Joe Paterno has passed. How do you view his legacy? - Page 3

I'll have to say that I thought Paterno's excuse for failing to take more aggressive action about the child-rape case was pretty lame--that as a man of his age, he just couldn't conceive of "male on male rape." What nonsense! My grandfather was born 37 years before Joe Paterno, and I can recall him warning me at a very early age to beware of the "filthy pansies" (his customary term for the gay set), who were wont to "bugger up little boys" (his exact words).

I see Paterno as sort of a tragic figure. He had created a proud legacy, but his flaw was that he more or less turned a blind eye when filthy crimes were being committed right under his nose!

Interesting how nobody in the media seems want to talk about how an utterly disproportionate number of these serial child-molestation cases are homosexual in nature.

Do you have a turd in your pocket?

"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones"

This is a really base appeal to emotion. It's not comprehensive or even that compelling, considering what it's reactionary to.

I'd like to see the proof of this. It seems like speculation to me considering that if authorities had evidence of what this sentence implies he'd actually be complicit instead of at worst, aware, and at the very least, once speculative and then wrongly assured. Also, even if Paterno demonstrated departmental and legal influence before, arguing this point on probability (if you could even figure such a thing) or on assumption, without evidence, seems pretty thin.

Was there? If I'm not mistaken Sandusky may have been accused of molestation or rape at some point, but was never convicted. If that's the case the only knowledge was of his accusation, at least if you respected the opinion of the courts. Do you think people should lose their jobs or suffer socially for something that could be a false accusation and that they were acquitted of?

The idea is incomprehensibly horrible. If something along those lines were reported to me I'm sure I'd be horrified and would report it to the police, as opposed to Paterno who reported it to PENN. But I think people aren't questioning this narrative as carefully as they should. What if a colleague of yours who you've trusted for years was accused of something you couldn't believe? What if Paterno had a naive faith that PENN would do the right thing? If you consider these things it's possible for Paterno to go from being a person possessing contemptible negligence to someone who was naive or conflicted and maybe deserving of sympathy. Look, I'm not appealing to ignorance or straw man-ing here, I just think a lot of people are relying on assumption to condemn him. I personally would reserve judgement if there are areas that are unknown.

This is more speculation.

This is also a pretty thin point, based entirely on assumption, and is more about instinct than knowledge, but to play devil's advocate what about Socrates or Sir Thomas Moore who lived and DIED by their beliefs? In fact, if you look up the lives of a lot of Greek philosophers you will find a pretty short, but especially tragic, list of philosopher's who died for their beliefs. There is a stoicist or cynist, if I'm not mistaken, that endured a horrendously prolonged death.

Your tossing around the term "morality" is especially irresponsible considering the profession you're about to go into. Lawyers have to have taken an ethics course at some point, right? Have you taken one? No one really is an authority on morality. Someone like Immanuel Kant might find nothing wrong with Paterno's behavior and have a really compelling reason as to why.

For emphasis once more, I don't have an opinion on Paterno because I don't think I know enough. My problem is that I think people think they do know enough. That said, if someone has a credible and compelling piece of reporting I'll totally change my mind. Why wouldn't I? But from what I've read there isn't enough information to warrant these kinds of opinions. Another bothersome aspect of these arguments is that I do not think they put enough emphasis on the higher ups at PENN or the aide who witnessed the occurrence firsthand and was actually in the position to do something about it.

Then again, I could be wrong. I got Sandusky's name wrong and I think I admitted to not having more than a passing interest in the whole thing earlier. What this thread needs are relevant parameters, which I would think would be legal and ethical knowledge and a comprehensive piece of reporting, instead of misinformation, speculation, and cheap condemnation and support for Paterno.
Edited by boogaboogabooga - 1/25/12 at 3:27pm

Perfect. So you can fill us in on the rationale behind the hearsay evidence rule and the exceptions around it and how they may or may not apply to Paterno.

Or how a disproportionate number of serial child-molesters are men? I think it's generally accepted knowledge in the medical community that there exists a disproportionate ratio of homosexual pedophiles to heterosexual pedophiles. You should also be aware that what the psychological community considers pedophilia and what the media and general population consider pedophilia, differ in a lot of ways. Check Wikipedia. Also, is your last statement implying anything towards homosexuals or the nature of homosexuality?
Edited by boogaboogabooga - 1/25/12 at 3:28pm

Bump for polemics!

I heard Nicolas Refn failed to report a child molestation!

Since I now teach at a university in Pennsylvania, after having taught for 20 years at a state school whose football teams have won multiple national championships, I can provide some real information relevant to the quotes below.

Although I have no knowledge of what JP may or may not have know beyond what the media has written was reported to him, I can report that it is not unusual for a football coach to be more powerful and influential than the university president or, indeed, the governor of the state. A long-time friend who is now retired from Penn State (not "Penn"; Penn is an Ivy League school in Philadelphia) until recently would regale me with stories of how great JP was as a football coach, a supporter of academics, including the library, and a fine human being.

Whether or not people should lose their jobs when accused of child molestation is open to debate, but my university's policy on the matter is clear: "Any employee against whom a credible accusation of child abuse has been made as determined by a preponderance of the evidence, on or off campus, is subject to University discipline up to and including termination." Note that "a preponderance of the evidence" is a much less onerous burden of proof than that used in legal proceedings.

Again, my university's policy is clear: incidents must be reported to campus police, university legal counsel, or the HR office for further investigation. Failure to do so will result in "University discipline up to and including termination." A failure of these officials to investigate will likewise result in "University discipline up to and including termination." Although this implies that only the officials would be subject to disciplinary action upon their failure to investigate, it is not clear whether the person reporting would also be subject to discipline if these officials fail to investigate and the person reporting takes no further action to report the incident to someone who will investigate.

According to what I read in the local newspapers, JP satisfied his legal responsibilities according to the letter of the law by reporting the incident to the proper university authorities for investigation. IMO, his professional legacy will remain as a fine football coach and mentor of young men, but his personal legacy is sadly tarnished. While he fulfilled his legal responsibilities, he reneged on his moral obligations to ensure that someone was investigating the allegations and thus allowed an alleged child abuser to potentially continue his behavior. The man was a fine football coach and a deeply flawed human being.

.

You're on!