Home / General / Difference Makers

Difference Makers



pa and k

On a Friday night in March of 2002, Mike McQueary, a 28-year-old former starting quarterback for the Penn State University football team, entered the locker room at the PSU football complex. At the time, McQueary was a “graduate assistant” – that is, someone at the bottom of the football coaching hierarchy, who was in effect auditioning to get a job as a full-fledged assistant on the PSU football staff. According to a grand jury report, this is what he saw:

As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and the showers on. He then heard rhythmic, slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put his sneakers in his locker, he looked in the shower. He saw a naked boy … whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both [the victim] and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.

“Sandusky” is Jerry Sandusky, who in 2002 was a 58-year-old icon of PSU football, second only to legendary coach Joe Paterno in prestige among former PSU players like McQueary. As PSU’s defensive coordinator, Sandusky had been Paterno’s right hand man and heir apparent, until his sudden and unexpected resignation in 1999, two years after McQueary had been the team’s starting quarterback and co-captain.

McQueary called his father, who told him he needed to tell Paterno about what he had seen. McQueary telephoned Paterno the next morning (Saturday) and visited him at his home. Paterno testified that McQueary seemed “very upset,” and that the next day (Sunday), Paterno called PSU athletic director Tim Curley to his home, and, according to Paterno’s grand jury testimony, told Curley that McQueary reported seeing Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” in the football locker room showers.

Ten days later McQueary was called to a meeting with PSU Athletic Director Tim Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance Gary Schultz. McQueary testified that at this meeting he told these men that he had witnessed what he believed was Jerry Sandusky having anal sex with a young boy in the football locker room showers. Curley and Schultz told him they would look into it. Two weeks later, Curley told McQueary that Sandusky’s keys to the locker room had been taken away, and that the incident had been reported to The Second Mile, Sandusky’s charitable foundation for troubled young boys.

And that, apparently, is the last that Mike McQueary ever heard about the matter. (As a commenter points out, it seems no one at PSU, either at the time or in the years since, ever bothered to try to find out who the boy Sandusky was raping was, or what happened to him).

Now here is the detail that, among all the details in the Grand Jury’s extensive depiction of the morally depraved behavior of Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, PSU president Graham Spanier, and McQueary, is perhaps the most shocking: Five years after this, in the spring of 2007, Sandusky was attending PSU football practices with his latest rape victim: a 12-year-old boy who he had met through a Second Mile camp conducted at PSU, and who he was in the process of, among other things, orally sodomizing.

At this point, McQueary was no longer a graduate assistant, as he had been promoted to an administrative assistant position on the football staff a few months after his meetings with Paterno, Curley and Schultz, and was made a full-fledged assistant coach the following year. So Mike McQueary and Joe Paterno were at the PSU football practices to which Jerry Sandusky was showing up with his latest child rape victim in tow. They saw him, there, with his latest victim. They could not have had any doubt, at that point, about what they were seeing.

Certain (pitifully inadequate) excuses can be are being proffered for Paterno’s behavior, then and now: he’s an old confused man, coming from a generation of men who were so intensely repressed about these sorts of matters that he didn’t really understand the gravity of what McQueary had told him, and after all he hadn’t actually seen Sandusky raping a ten-year-old boy. Etc.

As miserable as these attempts to minimize Paterno’s disgraceful conduct are, what can one say about McQueary’s? In 2002, McQueary was a powerful young athlete, just a couple of years removed from NFL training camps. It’s possible, I suppose, to make some sort of excuse, based on the effects of shock and disgust, for his behavior in that locker room, where instead of coming to the aid of a ten-year-old boy being raped by a 58-year-old man, he fled and called his father. A blog commenter:

I’m a five foot nothing middle aged woman and there’s no way I would have walked past that shower without dragging that child to safety. [Another commenter] compared it to the shock and fear that one feels when a gunman opens up on a crowd and argued that “none of us would be heroes” if we, too, caught sight of an old man buggering a ten year old boy.

My jaw just hit the floor . . .apparently he doesn’t know any normal people and normal parents. We are confronted every day by dangerous incidents involving children—when a kid gets hit on a soccer field or is injured while playing there are really zero adults who run away from the scene of the action or stand bewildered wondering who to notify.

A 28 year old graduate assistant former football player ought to have had the natural human kindness and good sense, the basic human decency, to have grabbed the rapist and secured the child and called an ambulance.

One would think. Football is a hyper-masculine world, within which it’s a common insult to use women’s genitalia as a synecdoche for insufficient toughness and bravery, but I’m quite confident the women I know best would have displayed far more sheer physical courage in a comparable situation than McQueary did – and that most certainly includes my 4’10” 100-pound Aragonese grandmother.

Leaving that aside, consider McQueary’s subsequent behavior. It appears that he in effect decided his nascent coaching career was more important than stopping Jerry Sandusky from not merely raping little boys, but from using the Penn State campus to gather his prey, and using Penn State football games and practices to “reward” his little victims. In other words, this is a case in which McQueary, in the years after he actually saw Sandusky raping a little boy, came face to face with Sandusky in the company of the little boys Sandusky was raping at the time – and he continued to nothing further about it. And not because his life or freedom or those of anyone close to him might be in danger, but because he knew that the coaching fraternity does not look well on taking things “outside the family.” (If this seems implausible, consider that Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski implicitly criticized a Baylor assistant basketball coach for taping conversations with head coach Dave Bliss, after Bliss ordered the coach to participate in a scheme to falsely attribute a Baylor player’s murder to the player’s imaginary drug dealing, in order to conceal Bliss’s illicit payments to the player. The coach has since been blackballed from his former profession. Coach K, as he is worshipfully known in the sports media, recently hosted an ESPN special entitled Difference Makers: Life Lessons with Paterno and Krzyzewski).

The point of lingering over McQueary’s decision to value his potential for career advancement over stopping a serial child rapist from continuing to find and parade his victims in front of McQueary’s face isn’t that McQueary (along with the rest of the actors in this saga) is some sort of inexplicable moral monster. It would be nice to think so, but consider that his despicable behavior merely mirrors that of his head coach, his athletic director, and his university’s president, who all made, and continued for years to make, essentially the same decision to value their careers over stopping little boys from being raped by a man they had worked with for years, and who they allowed to continue to walk among them every day. The point of calling out McQueary’s physical and especially moral cowardice is to remind us how we are all capable of sinking so low, if we do not remind ourselves constantly, in whatever way is most useful for each of us, of the truth of Samuel Johnson’s remark that, “courage is reckoned the greatest of all virtues; because, unless a man has that virtue, he has no security for preserving any other.”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Big Al

    Well done, Paul. Stay on it. No matter how painful, the implications of this nightmare must be discussed and analyzed thoroughly outside the context of sports and news soundbites.

    • pbh

      My assumption is that McQueary kept his silence because he too had been similarly abused as a child.

      • Popeye

        Is that why he called his dad for advice on what to do?

      • JB


      • Mark Ball

        No, He’s just a punk!!!

    • Nay

      I don’t buy that, but if that is the case, he definitely needs to be removed from his position b/c his past does not allow him to protect the kids that come under his supervision.

      • Nay

        This goes under pbh’s comment.

    • Well, done. Thanks for telling it like it is.

  • Malaclypse

    Ten days later McQueary was called to a meeting with PSU Athletic Director Tim Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance Gary Schultz.

    What possible reason is there for someone with that job title to be heading up, or even vaguely involved with, an investigation?

    • Human resources was under his auspices.

    • Big Al

      He also supervised campus police. University Chief Business Officers are involved in virtually every issue of significance outside the academy.

    • hurryup

      Schultz’s responsibilities also included certain operational areas beyond finance. For example, the campus police reported to him.

    • Malaclypse

      There are areas finance should never enter. Controlling HR is often a mistake. I can’t imagine why controlling the cops could be a good idea.

      • dangermouse

        I can’t imagine why controlling the cops could be a good idea.

        How else is he going to effectively cover up child rape?

  • caesaigh

    “Football is a hyper-masculine misanthropic world…”


    Goes without saying this is hardly an isolated incident, or that uncovering child molesters and rapists in football – or in sports generally – is the very antithesis of a snipe hunt.

  • Y’know, it’s not even like McQueary had to do anything beyond let Sandusky know he was there at the time. A simple “Hey! Stop that!” probably would have had Sandusky running out of the locker room naked and wet, nevermind a physical confrontation. Pedophiles want the privacy to act, and just being there would have stopped the whole thing.

    I hope, really hope, McQueary has looked in the mirror every morning and been his own worst critic over his failure to stop a horrible act. For all our judgement, we cannot know what was in his heart. As this PSU fan points out, he had other opportunities after the fact to reconcile his behavior in that awful moment and do something about his conscience, so I have my fears about what was in his heart.

    Whatever his motives at the time, it seems clear that he was being groomed for a job he will now never get and he may never get any other.

    • The grand jury report does say that Sandusky saw McQueary standing there. It doesn’t say what Sandusky’s response was, but it seems highly possible that he stopped raping the boy at that moment. I mean, I doubt he just said, “Hey, do you mind? I’m raping someone here.”

      That’s not to excuse McQueary’s subsequent behavior. But we have no reason to think he didn’t put an end to the rape that he saw happening.

      • If that’s the case, if the rape ended and the boy released, then his actions in just reporting the rape to his higher ups is understandable. Those are the people who have the immediate authority to get action.

        But as a PSU fan (I linked in another comment on this thread) pointed out, when Sandusky was still hanging around campus, why didn’t McQueary see that the people who ought to have done something didn’t, and then start making some life choices of consequence?

        • Oh duh! I linked in my original post. Eesh. More coffee please…

        • Keith T. Johnson

          The question here, is simple. After you tug on superman’s cape, then what. It is indeed a moral challenge, not to want to blame the messenger. Are we back to the age old question, Shooting the messenger? We, each of us reading and shaking our fist and hands in the air know the system of male empowerment, yes the same empowerment that stained the world civilizations, but not the culture of liberal sexual pursuit of wanton sexual freedoms. If you are ignorant to my positional claims look upon the many varied colours of African descended individuals. Bendalton commercials, supply the greatest format, for the curious. We need not know the race of the victims, nor their economic diversity, after all when College aged males are caught or filmed in the act they commit suicide. Tonight, as we are out raged, some good for nothing heir to commendation and great civic gifting and sharing is contributing to the delinquency of a minor. And we are arguing about Joe Paterno’s legacy, draped in the Penn State shower room. Vince Lombardi stated, “Winning isn’t every thing, it’s the only thing.” No word yet from Paterno.

      • Child Advocate

        That isnt the f’n point! Tackle the sick bastard, call 911 and have the monster arrested and most importantly GET THE KID SOME HELP! Not to mention, this could have ended countless other rapes by JS.

        Come on man!

        • Emma

          Exactly! So many people seem to be missing this very basic point.

      • Tybalt

        “I mean, I doubt he just said, “Hey, do you mind? I’m raping someone here.””

        Why ever not?

        Obviously, other than that a football coach would lard it with a few extra swear words and physical threats.

      • Mark Ball

        McQueary stated that Sandusky and the victim saw him, then McQueary ran out distraught. This means, McQueary left this poor victim in the hands of Sandusky, to do what ever he desired. McQueary had an obligation to not just stop the peverted act temporarily but to insure that boys saftey. He didn’t, he’s a punk!!!

    • D.

      I think that his initial reaction to run away when seeing something so shocking was possible a legitimately scared reaction. But, you’re so right, he had years to rectify his initial mistake and didn’t. At least he told the truth to the Grand Jury.

      • Joe Bivens

        Scared of what?

        • Nic

          Losing his job, his hope for promotions, his hope to ever work within the industry again? Everything?

          There’s a part of the article that specifically talks about coach’s getting Blackballed out of the industry for this kind’a thing.

          • NEA

            There will be nothing anyone can say that will justify anything that has come out of this saga. These were adult ppl, not teenagers who you probably would have understood having the reaction that the 28 year old did. All you have to do is imagine it having been your child, and I am appalled at the thoughts I have as an adult. Because I DO know that I would not have passed by and made a phone call. I am even ashamed to say that I would have most definitely gone upside his head with something and made sure that the child was secure. I can’t even wrap my mind around working with someone I know desired children on a daily basis. I can’t stand to see a mother smack her child in public. That hurts me to my heart. This is far worser. I would have respected the 28 year old more, had he followed up, and gone past the higher uppers and reported it anyway to EVERYBODY who would have listened and then if his results would have been losing his job, he could have exposed all of them at that time with a LAWSUIT in a lawsuit happy world. Now folks are trying to act as if it is no big deal. I am not a sports fanatic so I don’t understand this code of silence thingie. All I know is there are 8 children whose innocence has been taken and whose lives will never be the same and because all of these grown ups didn’t think enough of the one who got raped possibly first to stop a child pedifile from damaging other lives. Nothing anyone say will help me understand a cover up of this magnitude. It is just GREED! plain and simple. The almighty dollar. Because what is the state of the reputation of the school now, and what will its legacy be? Had they stopped it at the time, they would have been known for bringing JUSTICE to a deserving monster. Now they will be known for being enablers of the monster. WOW!

  • Glenn

    Really unbelievable. McQueary reports this to his dad. Dad says report it to Paterno. Paterno reports it to the AD. The AD reports it to the VP for Finance.

    No one thought maybe calling the police would be a good idea? Jesus.

    • John Howard

      This is what I keep coming back to. What kind of culture were those dudes living it that they don’t automatically do that! This was 2002, McQueery almost certainly had a cell phone. They didn’t even try to find out who the boy was! What kind of fucked up world is that? Are all big time athletics like that culturally or are there some that break the mold?

      • John Howard

        Can’t believe I misspelled McQueary like that…oops.

    • mpowell

      Well the campus police are actual police officers and they report to that VP. It’s similar to reporting the incident to the police chief, at least in principle. The problem, in my opinion, is in having a police department that answers to the university upper echelon. It is a fundamentally corrupt structure. Imagine the outrage if you reported this thing to a police department and they did nothing. That’s basically what we’re talking about here.

      • Glenn

        I’m not sure about that. The campus police may fall within that VP’s bailiwick, but it still strikes me as not the same thing as reporting to the police. He’s not a police chief, he’s like, say, the deputy mayor who has oversight responsibility for the police. He’s a civilian, if you will. Probably has no authority to arrest and charge, I’d bet. Not to excuse the VP for his inaction, but I still don’t see it as the same as reporting to the police. I don’t know, maybe the specifics of PSU were different.

        • mpowell

          Well, that’s kind of the issue. He’s, effectively, the head of a police department, but he isn’t going to behave like we would expect one to behave for a variety of reasons. So the whole structure is ridiculous.

          • Glenn


        • Jay C

          I think arguments about the chain-of-command reporting for this horrific incident kinda/sorta miss the point: let’s recast the Sandusky incident into purely “civilian” terms (italicized) and see how it reads:

          Mile McQueary, a 28-year-old assistant manager at a public pool, went into the locker room on X/X/200X and saw a former deputy police chief and the mayor’s brother-in-law sodomizing a young boy in the showers. He freaked out, called his father, who told him to “report” it, so he called the Chief of Police and a Deputy Mayor, who assured him it would be “taken care of”. Except that it wasn’t and the perv was still running a swim program for young kids at the pool for years later. Etc., etc….

          What’s the operative phrase here? IMO, it’s “mayor’s brother-in-law“; institutional/family “loyalty” trumping morality or the law: as it almost always usually does. Until it’s found out, of course….

        • Murc

          He’s not a police chief, he’s like, say, the deputy mayor who has oversight responsibility for the police. He’s a civilian, if you will.

          Slightly OT: Police chiefs ARE civilians. So are police officers.

          Divorcing cops culturally from their fellow civilians is at the root of a whole lot of problems.

          • Glenn

            Fair enough, bad choice of words (although I’m pretty sure that term is used internally). The point was really that cops have powers of arrest and charging that I’m guessing the VP for Finance at PSU does not have.

            • Murc

              The term is used internally, which is emblematic in a whole lotta ways of some of the pathologies present in modern policing culture.

              That said, your main point was, indeed, well-taken. I personally remain baffled as to why we specifically have “campus cops.” Are they actual cops? Then they should be part of the hierarchy of the municipality the campus is located in. Are they security personnel? Then they’re NOT cops and the ACTUAL cops should be responsible.

              • David Nieporent

                In many places, including, apparently, Penn State, campus police are actual police officers, rather than, say, private security guards.

                As to the “hierarchy,” first, a campus is not always in a municipality, or may be in more than one. Second, in many places (e.g., State College, PA) the campus may be so big compared to the municipality that the latter may not have the resources to oversee it. For instance, the ‘population’ (i.e., student enrollment) of Penn State’s University Park campus is bigger than the population of State College.

      • nlion71

        When I was there (see my name), “campus cops” were students earning a few tuition dollars.

  • “He’s a figurehead for this school,” said McGinn, who stood in front of the student union Monday afternoon holding a sign that read, “I paid a six-figure tuition and all I got was this lousy sex scandal.”

    • JupiterPluvius

      “Sex scandal”?

      Bill and Monica is a “sex scandal.”

      This is covering up the rape of children. Jesus fuck.

  • c u n d gulag

    To me, here’s the real telling thing – no one even knows the name of that boy.
    No one asked.
    No one!

    They didn’t care whether he’s alive, dead, or so mentally and sexually damaged, that he’s turned into a monster like the coach himself.

    Maybe, actually probably, something like this happened to Sandusky when he was young. Monsters aren’t always born, sometimes they’re made.

    And to this day, no one knows the name of that child.

    No one.

    Everyone connected to this horrifying situation was too concerned about their own names and reputations to ask what the kids name was, and how he was.
    And everyone connected with this needs to lose their jobs, and some people need to go to jail for a long, long time.

    Keep up the good work, L,G&M!

    • John Howard

      Bingo. It is a pretty heavy indictment of the big time jock culture that this was allowed to continue with such disregard for the victims.

    • mpowell

      Really? You think it would really be best for that boy’s name to be circulating around the news right now? I think you’re taking healthy sentiments and applying them poorly to the situation.

      • c u n d gulag

        Sweet Jesus, I’m not saying to “out” that kid now an adult!

        I’ve read that no one AT THAT TIME bothered to find out who he was.

        Maybe I’m wrong on that.

        But think about it, someone should have found out who that child was so that he could get treatment and counseling.
        And also to let his parents decide what they might want to do regarding pressing charges.
        Maybe that’s why it took so long for this to come out? No one told that kids parents. If it was my kid who was raped on the campus, the school would wish it had never been started.

        But mostly to get that kid help – getting your ass-fucked as a 10 year-old in a college shower by a 55 year-old football coaching legend isn’t exactly a rite of passage for prepubescent boys in this country – at least not yet.

        THAT was my point!

        • mpowell

          Oh- thanks for clarifying! I definitely misinterpreted you there.

        • GFW

          >a rite of passage

          The detail about Sparta that got left out of “300”. (So if this had happened at MSU … ok, this isn’t a joking matter.)

          Seriously, PSU needs to fire everyone involved in the coverup.

      • nlion71

        DUH! That is so not what the poster means! Jeez, I hope you don’t have a PSU degree!


    • We don’t know that they didn’t know the name. Normally, minor children in sexual activities, whether abuse or peer-age encounters, are not identified.

      • Anonymous

        I believe the PA Attorney General made a statement yesterday asking the victim to come forward and identify himself in order to be interviewed by her office. So it seems that, at the time, no one ever did bother to learn his identity.

        • c u n d gulag

          Thank you.
          I didn’t think that just popped into my head overnight.

        • Point taken. Even if the campus police knew the boy’s name, it might have stopped right there.

  • It is hard to feel bad for McQueary, but in essence the behavior of his superiors turned him into a whistleblower in addition to a witness. He would have had to implicitly call out their coverup after the short delay- so being told that it was being handled caused that delay. McQueary had been in the PSU system for basically the last 10 years- you probably can analogize the way the football team works to the military. He had been taught to implicitly trust and respect the judgement of his superiors even though he must have recognized the dissonance between their behavior and what he thought the right thing was. He failed in this, but Paterno and Curley are the ones that are most responsible. They had more information and they had more power. Paterno needs to go, and he should resign today. He disgusts me.

    • Do you think that, when McQ realized that nothing of substance was done, he should have gone over the heads of Paterno et al?

      • I think he should have but that makes him a whistleblower and it goes against his entire world view I presume (one founded on what we now know to be incorrect faith in his mentor/boss/etc. I wonder if Curley and the other guy basically laid out the rationale in the followup meeting- this meeting I think is where you go to conspiracy type charges. These are terrible terrible people because they couldn’t see the right thing staring them in the face, with nothing aligned against the right thing save for likely invented nebulous “consequences”.

        • I never played varsity ball (I went to a sub-Ivy university that was just sorting out its downsizing from a large campus to basically being the “school around a public park”) but I did play JV, and my first loyalty was not to the basketball program but to the school.

          I know things are different in the world of big time college football…hell, that’s what the entire movie “Rudy” is about…but it seems to me he did a bigger disservice to the object of his loyalty by not whistleblowing.

          I get your point, tho. It’s a tough call, no matter how you slice it, but you’d like to think the path of being in the right would take precedence.

      • News Nag

        McQueary’s father, too, bears moral responsibility. He should’ve told his son to call the city police immediately and done it himself if no one else would.

        • VL

          AGREED!! At 28 Mike McQ may have still been somewhat immature and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps the shock/disgust of seeing his former coach assaulting a child rendered him into a place that luckily most of us will never know, however his father should have been able to provide better moral guidance. The parent in me just could NOT let this incident go with the knowledge that this despicable snake was going to be able to continue to prey on innocent children. I don’t know how these people could sleep at night knowing that this awful depraved monster was roaming free. All I keep thinking is, don’t they have kids, brothers, nephews, any children at all that they love? This was somebody’s 10 YEAR old baby!! I hope Jerry Sandusky gets a nice long prison term where the inmates can treat him in the same manner that he treated his victims. Hope he rots in hell!!

          • I’m 19 and I cannot imagine giving a 28-year old a pass on reporting a crime.

            Yes, there are many things I do that are still immature. Especially when I’m hanging out with friends.

            But I know if I saw a crime taking place, I would call the cops. I don’t know what else I’d do, but I’d at least dial 911 and tell them that a crime was taking place.

            I would’ve done so when I was 14, let alone when I’ll be 28.

    • Not only that, but McQueary had gone from Penn State player to Penn State graduate assistant to Penn State assistant coach, and realized that his future career would hang on his good relations with the Penn State football hierarchy.

      It would be nice to think that all of us would have had the stones, sometime in 2004, to go to Joe Paterno and say, “What is Sandusky still doing hanging around here? He raped a kid! If you don’t do something about this, I’m calling the DA.” But that would most likely have meant the end of McQueary’s career at Penn State, and having a career is a very valuable thing.

      I absolutely think McQueary did the wrong thing, but at the same time, I think a lot of other people would also have rationalized that they had done all they could by reporting the initial situation to their higher-ups, and kept their mouth shut.

      • West of the Cascades

        Not being fucked in the ass involuntarily is also a very valuable thing. McQueary’s cowardice over the years in not making sure Sandusky was prosecuted in 2002 made sure that other boys suffered at the hands of the same rapist that McQueary witnessed in the shower.

        Sure, his life would have changed if he had gone over the heads of the people involved in the cover-up … but a hell of a lot of employers would have appreciated his answer as to “why did you quit your last job” — including not a few football programs intent on honing their images as having integrity, honor, yadda yadda. He would have found a job, but had to have left State College.

        Instead McQueary took the promotion, kept quiet, kept running into Sandusky on campus, and let him continue to prey on young boys. McQueary flinching at the moment he saw something he couldn’t process is understandable and foregivable. Not having the courage to make sure Sandusky was stopped, by calling the police himself if no one he reported the rape to did, is inexcusable and a firing offense.

        The Penn State Board of Trustees needs to sweep all of the people involved in this cover-up, from McQueary to Paterno up to Spanier out as soon as possible. McQueary’s own sworn grand jury testimony, and the acknowledged inactions of everyone else at Penn State, is enough to justify that action well in advance of the legal process playing out for Sandusky, Curley and Schultz.

        • c u n d gulag

          “McQueary flinching at the moment he saw something he couldn’t process is understandable and foregivable.”

          That’s basically what I was trying to say later on in this comment thread, but you said it much better.

          • Ed

            Understandable — arguably. Forgivable, I don’t know.

            • nlion71

              You “don’t know”?!?!


        • Malaclypse

          He would have found a job, but had to have left State College.

          Maybe not. Had he blown the whistle, there would have quite possibly been a lot of job openings at Penn.

          • Hogan


            I’m not going to tell you people again.

            • I feel bad for you UPenn folks who are now being tarred with the “Pedophile State University” brush.

              Best to change your name, probably.

              Maybe to “The Fine University in the City of Brotherly Love”.

              Not the greatest advice, I know, but what are ya gonna do?

      • fasteddie9318

        …his future career would hang on his good relations with the Penn State football hierarchy.

        Oh, I think (hope?) it still does, just not in the way he was imagining it would.

      • gmack


        Well, sure, no one ever said that acting morally was easy; that’s why Paul concludes with the quote about courage. So it is certainly true that many people would rationalize the situation or ignore it in the name of careerism or simple expediency. That doesn’t make such actions any less monstrous. In fact, putting McQueary’s actions the actions in these terms merely describes the monstrosity: he decided that his career were more important than preventing the rape of a child.

        Anyway, I don’t like moral self-righteousness either, but I also don’t want to err in the opposite direction, where in the name of avoiding self-righteousness we also refuse to make moral judgments.

        • Anonymous

          I’ve been circling this for days trying to figure out what bothered me so much about the response to this and, I guess, here it goes (anonymous for obvious reasons). I think most of us would report stumbling upon a man raping a child. I think stumbling upon a man I know/trust/love raping a child is a different situation. I’m certain it is world destroying to suddenly realize that someone you were close to is a monster. I don’t know if this is what McQueary experienced (as far as I know it could have been about his career) but I would not be so fast to assume how you would react. I have never been in McQueary’s shoes but I have been that child and a family member who witnessed me being raped did next to nothing in part because she could not reconcile herself to the idea that her son was a rapist and that everything she knew about her life was transformed. I don’t find her response admirable or forgivable but I do understand it in part because it also motivated my inability to report the crime as well. Maybe part of my response is self-protection (I don’t want to think my grandmother was a moral monster either) but that’s entirely the point–most abuse is in the family and in most cases someone else knows about it but it’s a lot harder to reconcile yourself to and act against someone whom you know in an entirely different capacity. I can understand the sense of paralysis in the moment, I find Paterno and McQueary’s subsequent actions much more problematic. They continued on in full knowledge of what had happened in order to protect themselves and their institution and they refuse to acknowledge that now.

          • I understand the moral quandary of a woman coming to face the direct evidence that her son is a lawbreaker. That is a hard thing to process.

            But McQueary is not related to Sandusky by blood. So that same quandary will not apply.

            And there is in almost all of us, an instinct to protect little children from physical harm.

            That instinct alone should have propelled McQueary to intervene and protect the 10-year old boy that Sandusky was raping.

      • nlion71

        Then you hang out with cowards and guttersnipes.

        Of course, the irony for Mcq is that his career is now dead. D.E.A.D.

    • nlion71

      McQ had the moral, ethical, and, because PSU is a public school, LEGAL responsibility to CALL THE POLICE.


      McQ is co-operating now because otherwise HE’D BE IN JAIL.

      • The chain of obligation is this: because McQueary (and Paterno) were both employees of Penn State University, and because PSU is a public institution under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, they are both required by the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law (23 Pa.C.S. s6311) to:

        – immediately call the Centre County Children and Youth Services office and make a report of suspected child abuse
        – within two days, file a written report with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

        They failed to do this. The Athletic Director (Tim Curley) and the University VP (Gary Schultz) were also obligated to do this when they received the reports from Paterno and McQueary. Curley and Schultz were both arrested for their failure.

    • Mark Ball

      Well, I place more responsibility on the shoulders of McQueary because he actually witnessed the crime. Remember, Sandusky’s was in the act of a “crime” not just questionable behavior. All that “military like” training would be no excuse.

  • mpowell

    I agree that analogies to gun shooting incidents are inherently misguided, but I think you are taking the point too far. McQueary would have rather little to fear in being overcome by a 58 year old man, even if the man in question is an ex-player himself, but a much smaller women would be taking a risky path by intervening directly. So I think you are overstating your case here. If you are witnessing a horrific crime it at least has to enter your thoughts that the perp will be willing to escalate the crime to murder to avoid prosecution and if he could easily murder you perhaps it would be best to immediately report the matter to the police.

    • Paul Campos

      I wouldn’t criticize a much smaller woman for failing to intervene at the moment. Context matters. And the context here is that a powerful young man by his own admission didn’t even say a word, let alone intervene physically. And if he had seen Sandusky stop I imagine he would have mentioned that detail. What surprises me is that his subsequent sense of shame for failing to come to the boy’s aid at the time didn’t give McQueary the moral strength to do the right thing at any time after the fact, once he realized that the powers that be were burying all evidence of a horrible crime.

      • mpowell

        Right- I do agree with this.

      • nlion71


        Not even a “Hey! STOP THAT!”

  • John

    I very much agree with the basic tenor of this post, and especially the criticism of McQueary’s behavior after the incident and in 2007.

    That said, I’m still not a fan of all this second-hand bravado about what one would have done in the hypothetical circumstance of , especially given that Paul’s main point is apparently that any of us is capable of doing horrible things – and certainly of permitting horrible things to be done because it’s easier for us.

    If that’s the main point, what’s the point of the post from the commenter? That post just seems utterly disingenuous to me – yes, the comparison to a mad gunman is kind of bogus. But the comparison to seeing a child get injured at a sporting event is even more bogus. How is that in any way similar to witnessing a violent crime in progress? And, you know, if you’re a five foot tall middle aged woman who actually does take heroic action to stop a child rapist, that deserves commendation. If you’re a five foot tall middle aged woman who boasts about how you would do that if you were ever in that situation, then you’re just a blowhard.

    It’s almost certainly too much to say that “none of us would be heroes” in McQueary’s place. But I’m fairly confident that there are way more people who will, in the safety and comfort of their own homes, proclaim that they would have been a hero than there are people who would actually do something heroic. There’s all kinds of factors, some of which we probably don’t really understand, that play into the question of whether someone will be heroic or not. I don’t have the moral arrogance to simply proclaim that I would have responded in the most admirable way in a situation like that.

    • I’d suggest that the least one would do would be to yell: “Hey WTF is going oh?” Which I would think would cause some interuption. From there most of us would go and call 911 I would hope. Or if one first called one’s father, one would further hope that dear old dad would say call the cops.

      This is all at the LEAST one would do.

    • dave

      There has been an enormous amount of research on the psychology of altruism. The research shows that truly altruistic behavior does occur with some frequency but is not all that common.

      I don’t mean to Godwin the thread, but we need look no further than the Holocaust to see that the average person will not behave altruistically. Certainly there were quite a few people who did the right thing during the Holocaust and took varying degrees of personal risk do so. Those people are heroes and should be commended as highly as is possible. The typical person did not take action to protect Jews.

      Not coincidentally, the research suggests that cultures (like Germany) that value obedience are less favorable to producing altruism. I wonder what kind of culture existed at Penn State?

      • I’m not sure I’m suggesting that anything that is very alutrusitic here.

      • Please also do not use the Holocaust as your benchmark for “normal human operating conditions.”

    • ema

      What are you talking about, do something heroic? Even if we’re extremely generous and assume that McQueary thought he wouldn’t be able to grab the kid and run, all he had to do was to scream bloody murder, while running away from the scene at top speed, and call 911. There’s nothing remarkable, let alone heroic, about dialing 911.

      • John

        There seem to be plenty of keyboard heroes who are certain they would have physically stopped the rape, not just called 911.

        I’d add that this isn’t a circumstance where Sandusky was come upon by a random bystander – McQueary had known him for years, and Sandusky was obviously a more powerful person at Penn State than he was. That’s a difficult situation to be put in, and I don’t think going to Paterno first is utterly unreasonable.

        I don’t think anyone is arguing that McQueary behaved heroically here – he obviously didn’t. He faced a moral challenge, and he failed. I guess I’m objecting to the certitude with which so many commenters who have not faced such a situation assert that they would not have failed the same test.

        • John

          That is to say, saying “McQueary should have done something to stop the rape, and called the police” is a different thing from saying “I know that I would have done something to stop the rape, and called the police.” The former is fine. The latter is just empty boasting.

          • My point and the point of ema is that simply screaming and calling 911 isn’t heroic, or something that you would get an award for doing. People who are arguing that McQuerry had to put a lot of thought into it and that those are heroic actions has a strange definition of heroic.

        • Tom Ames

          My God, the bar for civilized behavior sure is low.

          McQueary didn’t “fail a moral challenge”. He became complicit in a heinous crime against a child, possibly in exchange for career-enhancing favors.

          What the fuck is the matter with people that they can think this is in any way understandable? How can people honestly think that they might do the same and not throw up every time they see themselves in the mirror?

    • CB

      Get a grip! The very least McQueary should have done and what “most” people would have done was to verbally tell Sandusky to stop what he was doing and then report it to the police. That’s not being a hero it’s being a good citizen. Instead, that 6′ something football player punk did nothing because he was scared of losing his job. WTF?

    • nlion71

      I think a 28-yr-old former QB had nothing to fear physically from a naked 57-yr-old guy.

    • NEA

      I believe that if it was a child of yours and you walked in on that. I believe that you can say you would have been heroic because nothing but getting your child to safety would have been going through your mind. An incident very close to this happened in my family and believe me when I tell you the result wasn’t pretty. True one never knows until faced with it what they would have done. But I personally know that I would react first and ask questions later when it comes to children. Let alone my own child. To each his own. It is ok to agree to disagree on such matters. I just feel for the victims period and in all of this I’d like to know if they are ok and get away from casting all the blame on the man who kept walking and accept that the real culpit is the rapist himself, who also had to have some arrogance about working with all of these ppl all these years, looking them in their face on a daily basis, getting paid for his services and laughing at all of them because NONE of them were strong enough to stop him. He must really be proud of himself.

  • raging red

    Wait, Sandusky was bringing children to football practices (presumably on campus) after 2002, when he was supposedly prohibited from bringing children on campus? So they didn’t even bother to enforce their wholly inadequate “solution”?

    • Paul Campos

      He wasn’t prohibited from bringing children on campus, and in fact he ran football camps at PSU for children as young as ten until 2009 (where he found some of his later victims).

      McQueary was told in 2002 that Sandusky’s keys to the locker room had been taken away. Apparently PSU’s administration did its best to ensure that the child raping wasn’t actually taking place inside the PSU football locker room, although we don’t know for a fact that his locker room keys were in fact confiscated.

      • West of the Cascades

        And the reports that Sandusky was still working out at the PSU football facility last week suggests he probably continued to have access to the locker room.

  • BobS

    I think McQueary is getting off easy. He was in a room with a 10 year old boy being raped by an adult man and did nothing to stop it. In my mind, that makes him a party to the rape.
    I made it a point to listen to sports talk radio yesterday and a recurrent refrain with hosts and callers was that we never know what we’ll do when faced with a particular situation. Bullshit. I know exactly what I’d do today, and what I would have done in 2002 if I had witnessed what McQueary did- anyone who doesn’t know what they would do should not be allowed in the proximity of children.
    The timing of McQueary’s promotion through the Penn State Child Rapists- I mean Nittany Lions- coaching and recruiting ranks is also more than a little curious.

    • dave

      If you actually would have done something then that makes you superior to the average person (who wouldn’t have). Kudos,

      On the other hand, most people (wrongly) think they would intervene.

      • BobS

        I’m quite certain I would have intervened considering that I did intervene when I witnessed a man (drunk, and approximately my size and age) assaulting his wife.
        Despite the research on altruism you cited in your previous comment, I think the instinctive response of most physically fit twenty-some year old men schooled in contact sports (as both McQueary and I were when our respective incidents occurred) coming face-to-face with a small person being brutalized by a larger person would be to intervene. With regard to the somewhat disingenuous Holocaust reference in your previous comment, I’ll concede that I probably would not have been so quick to act if the child was being raped by Heinrich Himmler with several armed Gestapo agents nearby. What would have prevented me would have been what prevents most people from intervening in violent situations- fear for the physical safety of themselves or their families. That was a rational concern of Germans 75 years ago as well as anyone today who perceive themselves as being ‘outgunned’ (although I think most women, especially mothers, would have acted without regard for their safety if they saw what McQueary saw) along with the fact that the anti-Semitism of the Nazis was shared by much of German society, making it that much easier for them to turn a blind eye to the plight of the Jews. The odds in our respective situations favored McQueary and myself (he a 28 year old guy fresh from professional football camps versus a guy in his fifties, me a 30 year old guy experienced in martial arts versus a drunk). Additionally, neither battered women nor sexually abused children are demonized members of society. In fact, it’s just the opposite- wife beaters and pedophiles are the monsters, which lowers even more whatever psychological hurdle you seem to believe McQueary or myself needed to clear.
        There’s no excuse for not acting in such a situation. I think McQueary is a despicable excuse of a human being and he’s fortunate he’s not being regarded as such more widely.

        • John

          So, basicaly, ignore the research and trust your gut?

          • BobS

            Basically, yes. I trust that that most 28 year old men, witnessing a 50 year man fucking a 10 year old boy in the ass, would do much more than McQuery chose to do. Given these particular variables, I’ll trust my gut.

            • Popeye

              This is kind of dumb. I don’t think the problem here is that the only people who had the power to stop Sandusky just happened to be individual insane sociopaths whose behavior was even more inexplicable than Sandusky’s. There’s pretty clearly a cultural problem here.

              Most 28-year-old men might have reacted differently than McQueary did… but I’m not sure that most 28-year-old men with McQueary’s background, completely embedded in this football culture, would have reacted differently.

              I mean, presumably most people wouldn’t round up Jews and murder them in concentration camps, but somehow Nazi Germany happened.

      • JupiterPluvius

        You say that as though none of us had ever called 911 when we witnessed a crime being committed.

        I have, and I don’t think that makes me exceptional in any way. It’s not an heroic act of courage, it’s simply doing the right thing.

        • John

          I don’t understand why we’re acting as though this is a “random guy sees random crime” situation, when in fact it’s “very junior person in a large organization sees very senior person in same organization committing a crime.”

          • BobS

            I would have found it perfectly understandable for someone of McQuery’s stature at Ohio State to pretend he didn’t see what was going on in Saint Jim’s program. I don’t understand someone witnessing a man fucking a 10 year old boy in the ass and not forcibly intervening. Not all crimes rise to the level of atrocities- that does, and it’s also hard for me to understand that you don’t understand the distinction.

          • CB

            What part don’t you understand you mental midget? First of all The Pedophile was no longer a part of the Organization, the Organization is not the Mafia, your a 6 foot something football player and he’s fucking a little boy in the ass right in front of you and you don’t stop it and you go running away? WTFx100!

      • nlion71

        Speak for yourself, coward.

    • AcademicLurker

      a recurrent refrain with hosts and callers was that we never know what we’ll do when faced with a particular situation.

      Why do I get the feeling that these are the same people who indulge in Rambo-esqe fantasies of how heroically they would have behaved every time a campus shooting spree gets reported?

      • Paul Campos

        The two situations (armed gunman on shooting spree; naked unarmed old man in a shower) are in no sense comparable, as has been pointed out several times in this thread already.

  • JoyfulA

    I’m assuming McQueary doesn’t have an advanced multiple personality disorder, so which of the two in the picture is McQueary?

    • Chris

      The one on the right.

      • JoyfulA

        Thanks, Chris. McQueary is described as big, which that man is, but he looks to be in his 40s, so I was confused. Not that I plan to attack him, should I recognize him on the street.

        • David Nieporent

          (1) He doesn’t look to be in his 40s to me.
          (2) I don’t know when that picture was taken, but he was 28 when the incident happened 9 years ago, so he’s 37 now. Not too far off.

  • Trixie

    I am still confused about the McQueary event. Let’s say Sandusky SAW McQueary witness him raping the boy. Did he just go back to the rape after McQueary left? Or did he stop and get dressed? And what, if anything, did Sandusky say to McQueary next time he saw him? This whole thing is so horrific. I cannot imagine the silence.

    • c u n d gulag

      I think McQueary had what could be charitably called a “mind-blowing” experience.

      Imagine walking in on a coaching legend, an icon at your college, and he’s butt-raping a young boy in the shower?
      One wonders if his reaction would have been different if it was an male or female college student, or a young girl?
      But here, right in front of his eyes, is a coach doing just about the last thing that you could ever imagine him doing.

      Witnessing something like that may addle your senses and your reaction, no matter how grounded and responsible a person you are.
      In that moment, it must have been like walking into another dimension.

      I have no use for what anyone else connected with this horrible story did, but this guy, I at least can understand that he might have been shocked enough at that time so that he didn’t act, or even react in what we all deem a “proper” manner.
      I’d love to say I’d have broken them up, or kicked the coach’s ass, or yelled something, or called the cops, but I don’t know if right at that moment I could do anything but keep from passing out from shock, throwing up, or hoping that I’d die right then and there.

      Now, it’s what he did right after that, that bears scrutiny.

      Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not trying to excuse him, even though it may seem that way, but I’m trying to put into perspective how unlikely at that moment it was that when he went to see what was happening, that he would find a revered coach ass-raping a young boy.

      And for the rest of them – if it looks like this is true, which it sure does, they all deserve to lose their jobs, and some to go to jail.

      But I’m willing to let our justice system handle this.

      Any one else remember the Duke Lacrosse team, and how sure everyone was of their guilt?

      I lived in Chapel Hill at that time, and let me tell you, in NC that was no joke. And the rage as Duke U. was visceral.

      • Trixie

        This is well explained. He was so shocked, that he ran. Still though, he left a little boy behind to fend for himself. I cry thinking about this.

        • c u n d gulag

          It makes me sick to my stomach, too.

          That poor kid must have felt so abused, and so very, very alone.

          • Mark

            It’s like a guy stranded on an island who sees a plane pass overhead and hopes upon hope that it spotted him and will signal for help… but it never comes.

            What a disaster this whole mess is. These people need to not only be fired but also so face criminal charges of whatever sort and be sentenced to community service.

      • BonnyAnne

        I think you are absolutely correct. Humans respond very strangely to the unexpected.

        I work in a hospital, and there’s *always* something happening, so it’s not a shock, even if it’s someone falling over dead or having a surgical incision opening and all their small intestines fall out. (Small intestines look just like you think they would, but slimier.)

        However, I once watched a friend slip and fall 70 feet, landing on his face. My response? I stared at him while he bled and bled and bled, until someone else ran up to him and made sure he was alive. Then I woke up and was fine (except for the years of nightmares).

        So I cannot criticize McQueary for turning and running: he saw something very unexpected, and had no good way to immediately understand it. But afterwards, I do not understand why he did not call 911.

        • c u n d gulag

          Yes, that’s what I can’t forgive.

          I can forgive a few minutes, maybe even a day, but after that…

          And I think the more experienced adults around him let him down, too. Someone should have said, ‘Let’s find out who that kid was and at least tell his parents. Let them decide if they want the cops.’

          It was the least that could have been done. The VERY least.

          • John

            I think it is worth pointing out (what someone else already pointed out, I think) that after McQueary reported it, and the superiors decided to do nothing, that his then going to the police would mean that he was basically whistleblowing on Curley and Schultz (and Paterno) as much as he was reporting on Sandusky. And then what if nothing happens anyway? He’s probably ruined his chances of ever getting another coaching job, to no good purpose.

            McQueary behaved in a cowardly and unheroic fashion. But I think it’s eminently understandable, and I’m not confident that, were I in his shoes, I wouldn’t have also acted in a cowardly and unheroic fashion.

            • Malaclypse

              He’s probably ruined his chances of ever getting another coaching job, to no good purpose.

              Well, aside from letting the police know about a serial child rapist. Aside from that, no good purpose at all.

            • Tom Ames

              I guess it’s a good thing that you know that about yourself.

              On the other hand, I can’t imagine how shitty it must feel to know that you could so cavalierly overlook the consequences of such a horrible crime.

              McQueary functionally abetted the serial rape and abuse of children. This is called behaving in a criminal and psychopathic fashion, not “in a cowardly and unheroic fashion”.

              In what universe could anyone consider this to be understandable?

  • I’m confused. Maybe I came in in the middle of things, but how did this finally all come to light?

    • Paul Campos

      In 2008 a high school coach filed a formal legal complaint against Sandusky. That started an investigation by the state AG’s office, which led to the convening of the grand jury proceeding.

  • Boudleaux

    Not to put too fine a point on it, however, fuck you for trying to tarnish Coach Krzyzewski, of all people, with this.

    Here’s what you typed, Paul:

    1. McQueary failed to do anything about the rape of a child because he feared for his place in the [football] coaching family.
    2. [Basketball] Coach K made a statement that any assistant who secretly taped him would be fired.
    3. This was in the context of an assistant’s taping a conversation about a head coach’s falsely attributing murder.
    4. Coach K therefore implicitly endorsed the idea the loyalty to the “coaching family” is more important than murder.

    Seriously. Fuck you. He is called “Coach K” because his last name is a fucking eye chart.

    The anti-Duke, anti-Coach K thing is usually cute. In this case, seriously, fuck you for that slimy bullshit move you just attempted.

    • Paul Campos

      I looked back at the story and realized that Coach K didn’t “implicitly” criticize Rouse for taping the conversations that led to the exposure of Bliss’s scheme to slander a murdered player as a drug dealer: he criticized Rouse explicitly for having done so. As a consequence Rouse can’t get a job as a basketball coach.

      I’ve made the appropriate correction in the OP.

      • mpowell

        Yeah, seriously, f*ck you Boudleaux. I don’t have any reason to believe that Coach K harbors child molesters on his staff. But his public comments suggest that if he did, his expectation would be that nobody should do anything about it. So, yeah, he deserves to be called out on that one. Krzyzewski may be a better man than Paterno in every regard, but it is a major character flaw to believe that preserving this kind of hierarchical order in an organization is a desirable thing. That attitude plays no small part in leading to these kinds of incidents.

        • John

          I don’t see any particular reason to believe that Coach K is a better man than Paterno, certainly not in every regard.

          Failing a moral test means you are worse than someone who passes it. I’m not clear on who it demonstrates you are worse than someone who has never faced that particular moral test.

          Krzyzewski has not, so far as we know, ever had to deal with learning that one of his trusted assistant coaches is a pedophile. If he were, we have no way of knowing what he would do. A moral comparison of him with Paterno on these grounds doesn’t get us anywhere.

          • Boudleaux

            With all due respect, fuck all of you.

            None of you has addressed that the final piece of Paul’s innuendo was that Coach K appeared on a TV show with Paterno. His clear intent was to insinuate that Coach K would have handled this in the same way as Paterno.

            That Paul goes on to make another mispresentation in his reply to me only confirms his dishonest intent. Here is the statement from the article: “‘If one of my assistants would tape every one of my conversations with me not knowing it, there’s no way he would be on my staff,’ Krzyzewski told “Outside the Lines” in 2003.” Now Paul claims that is an “explicit” criticism of Rouse for his actions in taping a particular conversation. Of course it is not.

            That doesn’t slow down the author, or Paul, from leaping from that to asserting that “Coach K makes statement” = “Rouse can’t get job.” Really? We all took the LSAT here, right?

            Of course, there was the final piece of the innuendo — that all of the foregoing tenuous conclusions lead to the conclusion, that as asshole mpowell put it, “his expectation would be that nobody should do anything about it.” After all, he and Joe Paterno were on a TV show together.

            Seriously, fuck you s’more.

            • Who is parsing now? Isn’t the real straw man that Coach K would consider the “taping of ALL conversations” when he is discussing the taping of an ACTUAL conversation? Since he is addressing an actual event, wouldn’t his statement be correctly regarded in that light, not in the irrelevant light of some hypothetical assistant coach derived Coach K surveillance state? Seriously- the implication of Coach K’s statement was odious and can be properly used as supporting the existence of a “Thin Blue Line” of coaching. And the reticulated emu rears its Duke loving head.

              • Boudleaux

                Seriously, I have to listen to people cautioning us before we pass judgment on Paterno, and then read this slander, again, proceeding by innuendo that: a graduate assistant comes to Coach K and reports a child rape, and Coach K, because of a statement he made on another matter in 2003 , however you interpret it, would have failed to do anything about it.

                I deal with petty Duke-hate all the time. This is simply a new low. It doesn’t matter how I parse Coach K’s statement. The innuendo is wildly irresponsible.

                • mark f

                  Yet if a week ago you told me that JoePa’s involvement with the murder cover-up endorsing Coach K suggested that Paterno might cover up a decade plus of child rape, I’d have called you crazy.

                • Paul even says in his comment above, which you ignore, is that his allusion to Coach K was to an environment of omertà or silence within the coaching ranks. Nowhere does he say that Coach K would coverup a rape, merely that there is ample evidence for attitude among prominent coaches of loyalty to superiors and the program over other things. You need to step away from the computer for a few moments and think about things for a little bit.

              • Boudleaux

                I appreciate your point, Pinko. However, again, why is is last statement in the original post that Coach K and Paterno appeared on a TV show together? It closes a circle of innuendo, and was clearly intended to do so. Now Paul has now added a picture of Coach K and JoPa (ooh, now I’m really mad). It’s intended to be guilt by association.

                • mark f


                • I really think it is that these two coaches, perhaps more than any other are upheld as unimpeachable- their reputations go beyond their coaching achievements- in essence they are the “Deans” of their professions. In both cases, there is some evidence that they might fall short of those reputations- the idea that poor behavior is somewhat pervasive (see Jim Tressel, whose reputation as a “good guy” was not well deserved). Possibly you can make the argument that nothing can rise above Paterno at this point, but I don’t see this as a closed circle of innuendo, and I think that many people would be able to distinguish the differences by degree. I really do. I have conversed without dropping F bombs, and I will award myself a gold star. I know why you are mad, I don’t think you should be and I have made my case.

    • News Nag

      Your understanding of what Paul was saying seems rather limited and/or paranoid.

      • Boudleaux

        I refer the poster to the “fuck you” above.

        • David Nieporent

          As with the person the other day who criticized Yahoo for reporting on the Penn State scandal, you seem to have your priorities rather off, shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message.

          You’re right: there’s no evidence that Krzyzewski would cover up child rape specifically. But there is evidence that Krzyzewski would cover up other crimes, and I think rather than worrying about Krzyzewski’s reputation, you should be more upset with Krzyzewski about what Krzyzewski actually said.

    • djw

      This is a bizarre overreaction. The point is to demonstrate how a particular environment produces morally broken people like the Penn State crew. Krzyzewski’s commentary on the Baylor incident–choosing to criticize the disloyalty of a subordinate rather the morally reprehensible ass-covering of the man in power (and the subsequent blackballing of Rouse) is a powerful example of the kind of mindset that, when sufficiently pervasive in an organization, can produce the kind of culture that might lead to this sort of cover-up. The connection is perfectly clear.

      What Bliss tried to do was utterly reprehensible, and he deserved to be exposed. That Krzyzewski thinks loyalty is more important than that is appalling, and fair grounds for criticism.

      • Popeye

        Bingo. Boudleaux can go fuck himself again.

      • MCA1

        Considering the basis for this quote is some now lost transcript to an “Outside the Lines” episode, and was featured without context in an ESPN article authored by well known Duke hater and Coach K hit piece artist extraordinaire Dana O’Neil, some questioning of Campos’ use of it is quite warranted. Krzyzewski stated a general principle: “If one of my assistants would tape every one of my conversations with me not knowing it, there’s no way he would be on my staff.” O’Neil didn’t even tell her readers what the question was! Based on the assumption that Krzyzewski would himself assume he’d never be plotting to cover up the murder of one of his players by another, it’s reasonable for him to also think that it would be paranoid, underhanded and bizarre for an assistant to be taping him all the time, and that he’d rather not have that sort of person on his staff. It’s interesting that O’Neil provided no further context, and didn’t call Krzyzewski to ask follow up questions when writing this article 5 YEARS afterwards (such as “Well, isn’t it a different situation when the person being taped is covering up a murder?” to which there is obviously space for a nuanced answer). Instead, she used this one quote as the centerpiece of an article insinuating that Krzyzewski was at the middle of a blackballing effort. Which wholly unsubstantiated accusation Campos happily passes on uncritically.

        There were plenty of other ways for Campos to make the general and well-understood point that sports teams and coaching relationships can have almost a military-like overemphasis on loyalty and chain of command following at the expense of individuals simply doing the right thing in some sets of circumstances. Instead, he dragged Krzyzewski’s name into the discussion specificially (not Jim Boeheim, for instance, who made essentially the exact same point as Coach K on that “Outside the Lines”). Then he adds the final bow to the guilt by association package by showing a picture of Krzyzewski and Paterno hosting some TV show together. As if the two shared everything, and that Krzyzewski is somehow at fault for linking his name to and hosting a special with another person who, prior to this past weekend, had an unimpeachable reputation.

        Boudleaux used stronger language than I would have, but I took similar offense to Campos’ including reference to Mike Krzyzewski by name, referring to a salacious and sloppy piece of journalism regarding him, and tossing in a gratuitous picture of him on stage with Paterno. None of that was remotely necessary to make his point. Coincidence?

        • Paul Campos

          Krzyzewski and Bliss were both assistants to Bob Knight at Army in the late 1960s. I don’t think it’s any sort of stretch to read this quote as a criticism of Rouse for taping Bliss. Given that as far as I know Krzyzewski has never objected to the interpretation of the quote in the ESPN article I stand by my reading of his words as a criticism of Rouse for not handling the Bliss scandal in some other way.

          • MCA1

            Now you’re practically insinuating that Krzyzewski was trying to protect Bliss out of friendship. The fact that the two had known each other in the ’60’s is irrelevant unless there’s some evidence Krzyzewski is somewhere on the record questioning the indictments of Bliss. Is he? I doubt it.

            Part of K’s point may well have been that there were other ways to approach the issue beyond taping Bliss. You yourself characterize his criticism as being “for not handling the Bliss scandal in some other way.” Not for “not handling it at all.” No one apparently ever asked him what he meant.

            I wouldn’t agree with him under the circumstances for criticizing Rouse. But was he ever asked the simple followup question “Do you believe that loyalty to the head coach overrules turning that coach in for plotting to cover up a murder?” He was not. You seem to intimate that he’d likely actually answer in the affirmative. That he’d say you need to stay “in the family” even when the pater familias is the problem. Don’t you think it’s perhaps more likely the reasoning behind his comment was that, as an Army grad and protege of Bobby Knight himself, and not knowing all the facts of the situation at the time, Krzyzewski thought that confronting Bliss directly, or even just going to the police and alerting them without the subterfuge first, would be a better course?

            Why would Mike Krzyzewski bother to publicly rebut a poorly sourced innuendo piece by a writer with a poor reputation? Within two days after O’Neil’s article came out, it had been fairly well established that there were a lot of reasons Rouse didn’t have another coaching job, and they all made a lot more sense than that he’d been the subject of a Coach K-led blackballing effort. Yet again, you just pass off that conclusion as well-established fact.

            Again, your general point is fine: the dynamics of the head/assistant coach relationship are strange and fraught with almost mob-like pitfalls for failure to follow the rules. But you could make that point in ways that don’t intimate that another famous coach thinks getting away with murder is a better thing than an assistant coach not following the protocol of loyalty under any circumstances. You’re dragging Duke’s coach into this because you like to bash him and Duke. There’s no need for his name to be in this conversation.

            Your last mention of Krzyzewski above, in addition to the dripping condescension and sneering at the fact his name is shortened in public, makes no point whatsoever, other than to unfairly throw into some pool of moral guilt with Paterno. That’s the real tell here.

    • Know the law

      You and Coach K might want to check out NC state law that allows taping of conversations with “single-party consent”: he can certainly fire a staffer for secretly taping him but the staffer would be within his or her legal rights–and this is often recommended as the only way to prove that a powerful figure such as a supervisor is behaving illegally.

  • Pingback: State Penn | Shadowy Silk Blog()

  • He saw a naked boy … whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.

    Paterno called PSU athletic director Tim Curley to his home, and, according to Paterno’s grand jury testimony, told Curley that McQueary reported seeing Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” in the football locker room showers.


    Can anyone think of another situation in which “fondling” is like sticking a dick in an orifice?

  • JP59

    Well, there is one favorable thing that can be said about McQueary: He didn’t lie to the grand jury like Paterno, Curly, and Schultz. I wonder what kind of pressure might have been put on him to continue shielding the football program. Eventually he decided to do the right thing (presumably with some encouragement from the state DOJ). Too late, but late is still better than never.

    • John

      Do we know that Paterno lied to the Grand Jury? They didn’t indict him.

      • Yet.

        Paterno has hired a criminal defense attorney. This was reported yesterday (Thursday, November 10th).

  • For future reference, for anyone who finds themselves in such a situation as McQueary found himself in in that locker room that day, the following is the proper response.

    1) Scream “STOP!”
    2) Grab a towel, walk into the shower, take the
    child and wrap him/her in the towel.
    3) Walk the child out of the shower while asking
    him/her his/her name and the name of his/her
    4) Sit the child down in a locked office and ask
    the child for his/her parents’ phone
    number(s), and call the parents. Tell them who
    you are, tell them that their child is safe
    with you, but that he has been violated by
    __________ and you had the misfortune of
    witnessing this. Tell them where you are, how
    they can get there, and assure them that you
    will wait there, keeping their child safe,
    until they arrive to take custody. Tell them
    you’re calling the police next.
    5) Call the police. Wait for them to arrive. Tell
    them what you saw and how you responded.

    When an adult of conscience witnesses the rape of a child, whenever possible, it is best to take the child out of the situation and into safety, to make the child comfortable, to notify the one or more parents (given that it is not a parent doing the violating), call the police, present yourself to the police as a witness to a crime and be prepared to be a witness in court. Damn the scandal and the prestige, the issue here is a heinous criminal raping children, regardless of that person’s position in society, he/she is a criminal who deserves to be treated like one.

    • Epicurus

      Or you could just skip step #5…but that would be “frontier justice.” The more I have read about this scandal, the more disgusted I am by the actions of all those involved. Mr. McQueary definitely needs to apologize for his lack of intervention when witnessing a child being raped, but Sandusky needs to be in jail for the rest of his life, and JoePa needs to retire yesterday. WTF is it about college football?? Please, we have seen other scandals/coverups at Notre Dame, and the list of college athletes who have ended up on the wrong side of the law is not short. I write all this as a football fan, but I have to wonder for how much longer.

      • Lex

        I’d *like* to think that, confronted with that scene, I would have either followed Wiley’s instructions or hesitated only long enough to find an object capable of inflicting serious injury before bringing it down on Sandusky’s head and THEN followed steps 1-5.

        I suspect that’s what we’d all like to think. God willing, we’ll never have to find out.

  • I can see McQueary thinking to himself that after Sandusky had been caught and kicked out of the locker room and embarrassed and all that, Sandusky was sufficiently chastened that he had “straightened up,” maybe got counseling or something, and didn’t do That any more.

    So McQueary might have told himself that seeing Sandusky around campus with young boys in tow didn’t necessarily mean he was…. Yeah, well, we are all very accomplished in self-deception.

    Not excusing, just trying to explain the guy’s actions to myself. Because it does seem particularly horrible that he held onto his knowledge after actually SEEING a rape in progress.

    • John

      It is very easy to believe what it is most convenient for us to believe.

      • Exactly. I was just trying to puzzle out what it was that he could have believed to let himself off the hook.

        • cer

          I agree that there is a level of self-deception, probably some ass covering as well, aided and abetted by the entire institution of PSU. But it’s entirely par for the course in child sex abuse (and child abuse more generally). It is pretty shocking to find out that someone you know and likely had a close and trusting relationship is also a rapist. McQueary’s reaction is sadly common which is why many people cannot bring themselves to report it when it is their father, brother, friend, uncle, whomever. It’s the same dynamic as when people are told that it’s better to handle things in the family, that person X just has a problem and it’s best not to bring in outsiders. You don’t just see a child being raped, you see *person whom I knew and loved/trusted* raping a child.

  • wengler

    Isn’t the real question here why wasn’t Paterno charged with the AD and vice president?

    • The law says you need to report any allegations or evidence to your supervisor, so Paterno has satisfied that legal obligation- hence not being charged. The supervisors did not report it, and then they lied about it, so they are being charged.

      • John

        I think the key is that there is no evidence that Paterno lied to investigators or the grand jury.

        • cer

          I might be wrong about this but I think Paterno is also somewhat central to the perjury case against the other two. He and McQueary gave consistent testimony about what they told the AD/VP and it did not match the AD/VP’s testimony about what they were told.

      • jack

        Many people are talking about how the reporting law applies to this case. If I walk into the men’s room at walmart and see a man raping a child what if any responsiblities do I have as a citizen? Can I simply close the door and go back to my shopping? Am I obligated to try to immediately intervene to help the child? Am I obligated to whip out my cell phone and dial 911? Clearly to do nothing is in itself a criminal act of omission. I would be guilty of accessory to rape after the fact. In the case of a school employee the law says he or she is obligated to report suspected child abuse. This paper is an extra obligation on top of the normal obligation of any citizen. Back to McQueary. He saw a criminal assault taking place. Regardless of who was doing the assaulting or where he saw it he was under obligation as a normal citizen to come to the aid of the child and immediately report this crime to the police. No reporting law supercedes this basic obligation. As soon as McQueary slunk out of the area he was guilty of accessory to a crime. When McQ’s father heard the facts from his son he should have told him to go to the police. If the son refused, the father should have gone to the police. The same applies to Paterno when he heard the story, an on up the chain to the Athletic Director who got the story from Paterno. At no time was there any basis to withhold this information from the police. For the people involved to claim the “reporting law” as a defense, they would have to claim that they didn’t understand that the reporting law only added obligations to them as educators and did not remove any obligations they had as ordinary citizens.

  • Pingback: Moral Parallels: Foshan China, Penn State | B.log()

  • Mo

    This doesn’t surprise me at all. A sociology course I took, Organizational Deviance and White Collar Crime, turned into a confessional as class members turned out to have taken the class (it was a night class) after having experiences with shady workplaces. One of the problems with running a business where “law abiding” people are expected to break the law is – how do you recruit people who won’t rat you out when they learn what is going on?

    It turns out that you focus on college athletes, especially those who won scholarships. ‘Nobody makes it through that system without having turned a blind eye to something’was the consensus among the former underwriters of lousy mortgages, stock swindlers and employment agency reps who made sure companies could skirt employment law through “screening” of applicants. Military was also good, but not as reliable, you had to find someone shady, and then get him to recommend buddies to you.

    College athletic scholarships distort the US educational system from top to bottom.

    • mark f

      One of the problems with running a business where “law abiding” people are expected to break the law is – how do you recruit people who won’t rat you out when they learn what is going on?

      You get Wilfred Brimley to chase them with a gun through the streets of Memphis.

  • Pingback: Chinese toddlers, rape victims and Franz Kafka | On Hyperborea: ideas from the north()

  • Beauzeaux

    You know, I don’t think it’s useful to take a poll and try to determine what most people would have done.
    The only DECENT thing to have done is to try to stop the rape. Yell. Call the police. Both Sandusky and the boy saw McQueary see them and walk away.
    Sandusky — No one will stop me.
    Boy — No one will help me.

    It is a moral duty, a human duty to intervene when someone is being raped — much less a child. All the rest is sound and fury — mostly told by idiots.

    • Sis of PSU alum

      What that poor child must have thought was the first thing I thought when I read about what McQueary saw.

      My second thought was what kind of person doesn’t at grab the child and go, or pull Sandusky away, or at least run screaming for the police.

      But since McQueary’s dad didn’t advise him to call the police, either, I can only assume lack of morality and outright indifference to human suffering is a hereditary condition.

  • Pingback: The Fallout Begins – peterpfeiffer.co.cc()

  • sonmi451

    I think it would be a good idea to labeled the top picture to identify which one is McQueary. I don’t think it’s fair to the other person in that picture.

    • Walker of Dog

      Agreed. Or go one step further and crop the other guy out completely. If he has no association with the scandal, I imagine he would appreciate it.

  • Diane

    I’ve not visited this site before. I’m impressed with the literate and thoughtful comments.

  • cthulhu

    Though there are plenty of shocking features about this story, today I was most flabbergasted at Paterno’s exhortation to pray for the victimized boys at the impromptu rally at his home. What a master of ineffectual strategies to prevent child abuse.

    • I know. I’m shocked they animated his mouth long enough to spew that. You want to say that in context of “ohmygod, what the hell have I done?” that’s OK, but to make that his one and only statement on the subject is sick.

  • Anonymous

    How is:

    — Telephoning Paterno

    — Visiting Paterno at his home

    — Repeating what he saw to the athletic director, Curley, in person

    — Repeating it again to the SVP in person

    consistent with protecting his “nascent coaching career” or “potential for career advancement”?

    Keeping quiet at the beginning would have been consistent with that. But telling people in the coaching organization isn’t. There is plenty to criticize the guy about, but you’re imputing motivation that cannot possible exist, given the above facts.

    • Popeye

      Huh? None of those things are inconsistent with that motivation. The key fact is that he told his higher-ups what he saw, but no one else with the power to do anything.

      Although I wouldn’t describe this so much as careerist self-interest; it seems more like having a ridiculous amount of loyalty to a fundamentally corrupt instutition.

    • Glen

      He knew what he saw was wrong, but instead calling the cops (the real cops, not the campus rent-a-cops) he stayed within his comfort zone, the coaching organization. That was his priority, and he made a bad compromise between what’s right and saving his career.

      • Vin

        Just as a matter of legal requirements alone, if you live in any of the following states (Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah) you are required (link) to report suspected child abuse to the police or protective services, no matter who you are. In most every other state if you’re involved in education in any way shape for form you are also required to report any suspicions you have, again to the police or protective services. In my own state (VA) failure to report is a misdemeanor offense.

  • Michele

    After reading through a lot of these posts and responses, one thing I don’t see addressed is the impact of PSU on the town of State College.

    Consider: Why did it take the administration 10 days to get the keys from Sandusky and respond to McQueary? I’d like to think that this kind of situation would jump to the top of the agenda and would be addressed right away. I mean, really…if you heard this about one of your employees, could you think of anything ELSE until it was resolved?

    Isn’t it possible that during that time, PSU’s admin WAS in touch with local government (police chief, mayor, somebody) to talk about what happened and discuss options, and that they decided JOINTLY that PSU should handle it in-house?

    Anyone who’s been to State College knows that the town revolves around the school…every business, store, service there is connected to–and dependent on–PSU for its survival.

    And the school’s reputation hinges on the football team. That’s one of PSU’s biggest draws for dollars, sponsorships, grant funding, and potential athletic stars.

    If the team/program sinks, the school is adversely affected. (And we’re just starting to learn how big the fallout can be.) If the school suffers, the town suffers. Financially speaking, it would have been in the best interests of the town (law enforcement, local govt, business community) for there to NOT be a public scandal and for the whole thing to go away.

    I hate to be cynical (and I really hope that I’m wrong…that more people were not complicit in this unbelievably horrible situation), but I won’t be surprised if it comes out that the administrator made this decision AFTER discussing it with key leaders in the school and local government.

    • Peninsula

      But if they didn’t want a big public scandal, perhaps they shouldn’t have engaged in a big private coverup and enabling of this monster.

      If the guy had been reported and arrested when this was first witnessed, there would have been a little scandal, but it would have been easy for them to distance themselves at that time. Now, not so much.

      So much like the way the Catholic Church handled their sex abuse problems: deny, deny, coverup, deny some more, and then blame the victims. Oh, and engage in all sorts of enabling behavior so as not to damage anyone’s “reputation.” It’s sick.

    • Peninsula

      The other thing is, I cannot believe for one minute that NOBODY SUSPECTED this guy before this happened.

      Come. On. He felt comfortable enough to abuse this boy essentially in a public place? I bet it wasn’t even the 100th time he’d done that.

      There are probably a lot of guilty consciences out there tonight.

  • nlion71

    Brilliant eassay. Spot on.

    McQ is a coward sans pareil.

    He also is apparently staying out of prison only by becoming the State’s star witness.

    Will he be shameless enough to show his face on the sidelines November 12?

    And will those final Beaver Stadium cheers that he so desperately craves salve Paterno’s conscience?

    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper

  • Peninsula

    I find this whole notion of the “coaching family” and all this weird loyalty to the organization very odd. Not having been in organized or college sports, perhaps it’s something I’m just missing from my DNA, but frankly, I see it as a sort of glorified business relationship. Intense, yes, given the amount of time people spend together, but really at bottom a business-level relationship. These people (like this coach) aren’t relatives, they aren’t (or perhaps shouldn’t be) as close as family – certainly not in a giant semi-professional organization with probably dozens of “assistant coaches” and so forth. To apologize for McQueary by making the excuse that this coach was “like family” to him seems, well, strange to me. I’ve worked in very intense situations where I felt a sincere and profound connection with my co-workers, but I certainly never crossed the line into feeling like I knew them like family, or knew them as deeply as I know my long time friends. There’s a bright line there that I would easily be able to cross if I saw someone doing something like that to a child. No excuses. Yes, he reported it up the chain of command, yes, they may have said there would be an investigation, but the very first time I saw this guy with another victim on campus, I would have gone straight to the same people and asked them WTF is going on. And probably threatened to go to the police. The fact that he didn’t, I think, really shows that he just DIDN’T CARE about the victim, and as was so smartly illustrated in the essay, was more concerned with his own wellbeing and career.

    Guess all that “teamwork” wasn’t much of a character builder for that guy.

  • Pingback: Penn State Scandal: Joe Paterno Must Go Now | DSPN News()

  • Lola

    What McQueary did is absolutely disgusting and unforgiveable. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon. For proof of this just look at the case of a 2 year old Chinese girl who was run over twice by two different trucks. EIGHTEEN people saw the little girl bleeding and crying on the ground and just walked away. One of them was a mother with a child. She didn’t get any assistance until a nineteenth person helped her. She died several days later. Humans have an enormous capacity for self preservation at any cost. McQueary chose his career over the lives of countless boys.

  • booker

    Plausible scenario:

    McQueary sees the rape in progress. The victim and perp see him. McQ runs away and calls daddy. Daddy says get out of there. come to my house. McQ tells dad the unvarnished truth. Dad says we need to report this but we have to water it down or you’ll look like a POS for running away from a child rape in progress. Plus not calling the cops immediately may even make you a criminal, son. So we’ll meet with Joe P. and tell him a watered down version. This will cover your ass if the victim goes to the authorities and fingers you as a witness. So McQ tells Paterno about the ambiguous horsing around, P tells the administrators above him. They take appropriate action based on the watered down version. The jock world is full of homo-erotic macho stuff. Coaches see all kinds of male to male male sexuality: grab ass, towel fights, etc. It’s part of the culture. There are plenty boys and men in the sports world who are borderline gay but never really act out on it. So getting vague “horsing around” info on Sandusky would fit the pattern of somebody like that. It wasn’t a five alarm red alert to call the cops. Just steer Jerry away from opportunities to be a bit inappropriate. Had Paterno and the others heard the unvarnished truth of what McQ saw they would have called the cops immediately and let the chips fall. The grand jury finds McQ’s testimony very credible but not the testimony of the AD and Finance Director. But here’s why I think they are wrong. McQ is obviously a self-seeking coward in the first place. His subsequent actions are consistent with this, even to the point of telling the grand jury the truth about the locker room rape. When McQ was subpoenaed by the grand jury he didn’t know what they already knew; didn’t know if the victim had already come forward and ID’ed him as the witness that ran away. So McQ talked it over with dad and decided to spill the beans to the grand jury and avoid perjury charges. The admin guys who testified would be looking at the same uncertain situation and would have the same motivation to tell the truth. McQ would know that he could say he told P and Admin the gory details of the rape but they would not be able to prove that he didn’t so the grand jury would likely believe him and not them.

    • booker

      To follow up my previous post:

      Consider the point of view of the District Attorney. He wants to build the strongest possible case against Sandusky which means McQueary’s testimony of them most heinous crimes. So in order to validate the eyewitness testimony of McQ, the DA has to back every part of McQ’s testimony to the grand jury including the part about what he told Paterno and Admin. So, from the DA’s perspective, even if McQ is lying about telling the whole sordid truth to Paterno and Admin, the DA has to go with McQ’s total testimony as true in order to maintain his credibility. If not, Sandusky’s lawyer would cast doubt on all of McQ’s testimony. Without the victim coming forward, only McQ’s testimony can hang Sandusky on the most grevious charges. In essence, Paterno and the admin guys are being sacrificed by the DA in order to get Sandusky.

    • Anonymous

      Very interesting. They also may have already covered for JS. The police investigation of 1998 for example, or other things they knew. He was using the locker room! How can you go public now if there’s been a coverup for years.

      • booker

        I agree that many important people must have known that Sandusky “liked” boys. They just didn’t think he was as bad as he was. Back in 1999 Sandusky was told he would never be head coach. Shortly thereafter he retires at age 55, prime of life for a coach. Then his charity breaks ties with him. This is the time Sandusky started full time volunteer coaching at a high school. Only then did his relatively minor crime of showering with a student get reported to the authorities ultimately leading to uncovering the really horrible stuff.

        • Anonymous

          Ingot the feeling that the school and the foundation knew or, at least, suspected something and chose to “pass the problem to save face”. How sad that this happens at an institution designed to teach future generations. What lesson are we learning? Watch the protest of the students. This should also make us shake our heads.

    • From a careful reading of the grand jury presentment, there appears to be a distinct difference in what McQueary told Paterno, and what Paterno then told Curley.

      McQueary appears to have told Paterno that Sandusky was having anal sex with the 10-year old boy.

      Paterno then told Curley that Sandusky was fooling around with the boy in the showers.

      It appears it was Paterno who ‘watered down’ the description, not McQueary.

  • In looking for how to defend McQueary for his inaction, one has to look very hard. I’ve come up with this in his defense: McQueary did not actually join in.

  • Pingback: Child rape and those who support it « Later On()

  • Anonymous

    To follow up my previous post. Just when I thought the school, my father, myself, and my daughter attended, couldn’t screw this up any worse, I just read that Tom Bradley announced Mike Mcqueary will coach on Saturday!

    • The PSU board decided on Thursday evening that because of the death threats to McQueary that were being received, he would not be on the sidelines on Saturday.

      Tom Bradley, in his first press conference on Thursday, seemed to give every indication that he still believes that Joe Paterno is the most honorable man in America.

      I would be very doubtful that anything short of shutting down the entire PSU football program for at least a decade (if not permanently) will remove this deep-seated rot that affects the root and branch of the organization.

  • LadyD

    I don’t know any of these men, but what I do know is that history has shown that White men stick together right, wrong or indifferent…..White men have been abusing other men, women and children in abundance and always find a way to justify their actions or their friends action. This is only news to those who turn a blind eye to the truth.

    • It’s not just white men that stick together: any tightly knit group is at risk of viewing those not in the group as “outsiders” and defining “loyalty” as protecting the group at all costs, rather than (say) as adhering to a code of ethics, morality, law, or whatever principles ostensibly govern our behavior. A person who is seen as acting against a member of the group because of ethics/morals/laws is generally ostracized as an “outsider” and may well suffer physically, financially, or in other ways. The group can consist of men or women of any race or any mix of races. Look, for example, at how police officers cover up for other police officers and generally refuse to cooperate in investigations (e.g., by Internal Affairs). Or how physicians cover up for other physicians in the case of malpractice.

      Seeing this as a problem restricted to white males may be reassuring to those who don’t belong to that group, but those should look at the groups to which they do belong. Group loyalty is a deep force. Primates first began to forage in groups 52 million years ago and 16 million years ago began living in stable social groups. By now the group thing is deeply embedded—ethics is quite recent in comparison.

  • Pingback: Group loyalty « Later On()

  • Sis of PSU alum

    I am still trying to get my mind wrapped around a grown man walking away from a child being raped and slapped around. Doing nothing? And NO ONE on staff calling police?! NO ONE helping this child?!

    And McQueary is still employed by PSU? No charges filed against him for his depraved indifference to a minor being assaulted, or something along those lines!? How is this possible?

    I hadn’t been paying much attention to the scandal, so when I finally read about it in more detail, the heinous nature of everything and the moral depravity of everyone involved took me by surprise. This story is the closest I’ve come to actually vomiting while reading a news story in a very long time.

  • sablegsd

    I’m a middle aged grand mother with health issues and I guarantee you that POS would have been carried out on a stretcher.

    My heart cries for that little boy who had his faith in humanity napalmed that day.

    From the top on down to mcqueery, they all should be fired and have charges brought. The howdy doody in no way deserves whistle-blower status.

    And if the other rumor proves true, that whole school should be bulldozed.

  • Pingback: Christiana Gammage()

  • Pingback: demotivator()

  • Pingback: But we are superior…to you, David. | World's Only Rational Man()

  • Pingback: Moral Exiles and the costs of suicide prohibition » Diabasis()

  • Mike

    In this state, Colorado, the person(s) reporting sexual abuse of an adult or child is investigated as is the alledged abuser. The best way to report this crime is from a phone booth outside a convenience store – and do it in less than a minute.

  • Pingback: Navel Gazing! : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

It is main inner container footer text