TCPeppyTc Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 How do you people feel about this man being fired for his Sex abuse negligence? I personally feel he should have been fired, but there are a lot saying he should stay, given how long he has stayed. This reminds me sadly, too much of the Catholic hierarchy response to the priests. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Anyone wanna clue me in on -what- exactly he was fired for? Did he not report the abuse, participate in it, etc? Either way, I believe that small-scale riot was simply uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Yeah, it is really sad to see him go this way…He is the winningest coach in college football and people have/had a lot of respect for him… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPeppyTc Posted November 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I know. It seems he didnt do anything bad, just did not do anything good. I might be inclied to say he should stay if not for the fact that he knew the abuser well and the abuser was his heir apparent. Its terrible for the school though. Joe Paterno is everywhere there: halls named after him, food named after him, the biggest and best of the school all brought down by negligence. Still though he knew how he should act, and he did not, so that is that in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Anyone wanna clue me in on -what- exactly he was fired for? Did he not report the abuse, participate in it, etc? Either way, I believe that small-scale riot was simply uncalled for. He was fired because it is believed that he did not do enough to bring this abuse to the attention of the authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 He was fired because it is believed that he did not do enough to bring this abuse to the attention of the authorities. Ahh, gotcha; so he didn't actually -commit- anything. There has to be more to this story IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fira-Astrali Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Ahh, gotcha; so he didn't actually -commit- anything. There has to be more to this story IMO. I think it was fair, if you even have a teeny, tiny, weedling little inkling that there are people being abused in the way being alleged, you need to bring it to the authorities immediately. If you don't, isn't that accessory? Just turning a blind eye is wrong. I, however, am working on limited information as well :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myu Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I'm having trouble finding information on this as well. Not sure why since it seems a big to do. By all the extreme reactions going around, I assumed he had sexually abused someone. Wasn't he announcing that he was going to retire at the end of the season when he was fired? Apparently they only notified him a few minutes before his speech, which is kind of shitty but that's how things go sometimes. Anyway, I think it was fair for him to be fired. He was going to retire anyway. Yes, it's going to interfere with Penn State's football team and whatever practicing/plays they had going, but you can't just let something that involves abuse go unpunished. Even if you didn't have a direct role in it, that doesn't make it okay and excusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I think it was fair, if you even have a teeny, tiny, weedling little inkling that there are people being abused in the way being alleged, you need to bring it to the authorities immediately. If you don't, isn't that accessory? Just turning a blind eye is wrong. I, however, am working on limited information as well :S I see your point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 This is a big deal because Paterno is (or, was) a very well respected figure in college football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPeppyTc Posted November 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Does anyone think the Catholic analogy is a good one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 The analogy would work better if the authorities were turning a blind eye to child abuse cases throughout the entire system as opposed to just in one institution and apparently in one instance, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPeppyTc Posted November 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Both were people in authority knowing but doing nothing about child abuse, so I thought it was somewhat fitting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 It's not. The Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal is on a completely different scale, in extent and time, and reaches much more important people, like, say, the Pope. It is not a useful comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxMcCloud Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Does anyone think the Catholic analogy is a good one? It's not. The Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal is on a completely different scale, in extent and time, and reaches much more important people, like, say, the Pope. It is not a useful comparison. I agree with Unoservix on this statement, the level and the extent of the sex scandal is on a different level then the Joe Paterno incident. At least in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I'm not sure what to say, yes it's wrong that he didn't say anything, but I don't think that Penn State should have fired him. I think they should have done something to punish him but not something that's going to hurt the team as well as him, he was even retiring at the end of the season, which really sucks. And this may sound really stupid, but hear me out here, the guy's 84, might things have been different in his time? And maybe human error had something to do with it? Sure, child abuse is still child abuse, and there's no excuse in the world that could possibly make that right, but back in the 50's and 60's Were things the same? Try looking at things from his era, maybe what was going on in his life, there has to be some reason other than "The good of the team" why he didn't speak up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 It was not any more smiled upon to rape children in the 50s and 60s than it is now. So, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"User" Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 It was not any more smiled upon to rape children in the 50s and 60s than it is now. So, no. He wasn't talking about the act of rape itself he was referring to the processes and investigations that would have occurred back then due to allegations. Ask anyone who's over 60 today and they will tell you that back in the day things like this had more of a tendency to fly under the table and brushed aside rather than get incredible media attention like it is now. In any case, Paterno needs to do the moral thing here and come clean. He shouldn't go the route of what Tiger Woods did and beat around the brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPeppyTc Posted November 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 @ Unoservix. You are of course right about child rape and the 50s and 60s. Most people thought it was terrible back then as now. But that does not mean the victims were treated the same then as they are now. Most people ( myself included) thought the bishops who covered up and didnt report all those sex crimes from the 60s and 70s were terrible. Yet only later did I figure out that in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, it was far more difficult to press criminal charges against pedophiles than it is now. It was a crime back then, but there weren't as many sympathetic lawyers and cops for the victims, the victims spoke out less, and were believed less by their parents/ other authority figures. As far as I know, pedophilia/ child abuse did not become an issue most people knew or talked about until the early-mid 1980s. This still makes what those bishops did bad, but it just gives more of a context for those tragedies. And at Arashikage, just because the guy was 84, doesnt mean he was oblivious to everything going on around him. He knew the laws, and would have had to be living under a rock not to hear about the harm of the Catholic scandals. Though his coverup was not nearly the same extent as the Catholic bishops, I believe he may have had the same mindset. Protect the image of the institution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 He wasn't talking about the act of rape itself he was referring to the processes and investigations that would have occurred back then due to allegations. Ask anyone who's over 60 today and they will tell you that back in the day things like this had more of a tendency to fly under the table and brushed aside rather than get incredible media attention like it is now. I know. And it's still a ridiculous assertion because it didn't happen in the 1960s, it happened in 2002. If the Catholic priest scandals are of any use in comparison here, it's in the insularity, the knee-jerk cover-up reaction, and putting image before all else that Penn State seems to have done here. Rape did and still does frequently get swept under the carpet so as not to embarrass anyone, and yet when it does come out, like now, as long as the case meets those special requirements for tugging the public's heartstrings, it becomes a media shitstorm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asper Sarnoff Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I don't have much information to base my opinion on. But if indeed the guy fully knew it was going on, then neglecting to intervene or report it makes him almost as guilty as those who comitted the crime itself IMO. Nothing good has ever come out of apathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPeppyTc Posted November 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 At Unoservix. True rape does get swept under rug, but less so now, due to all the awareness and publicity it has, the research, as well as the feminist movement which helped both female rape victims and child molestation victims, (though it gets less credit for the second one). So because of this, people who have covered up for sex abusers since the 1980s have less excuse than their predecessors did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 and would have had to be living under a rock not to hear about the harm of the Catholic scandals. Yeaaah, I don't live under a rock and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention "Catholic Scandals." And this may sound really stupid, but hear me out here, the guy's 84, might things have been different in his time? And maybe human error had something to do with it? Sure, child abuse is still child abuse, and there's no excuse in the world that could possibly make that right, but back in the 50's and 60's Were things the same? Try looking at things from his era, maybe what was going on in his life, there has to be some reason other than "The good of the team" why he didn't speak up. I'm inclined to agree; different times held different norms, attitudes toward certain issues, etc. I think that straight out firing him for having a ridiculously indirect position toward this scandal was a bit drastic and harsh. That said, the small-scale riot was uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fira-Astrali Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I'm inclined to agree; different times held different norms, attitudes toward certain issues, etc. I think that straight out firing him for having a ridiculously indirect position toward this scandal was a bit drastic and harsh. That said, the small-scale riot was uncalled for. He did not have a "rediculously indirect position", he knew what was going on and did nothing to stop these children coming to harm. He might as well have been involved if he knew and did nothing. And you can't call on the past to excuse the actions of the present. Some old guy doesn't get away with calling a black person the N word just because his time held different norms, and child molestation is something that has always been looked down upon as immoral. And when he says Catholic Scandal, he's talking about the instances of sexual abuse of minors by priests within the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 He did not have a "ridiculously indirect position", he knew what was going on and did nothing to stop these children coming to harm. He might as well have been involved if he knew and did nothing. And you can't call on the past to excuse the actions of the present. Some old guy doesn't get away with calling a black person the N word just because his time held different norms, and child molestation is something that has always been looked down upon as immoral. And when he says Catholic Scandal, he's talking about the instances of sexual abuse of minors by priests within the church. I'd honestly like to know the full extent of his knowledge of the abuse; I feel that the entire thing is a bit incomplete. That said, you do have a point; if things are as clearcut as that, he should have been reprimanded at least, and punished severely at most. I see what you mean concerning the era/time-period. And thanks for the clarification on that Catholic Scandal bit, I knew of its existence but wasn't entirely sure what in particular was being referred to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts