everything that it says?

Good point.

There is a respect for the hockey game which far outstrips football or basketball. However, I would argue that those aggressive behaviors are satisfied on the ice by way of the penalty box.

BTW, I only wish I could live in SF. Sadly, I couldn't afford to buy a door knob in that town

Edited July 14, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Captain Hate]

School athletic departments generally don't make money.

THIS may be the most ridiculous statement I've read in these parts!

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html

Has the NCAA's actions gained so much respect from you that you actually believe everything that it says?

I doubt there's anybody on this board that has more loathing for the NCAA than I do and that began a long time before the Penn State fiasco. But I also have read from multiple sources that college athletic programs generally operate in the red. You called it a ridiculous statement without putting up anything to refute it. I'll admit I'm wrong if you can find some documentation. I'd also be surprised if Penn State's football program wasn't operating in the black.

[Tim McG]

Where are the Mods?

[Larry Kart]

Sonnymax and others -- Since my posts yesterday here, I've talked to a professional in the field of human psychology, and he convincingly explained that your position is essentially correct and mine is essentially wrong. That is, pedophilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different kinds of behavior/states of being.

Where are the Mods?

Apologizing (see above).

[Tim McG]

No worries.

[JETman]

School athletic departments generally don't make money.

THIS may be the most ridiculous statement I've read in these parts!

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html

Has the NCAA's actions gained so much respect from you that you actually believe everything that it says?

I doubt there's anybody on this board that has more loathing for the NCAA than I do and that began a long time before the Penn State fiasco. But I also have read from multiple sources that college athletic programs generally operate in the red. You called it a ridiculous statement without putting up anything to refute it. I'll admit I'm wrong if you can find some documentation. I'd also be surprised if Penn State's football program wasn't operating in the black.

First of all, there is no such thing as "believable" documentation on the net. Secondly, why in the hell would universities run these programs if not to make money? Good will?

AFAIC, it's your perogative to remain ig'nant!

[Tim McG]

Money is a big deal this is true, but sports as a community outreach goes a long way in getting support and name recognition.

It also attracts students....non-athletic students. More to college life than just academics. Kids chose schools for the culture and legacy as well.

Sports aren't just about the money otherwise there would be no other sports than football and basketball.

The only money losers would be sports which typically don't have big gate fees. The bigger sports support them.

Edited July 14, 2012 by GoodSpeak