<p>Exhibit 3B is an email discussion (From Pres Spanier replying to AD Curly) about the offer to make Sandusky a professor Emeritus despite his lack of qualifications. But ignore that. It briefly changes course and documents how Joe wants to see if anything can be done for Joe Sarra, a defensive coach that Joe wants to take care of. Spanier says "We are looking for a dean of the Eberly College Science. Does Joe Sarra have any background there?"</p>
<p>That Mr. Paterno used the academic side of the university as a dumping ground for former players and coaches is well documented. That it went so far that the university President would consider making a completely unqualified former coach the Dean of the college of sciences is stunning. While Sarra was ultimately not given the post, that this was even considered is a stunning indictment to Mr. Paterno's ability to corrupt the core of the university's academic mission.</p>
<p>I think it's time for the AAU to step in and seriously consider the depths to which Mr. Paterno corrupted Penn State's academic mission.</p>
Please provide these documents - I am not aware of any Penn State coaches or players who actually moved into academic positions, and would love to see what you are talking about. I am not trying to defend the email, I have no idea what was going on there, whether he was being sarcastic or if this was a serious offer (Joe Sarra became an administrative assistant for “special projects” under Paterno - no idea what this entailed but it certainly was not an academic position), but I have not seen anything like this actually come to fruition.</p>
<p>PSU should pay attention to Rutgers 1000. They are a group seeking to de-emphasize atheltics at Rutgers because the see how athletics can infiltrate and erode a college’s academic mission. Rutgers staff and students can see the problem without a scandal. </p>
<p>Even after children’s lives we destroyed, PSU fans are more woried about how the scandal might affect their team’s record and future recruiting. </p>
I have the Freeh report open right now, and there is no section 3B. Exhibit 3B is a single email from Spanier, replying to a request to find a position for Joe Sarra and mentioning the need for a Dean of the College of Science. There is no mention of any serious consideration of this idea, nor any mention in the report that I have seen of athletic staff transitioning into actual academic positions for which they are not otherwise qualified*. The exhibit is included in the report because the same email mentions that Sandusky would be remaining a coach for one year and then retiring, rather than stepping into an assistant athletics director position, not as evidence of academic/athletic transitions at PSU.</p>
<p>*: Actually, there is no indication of them transitioning into academic roles for which they ARE qualified, either, but I am assuming that would not be a problem anyway.</p>
Is is the same problem, or a different one? And how much of it is unique to Rutgers? Looking at their page, it appears that a large part of their complaint is the drain on the budget due to the athletic department, but at many schools (PSU included) athletics is independent of the rest of the budget, so killing the department will neither save funds for academics nor recoup funds for academics. Indeed, stepping down to a lower level of competition would likely decrease athletic revenues and actually START to drain academic budgets. If Rutgers has a deficit (as the webpage claims) and the athletic department is contributing to it, then they are 100% correct to eliminate that drain, but do not think that this is characteristic of major college athletic departments.</p>
<p>As to the rest of their stated goals, they are attempts to improve the academic caliber of incoming students (which PSU is ALSO trying, and getting roundly criticized for as being against the role of a public university) or lofty dreams of changing what students care about - laudable but foolish and slightly offensive.</p>
<p>father91, I couldn’t agree more, that is what makes Penn State unique their alumni and students are oblivious to the seriousness of the scandal and will defend their school despite the facts. The more facts emerge , the more they yell" We are Penn State." It is embarrassing.</p>
<p>I tried my hardest not to comment, but I am tired of reading one stupid comment after another. What happened at Penn State is horrendous, and anyone who covered it up should pay. However, why is everyone trying to punish the entire university? The hardworking students, alumni and excellent professors are not to blame. They didn’t do anything wrong now (or ten years ago). The incoming freshman were not a part of the coverup, so please don’t punish them. My son will be starting in the fall, and I am proud of his decision. He was accepted at Cornell, Binghamton, Lehigh, George Washington…just to name a few…and he chose Penn State. Why? Because of its academics, and excellent reputation in securing internships and jobs. Stop blaming the entire university for the sins of a few.</p>
<p>The institution did do something wrong. This goes beyond the actions of four individuals–one of whom was the most powerful person in the university and another was the nominal President of the university. It goes to a culture so utterly warped and corrupted by its football program and the cultist adoration of its head coach that NOTHING was deemed too important that it couldn’t be sacrificed to the God of Paterno. Not player discipline. Not the safety of young boys who were being raped in university facilities by an untouchable former coach who was allowed for 14 years after knowledge of his activities became available used the institution as bait for his young victims.</p>
<p>Read the CNN interview with a university v-p for student affairs who was literally run out of town by Mr. Paterno.</p>
<p>Well said, LennyPepperidge. Penn State needs to change the campus culture . The article about Vicky Triponey is very telling. The problem pervades the campus. Academics and safety should take precedence over football . Absent radical change, the stain on Penn State will endure.</p>
Great! Name some names. Tell me who these people are that thought this way. You grab one end of the rail, I’ll grab the other, and we’ll run them out of town.</p>
<p>I’ll wait while you compile your list. I’m wondering how it will compare with McCarthy’s list? Because while everyone seems to know that these people exist and corrupted everything, I have to see anybody actually make a list of who these people are. Everyone gets convinced that this caricature is true, and become afraid of bogeymen that don’t actually exist.</p>
<p>
Traponey is old news to actual Penn Staters. I cannot comment on the truth of her story, as all that has ever been aired is her side of it. I cannot imagine why she never pursued this issue with the NCAA, and if she did, why we did not here the results of it, because this is EXACTLY the sort of thing the NCAA should be investigating and punishing.</p>
<p>Regardless, one person does not make a persecution.</p>
<p>
No, neither of those things will ever happen - PSU will not destroy itself for your satisfaction, and even if they did no one would forgive the dismantlers nor aid the newly injured.</p>
And this is why Penn State and Penn Staters will never listen to your arguments. You just said that we are all such a bunch of football psychos that we would rather have a strong football team even if it meant that kids were getting raped in the locker rooms. And you wonder why we don’t respect your arguments?</p>
<p>When football players get caught doing stupid crap, the talk on campus is “man, we’ve got to get rid of that guy!” We liked our coach because we thought he ran a tight ship - we were notorious for it. How do you reconcile that with your implication that we didn’t care what happened so long as we won?</p>
<p>This culture that you describe? It is a myth. Maybe one of a hundred really cares about football that much. They are a vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless. And as long as you treat us all that way, we will not respect your arguments.</p>
<p>“No, neither of those things will ever happen - PSU will not destroy itself for your satisfaction, and even if they did no one would forgive the dismantlers nor aid the newly injured.”</p>
<p>Even the Freeh report mentions the insular and inbred culture and recommends that the university stop hiring from within (to a degree unheard of among AAU research universities) and start conducting open, national searches.</p>
<p>You think the “haters” and the “outsiders” want to destroy Penn State. You couldn’t be more wrong. Listening to the outside world is the only thing that will save it. Ignore us, and you might preserve your insular culture, your isolation and your cult-like worship of Mr. Paterno. It still might remain an attractive college for the children of alumni.</p>
<p>To the outside world, it will become toxic. To high achieving out of state students who haven’t been indoctrinated into the cult. To potential graduate students. To promising young faculty and researchers. To major government and private grant writers. There’s too much competition out there: for students, for faculty and for research dollars.</p>
<p>The rest of the world is looking for some soul searching from the Penn State community. Maybe there is no soul to search, maybe football is really all there is at the core of the institution. Cosmicfish’s post is endemic of the problem: the Penn State community just doesn’t get it. It is all about denial , school pride and scorn for “outsiders”. </p>
<p>Penn State has some amazing academic programs, would it really destroy the school to suspend football for a year? Would it really be so dismantling to value ethics and academics over football?</p>
<p>LOL, ultimate fail. ^^^ Please tell me you’re lying. Who would pick Penn State over Cornell? I bet your family lives a few minutes away from campus and he gets homesick or something. Has to be that.</p>
And who did the Freeh investigation talk to decide this? How many of these investigations have they run that they can compare to?</p>
<p>
Do you have a source for this “unheard of among AAU research universities” part? I saw where the report recommended conducting “open and inclusive searches for new employees” but missed the part where it said we were some inbred bunch of academic hicks.</p>
<p>
I am at a different university right now, and I have heard nothing different whatsoever in interactions with PSU. The last conference I attended, a few weeks ago, had a small Penn State presence and they were forging academic relationships and recruiting new students without a problem. The NSF is still funding them, as are private companies.</p>
<p>My employer is still recruiting at Penn State, and no, that is not where our corporate leadership is from - I don’t think we have ANY upper management from PSU, so this is not a loyalty issue. No one has any problem with the Penn Staters.</p>
<p>I think PSU is toxic in the minds of a few. I think most people recognize that the problems that exist are in the minds of a small segment of the population, most particularly those handful of people who decided to preserve not PENN STATE FOOTBALL (WHOOOOOO!!!) but their jobs and financial security. And I don’t think we need YOUR suggestions to deal with them.</p>
<p>Of note, the Freeh report could have recommended exactly what you suggest - shutting down the program. They had already been paid, there was nothing stopping them from it. They never even consider it in the report.</p>
Really? Denial about what? Something that you read about in a newspaper, or saw on TV, or perhaps even witnessed that one time you came into town for a <gasp} footballl game? We know there are problems, we know what they are a lot better than you do because we’ve spent a lot more time on it than you have. Remember, most Penn State students don’t come from State College, most grad students and faculty didn’t do their undergrad years here, and most PSU staff (at least the ones I know) are not that gung ho - it is just a job for them.</p>
<p>You want crazy? Get the drunk sophomores who paint themselves blue and go half naked to a November home game - and you’ll find variations in every color of the rainbow at every university.</p>
<p>As for school pride? Yes, we have some, along with some school shame. But as long as we are being attacked because some guys dressed in our colors and committed crimes… well, forgive us if we are unwilling to pay for what they did.</p>
<p>
I don’t see this damaging our academic programs. Seriously, I don’t.
I also don’t see this as academics vs football. One does not affect the other. When I say “don’t shut down football” it has to do with treating the players right, with keeping the staff employed (who probably cannot go a year without a paycheck), with keeping all the businesses in town that run in the red until football season above water in a weak economy.
Other than pleasing people who have nothing to do with PSU, I see no advantage in this.</p>