What
was the right choice in 1998?
In
1998, there was a confidential police investigation that included
District Attorney oversight and an investigation by The Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare (DPW). In fact, the
abundance of evidence indicates that the DPW, despite having access
to their hotline whistleblower, a PhD psychiatrist, and her clear
report that Sandusky was a pedophile in the grooming stages, and the
police investigative actions, failed to do a thorough investigation.
The DPW conducted a rushed “investigation”, brought in an
unlicensed expert to conduct cold interviews and quickly filed a
report with the DA indicating not only no crime, but no evidence of
any behavior typical of a pedophile.
This
report, no crime/no pedophile, was made by a government agency whose
core mission includes protecting children in Pennsylvania. This
report was filed despite hard evidence to the contrary by the
whistleblower, Dr. Chambers.
Mr.
Emmert penalties start in 1998 so he clearly felt that Penn State and
the football program did not make the right choice at that time.
Likely,
unless laws were broken and confidential information leaked, the
football program did not have access to the details available to the
DA and DPW. The Athletic Director and coach may (or one or both may
not have) known that an investigation took place and Sandusky
cleared. There is no hard evidence that they knew any details.
It
should have been incumbent on Mr. Emmert to explain why he thought
PSU had enough information in 1998 to make a right choice and what
that choice should have been.
Let’s
give Emmert huge leeway with his thinking about 1998. Let’s assume
PSU should have assumed that the existence of an investigation of a
senior employee alone was a basis for making a right choice in 1998.
So
what is the most aggressive action that PSU could have taken in
1998?
PSU
was Sandusky’s employer in 1998. They could have fired him based on
unacceptable behavior by a senior employee (showering and physical
contact with a minor). Since he was not charged criminally, the
university would have been limited to a confidential severance
agreement, that are typical and could have included severing all
access and ties to the university. Perhaps paying for counseling and
breaking ties with The Second Mile would have been included in the
right choice at the right time. The victim was already under expert
psychiatric care.
My
guess is the actions above might have satisfied Emmert’s standard
of the right choice. If done at the conclusion of the DA’s case,
Emmert might agree that it would meet the right time standard.
What
proof exists that “hero worship, the “culture of sport” and
“winning at any cost” were motivation for PSU to not make the
right choice at the right time in 1998?
Let’s
move on to motivation for not making the right choice in 1998.
Freeh
offered inconclusive emails that Joe Paterno might have had knowledge
of an investigation. That proves nothing, even if true. Paterno would
not have been entitled to any detailed information of a criminal
investigation other than the conclusion.
Gary
Schultz and Graham Spanier knew of the investigation and did not make
the right choice at the time according to Emmert’s standard. But
why didn’t they? What information did they have? Freeh doesn’t
tell us.
All
of the evidence in Freeh’s report indicates they believed it was
not a serious matter, i.e. investigated and no criminal findings.
Isn’t it more likely that their inaction was driven by inadequate
information, poor judgment or other factors?
Where
is the hard proof that allowed Emmert (Freeh) to conclude that the
culture of hero worship and culture of sport was the motivation for
Graham Spanier as top guy at PSU to not to make the right choice in
1998.
The
Freeh report doesn’t provide any proof that Spanier and others
believed they were not making the right choices in 1998. So Freeh
speculates, and Emmert accepts, that the leaders conspired to not
take more action to protect Paterno and his football program. Further
Emmert does not focus on his fellow PhD University President, Dr.
Spanier, but makes prejudicial unfair derisive references to the
football coach (“hero worship”). Likewise, Freeh uses a bundling
technique of “the four most senior leaders” of PSU, as if they
are all equals and operated in concert…. both false inferences.
Speculation
is not proof….not even close. I can speculate a higher probability
reason that no action was taken in 1998 than the populist notion of
all about protecting Paterno/football. Speculation is educated
guessing. The penalties are too severe to be based on speculation of
motive.
The
burden is on Mr. Emmert to provide hard evidence and prove the
motivation for PSU not making what he believes would have been right
choices. If the motive was not football, the NCAA does not have a
basis to act.
Freeh
did not prove the motive. An opinion by Mr. Freeh is opinion not
fact. There is no evidence in the Freeh report that proves or even
suggests that protecting the hero worship culture of Paterno /
football was a motivation for not making the right choice at the
right times.
There
is no evidence that anyone believed they were failing to make the
right choice.
Freeh
and Emmert downplayed the PA Dept. of Welfare, the adult experts in
the room, whose investigator Mr. Lauro’s incompetence or willful
actions missed leads that easily should have exposed Sandusky. Yet,
we are to conclude that a football coach should have solved this
puzzle, even after the DPW and DA gave it an all clear. Nonsense.
What would have been the adverse
impact on PSU football and Paterno had the right choice, as inferred
by Emmert, been made in 1998?
Short
answer is Nothing.
Sandusky
retires a year earlier and a strong confidential agreement is
negotiated.
What
would have been the impact on Emmert’s concept of “hero worship”,
i.e. admiration for Paterno? Again nothing. Impact on winning
football games? Nothing. Impact on recruiting? Nothing. Impact on
football revenues? Nothing.
Conclusion
for 1998 events: some argument but not a no brainer, that more “right
choices” could have been made; zero proof that right choices not
made because of culture of hero worship / football; zero evidence
that making the right choices would have had significant damage to
Paterno/football.
Any
reasonable executive would easily conclude that not doing the right
thing is the riskiest choice. Emmert wants us to believe that these
smart guys got together and decided hey let’s do the wrong thing or
this will embarrass Joe and PSU football. Utter nonsense and
unencumbered by any facts.
Let’s
look at 2001:
First,
it’s not clear what all four knew from McQueary, as there are
conflicting reports and a decade later of reconstructing very brief
discussions. What is clear is that McQueary did not report seeing
rape.
Let’s
go with benefit of doubt again and say that despite it looking like a
repeat of 1998 DPW conclusions, that PSU should have done more even
though not clear who had what information.
The “right choice
at the right time” might have been for PSU to report McQueary’s
account to police, DA, and Pa DPW. Further the right choice might
have included reopening the retirement agreement, regardless of
criminal findings, and banning Sandusky access to PSU for life and
leveraging TSM charity to do likewise. It might also include trying
to identify and help the alleged victim. I’m presuming these
potential actions would have satisfied Emmert as a right choice in
2001, especially if the incompetent DPW didn’t fail to properly
investigate as done in 1998 and follow the lead to victims identified
years later and break the case wide open.
PSU
did not make those choices. Who/Why? Mr. Freeh’s report, not his
opinionated executive summary, simply provides no evidence that the
decision to not make the right choice was based on preserving Joe
Paterno’s so called hero status or protecting their storied
football program. Freeh cannot even determine who made the call to do
nothing.
All
of the evidence indicates that the reason for not acting was same as
1998. In this case Mr. Schultz testified that he felt no crime was
committed. Spanier said it was not a huge deal to him and he thought
it involved horseplay, something that was not out of character for
Sandusky.
But
who has the burden of proof here? Clearly it rests with Mr. Emmert to
explain why and how he concluded that 2001 failure to make the right
choice was all about football.
There
are other very plausible possibilities such as simply poor judgment /
different moral compass of Mr. Spanier. Others include a potential
destruction of The Second Mile, probably one of the higher profile
children's charities in the country. Another possibility is empathy
for Sandusky and not wrecking his life because he pushes boundaries
as concluded by the PA Dept. of Public Welfare in 1998. Clearly
Schultz and Spanier may have concluded that it was 1998
revisited…that is boundary issues with no evidence of assault….the
2012 jury found Sandusky not guilty of the 2001 event. Spanier may
have reasoned that informing Second Mile, banning children, and
asking TSM to help Sandusky was a reasonable choice.
So
given multiple potential reasons for not making the right choice at
the right time in 2001, only one is offered up, that being hero
worship/football, and no credible evidence to support that finding.
Other credible possibilities are not investigated and ruled out.
What
was the advantage to Paterno, the subject of hero worship, and the
culture of sports by not making the right choice in 2001?
If
the right choice was made, and the resulting investigation would have
broken the case (no guarantee), it would clearly have been a huge
embarrassment for PSU to have such a revered figure turn out to be a
serial child abuser / criminal. It would have raised questions about
1998. Penn State would argue that 1998 was handled properly and
eventually someone might have found the real scandal – the Pa Dept.
of Welfare had the info to solve this case in 1998 and failed to do
so.
Emmert
concludes that Penn State University did not make the right choices
at the right time in 2001 because doing the right thing would have
damaged Joe Paterno and their storied football program. Usually,
doing the right thing doesn’t destroy anything, doing the wrong
thing is another story.
Ask
yourself, had Penn State done the right thing in 2001, per an assumed
but very strict Emmert standard, would football revenues, recruiting,
reputation been severely damaged. You can only answer yes if someone
could prove that they knew Sandusky was a pedophile long before 2001
and 1998. There is zero proof of that.
Mr.
Emmert has levied the most punitive sanctions in the history of
sports. The economic and collateral damage to students, businesses,
athletes, students, state revenues, Big ten revenues, alumni and
other is likely staggering. All of this might was directed at
football because he declared football to be the problem.
Yet
there is no proof that football nor some notion lazily and
prejudicially called “hero worship” motivated the President of
PSU to not make the right choices that Emmert felt should have been
made. There is also no reasonable evidence that had the right choices
been made, anyone other than Jerry Sandusky might have been seriously
impacted outside of normal embarrassment when a high profile revered
figure fails. Did Mark McGuire’s juicing bring down Tony LaRusso
and the St Louis Cardinals?
Where
there is an abundance of evidence over decades is that PSU football
culture included strict policy enforcement for academics, recruiting,
BCS leading graduation rates, and discipline such as benching some of
their greatest players in bowl games for minor infractions.
Joe
Paterno asserted late in his life that the Sandusky scandal was not a
football scandal. Mr. Emmert, it wasn’t the football coach, who
was making the wrong choices. If wrong choices were made the buck
stops with your fellow PHD and University President. He too deserves
the right to defend his actions as he maintains he made the right
choices and was given no opportunity to testify.
So Mr. Emmert, the fact that you rendered
a punishment that will create a decade of destruction without
hearings, zero due process and only with a media windstorm in your
sails says one thing:
Mark
Emmert, YOU made the wrong choice at the wrong time. You had to have
football as the motive; otherwise you could not justify your
jurisdiction.
There
is no reason to believe that had Sandusky been a Professor of Biology
that Spanier would have done anything differently. There is strong
evidence to support that speculation, since a non-football charge of
sexual abuse was presented to Spanier and he rejected it outright.
Someone,
or some Court needs to stop you before more damage is done. The
sanctions were a gross overreach based entirely on assigning a motive
rather than proving one.
Suspend
these sanctions and conduct open hearings to get the facts as to what
motivated Penn State University to do less than what you believe
should have been done. If the motive proves to be football
protection, reinstate the sanctions. If
you can’t prove it was football/sports driven, revoke the
sanctions, apologize and go back in your box and reinstate due
process at the NCAA.
Thomas
Greene Six
Mile South Carolina
NCAA sanctions: The third option
