BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
Ok so we can just agree to disagree. I don't give a **** if it was Lombardi. If I saw that ****, I'd have said something whether it meant my job or not. I'd find employment.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
We now take you (one again) to State College, Pennsylvania.
- Thread starter Jayne Cobb
- Start date
I can admit that what I would like to think I would do in that situation and what i actually would do in that situation are probably two different things.
I'd like to think I'd blow the doors off the place. What I'd likely do is try my best to figure out a way to report the abuse and that if nothing came of it, I'd find work elsewhere.
Morality is not black and white. Is what happened there wrong? Absolutely. No question in anybody's mind. If exposing it would subject me and my family to unnecessary hardship, what's my obligation? Am I going to cause my family distress over somebody else's actions? Don't I have a moral obligation to my family? Here's a case where there are conflicting moral obligations. Pointing that out does not, in any way, justify what went on there. It's pretty clear that these abuses were reported. The blame lies at the feet of those to whom the abuses were reported and chose to do nothing. JoPa is at the top of that list.
I'd like to think I'd blow the doors off the place. What I'd likely do is try my best to figure out a way to report the abuse and that if nothing came of it, I'd find work elsewhere.
Morality is not black and white. Is what happened there wrong? Absolutely. No question in anybody's mind. If exposing it would subject me and my family to unnecessary hardship, what's my obligation? Am I going to cause my family distress over somebody else's actions? Don't I have a moral obligation to my family? Here's a case where there are conflicting moral obligations. Pointing that out does not, in any way, justify what went on there. It's pretty clear that these abuses were reported. The blame lies at the feet of those to whom the abuses were reported and chose to do nothing. JoPa is at the top of that list.
I think we all hope we would have been the one to do what should have been done.
Sadly it only needed one person to step up and nobody did.
Even sadder was that those who should have been there to take action didn't when they started getting the information
CVBuff
Well-Known Member
For those lower down in the power structure, it is a hard position. I doubt the press would have listened and the PSU administration already proved that they were deaf. A call to the cops went unheeded. Pretty hard to ruin a career by reporting again and again. But for Papa Joe and those in the administrative leadership positions who knew and knew for years, there is absolutely no excuse, and now, no indemnification.
Agreed. Where it applies is with everyone below and around JoePa doing what he told them was their job... protecting the reputation of the program, doing what he says, and not looking too closely at the decisions he makes. JoePa fits with the sociopath/psychopath/narcissist profile of many leaders that I described and which was allowed to run amok at PSU due to a lack of checks & balances on his power.
Deleted member 807
Guest
The thing is that people are always at different places in their careers and have various degrees of risk when it comes to whistleblowing.
A 30-year veteran or recent retiree from the State College PD, or some coach at the end of a career had much less to loose than some up-and-comer with a new child and a steep mortgage.
Attorneys stand at the ready to hear a victim's case and decide whether or not the evidence supports a trial.
The stigma of sexual abuse makes it hard for young victims to talk about, let alone bring to the attention of authorities. I hope that the PSU and Catholic Church scandals help provide avenues for victims to come forward in the pursuit of justice.
I still maintain, however, that comparing sexual abuse with the Tobacco or DuPont Teflon stories is a stretch. It takes a chemist to sort out health impacts. It doesn't take an advanced degree to figure out rape is wrong.
I just watched the movie Concussion with Will Smith last night. It took 7 years from a the time Umalo's first medical paper was published until the NFL admitted a problem existed.
Yes, there are risks of retaliation for whistleblowers. But fortunately this country has laws that make whistleblowing less risky than it could be.
A 30-year veteran or recent retiree from the State College PD, or some coach at the end of a career had much less to loose than some up-and-comer with a new child and a steep mortgage.
Attorneys stand at the ready to hear a victim's case and decide whether or not the evidence supports a trial.
The stigma of sexual abuse makes it hard for young victims to talk about, let alone bring to the attention of authorities. I hope that the PSU and Catholic Church scandals help provide avenues for victims to come forward in the pursuit of justice.
I still maintain, however, that comparing sexual abuse with the Tobacco or DuPont Teflon stories is a stretch. It takes a chemist to sort out health impacts. It doesn't take an advanced degree to figure out rape is wrong.
I just watched the movie Concussion with Will Smith last night. It took 7 years from a the time Umalo's first medical paper was published until the NFL admitted a problem existed.
Yes, there are risks of retaliation for whistleblowers. But fortunately this country has laws that make whistleblowing less risky than it could be.
To this point: Mike McQueary is no longer working as a football coach. I suspect that he's been blackballed now because HCs and programs aren't confident they can trust him. Other PSU assistants have gotten other jobs.
It is difficult for a person in today's society with our level of education and awareness of all the various evils in the world to understand how something like this could happen. Before judging the reactions of everyone involved in something that happened as long as 40 years ago, take into account when it happened and the state of society. It is not uncommon for people of that generation to simply not talk about evils, be unaware of the signs (because those things were never taught or talked about), or simply believe that certain things could not have happened.
Even though we will never be able to eliminate these kinds of crimes, I do think we will see fewer and fewer of these types of cases that went undiscovered for years after they happened, namely because we as a society are better at recognizing the warning signs and reporting our suspicions.
Even though we will never be able to eliminate these kinds of crimes, I do think we will see fewer and fewer of these types of cases that went undiscovered for years after they happened, namely because we as a society are better at recognizing the warning signs and reporting our suspicions.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
Not disagreeing with you, just a question. Wouldn't it be worth it, coaching or not, that he at least came forward? It would to me but that's mho.
I guess it depends on how you're made, you know? If he is driven by his own internal compass to a very high degree, then he's probably doing fine. But he has lost his career. His name is forever associated with this and mostly in a bad way since most of the press around him was negative that he didn't do more after reporting it and having it put into the hands of the HC and AD. He's had to spend money on attorneys and spend years testifying. He has alienated himself from many of his lifelong friends and acquaintances in the PSU and Pennsylvania community. So was it worth it? Hard to say. I would like to think that when he looks in the mirror and realizes that he lit the match here that led to Sandusky behind bars, changes made at PSU and elsewhere, and doubtlessly saving more kids from going through what others had... that he is able to feel peace in that it was 100% worth it.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
I can live with that response, agree with it. To me, I wouldn't care if it meant me not coaching anymore. Feel bad for the guy but some things are more important than your career. I'm sure he landed on his feet somewhere.
The Holocaust was largely a rumor during the war. The Final Solution was only proven factual as Russians and other allies encountered concentration camps as they took German held territory. Movies and the media paint it to be a known fact all along but that wasnt the case. Nazi Germany was definitely hostile towards the Jews, encouraging or forcing emigration out of German held teritory, but they didnt get into extermination until about ~1940. Most concentration camps were established right around then.
I really hope that this is the case, it should be. He was either highly courageous or simply a man who's basic decency overrode his reasons not to do the right thing. Either way he did something very few people can claim, he made a real and positive difference in the world and did it without any expectation of personal gain and likely knowing that it would at minimum make his life harder.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
Read Band of Brothers bro, it's about as good as the series was. You'll learn way more about how all that horrible **** went down, stuff they don't talk about on tv.
somebody
Well-Known Member
Meh. One man's abomination is another's abdomination.
This is where I am at.
The definition of institutional control is having a structure in place that insures oversight and makes athletics accountable. In the case of PSU their own investigation showed that the "higher ups" were answering to Paterno and that the final decisions (not just on this situation) were his. The checks and balances that are supposed to exist based on membership in the NCAA were not in effect.
So where do you draw the line? If 10 players get arrested for DUI over a couple years, do you punish the school for lack of institutional control? Or are only certain crimes worthy of NCAA sanctions? If so, which ones? NCAA enforcement pretty much sucks and you guys want to expand their power?
You certainly draw the line someplace below rape and murder.
I think the big issue here is not the individual crimes as much as it is programs that foster an environment where multiple criminal acts are covered up by the school. The question is if the athletic departments are putting innocent people at risk of being victims in the name of winning games and if the administration of the schools lacks the oversight to hold the athletic department responsible and make changes.
In the cases of both Pedo State and ****Baylor the issue is not individual crimes, it is an ongoing pattern of criminal activity which not only the coaches but those above them knew and failed to act to end the criminal behavior.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
You draw the line between right and wrong, it's not that difficult. You recruit the person as well as what you see on film. Tried to say it, maybe I did better this time.
somebody
Well-Known Member
All crimes including lack of institutional control have historically had relative punishment. Sure the NCAA completely sucks as an administrative body, but that doesn't mean you give offenders a clear field. And if I'm drawing lines, it's pretty ****ing far from pedophilia.
I agree. The NCAA has a limited scope of authority that generally is for insuring a fair and level playing field among collegiate athletic institutions. To delve into things outside that, and where laws already exist, is kind of pointless. These are matters of poor personal decisions and best left to the criminal and civil courts.
Yes, the NFL has weighed into domestic and other personal matters which I am not sure they should. But they're doing from a reputational point of view and are not a quasi government agency. The NFLs player are also near employees who receive compensation while NCAA players are unpaid armatures.
CVBuff
Well-Known Member
This isn't analogous to players getting DUI's. Imagine a coach using the football program to manipulate and embezzle funds from donors for 20 years with the full knowledge of the head coach and school administration, who purposefully look the other way. You don't think the NCAA would/could act? The coach in this instance used the football program to lure young boys into a shower with the full knowledge of Papa Joe and the PSU AD and president. How screwed up can those 3 people be not to act? And how screwed up can the fans be for being angry that they were caught?
BTW, too many of those abused years ago will not come forward for a well recognized reason. Abusers often start abusing kids themselves. They fail to report past abuse to avoid any spot light. Sexual abuse is a gift that keeps on giving.
BTW, too many of those abused years ago will not come forward for a well recognized reason. Abusers often start abusing kids themselves. They fail to report past abuse to avoid any spot light. Sexual abuse is a gift that keeps on giving.
I think where the situations differ is this hypothetical would technically affect student athletes and athletic competition, which is what the NCAA has jurisdiction over. The argument that Duff and Nik make is that what Sandusky, Joe Pa, etc. did was a criminal act and cover up that was directly affecting student athletes or athletic competition. I see the differences, but that doesn't mean I agree with them, though.
What I've read in this thread is people wanting SOMEONE to hold PSU accountable for their inaction, not necessarily the NCAA. I also think your analogy with DUIs rings a little false- it might be more similar if the football team was repeatedly enabling the drunk drivers by holding remote activities where they supplied free alcohol and no transportation.
I also think that what has happened at PSU would give everyone pause if they encountered a situation like this, no matter their convictions. Personally, I would like to think that I'd do the right thing, but I see what Mike McQuerry has sacrificed vs. what has happened to PSU (virtually nothing). I don't know that I could force my family to give up everything so that a stranger might have some level of justice served to them.
Also, and maybe this has already been covered, isn't pretty much anyone in the administration with knowledge of this facing charges? They are state employees that work with children, so aren't they mandatory reporters?
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
The Ncaa has no backbone, I don't know exactly what they can do on their end. I just know something should be done by the Ncaa and the legal system. My brother still coaches down in Texas and he said he's heard chatter about Art Briles being in hot water. Said everybody was chirping about it. I asked, what do you mean, u think they will fire him? He simply said, just a matter of time. Idk what to think of that.