Four years to the day of the JoePa beheading. How's that working out for us?

[ApexLion]

I'm honestly curious what others here think. Granted most are still angry over some aspect of this but let's narrow things.

We've had our 'time to sit back and reflect' and I'd like to know if anyone thinks what Surma, Kenny and Peetz did four years ago has had any positive or negative results.

Fire away on the merits or drawbacks of beheading Joe Paterno on live, national TV.

I think most know where I come down on this subject but hey its a message board. And yes, I'm opening up an 'old wound' because frankly, this son of Pennsylvania doesn't believe its an old wound. The curative power of light has not been applied. The wound has been concealed by Mssrs. Freeh, Surma, Frazier and Peetz (she wants to be part of the boy's club).

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

A bit strong of language there, don't you think?

 

[ApexLion]

A bit strong of language there, don't you think?

Would you prefer assassination?

Public Banishment?

Accusation of Criminal Guilt by Employer on live TV?

 

[LAHammer]

I'm honestly curious what others here think. Granted most are still angry over some aspect of this but let's narrow things.

We've had our 'time to sit back and reflect' and I'd like to know if anyone thinks what Surma, Kenny and Peetz did four years ago has had any positive or negative results.

Fire away on the merits or drawbacks of beheading Joe Paterno on live, national TV.

I think most know where I come down on this subject but hey its a message board. And yes, I'm opening up an 'old wound' because frankly, this son of Pennsylvania doesn't believe its an old wound. The curative power of light has not been applied. The wound has been concealed by Mssrs. Freeh, Surma, Frazier and Peetz (she wants to be part of the boy's club).

Neither can this adopted son of Pennsylvania.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Would you prefer assassination?

Public Banishment?

Accusation of Criminal Guilt by Employer on live TV?

Something that doesn't involve murder would be a nice start.

 

[royboy]

Two parts here....for those who took the action and made Joe the public scapegoat:
It's worked out poorly if what they intended was a desire to limit damages and move on.
If what they intended was to cover their own malfeasance and corruption -- so far they have evaded that responsibility for the most part.

For the University -- the actions have been disastrous financially and in reputation.

 

[ApexLion]

Something that doesn't involve murder would be a nice start.

So, blaming a senior citizen with cancer of enabling pedophilia on live tv without some semblance of due process isn't injurious?

That's my last response 4 u - troll gnat.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

So, blaming a senior citizen with cancer of enabling pedophilia on live tv without some semblance of due process isn't injurious?

That's my last response 4 u - troll gnat.

I'm terribly sorry that I don't equate firing someone with killing someone.

Age and health status have nothing to do with this.

 

[PennSt8er]

It's past 2014. I've already forgotten about this like Karen elegantly predicted.

 

[royboy]

Something that doesn't involve murder would be a nice start.

It was the modern equivalent of a public lynching; I don't think that is too strong, and I think it is quite likely that it helped kill Joe Paterno. But choose your own words and answer the substance of evaluating the actions 4 years later.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

My apologies for posting here.

I forgot that this place is the den of people who have lost all logical thought processes and ways of expression when it comes to anything Paterno-related.

 

[91Joe95]

I'm honestly curious what others here think. Granted most are still angry over some aspect of this but let's narrow things.

We've had our 'time to sit back and reflect' and I'd like to know if anyone thinks what Surma, Kenny and Peetz did four years ago has had any positive or negative results.

Fire away on the merits or drawbacks of beheading Joe Paterno on live, national TV.

I think most know where I come down on this subject but hey its a message board. And yes, I'm opening up an 'old wound' because frankly, this son of Pennsylvania doesn't believe its an old wound. The curative power of light has not been applied. The wound has been concealed by Mssrs. Freeh, Surma, Frazier and Peetz (she wants to be part of the boy's club).

They're actions look even dumber and more vindictive now. Its amazing what an absolute cluster **** they created.

 

[EPC FAN]

Something that doesn't involve murder would be a nice start.

Well, it probably hastened his demise. But since you insist, how about they stabbed him in the back. Et TU, Brute.
Karen Peetz said it would be long forgotten by last year.

 

[psuro]

I continue to be saddened by Joe's firing and his untimely passing, based on his (unknown to almost everyone) ill health.

I am heartened, however, at the number of Penn Staters who have not "forgotten", and have not simply turned the page on this matter. 4 years after the fact, and, despite the quest for truth not moving to anyone's liking and expediency, Joe remains in the minds of almost all Penn Staters, his personal belief system has become our core value system, and his statement to seek the truth remains the goal.

I know there will be the usual suspects who won't agree with me and wish to mock this post - that is fine. I am sure that I can write up their rebuttals to this post for them.

But, they fight isn't over- it's only just begun.

 

[Evan Ceg]

Suspending Joe from coaching was the right decision. However, the BoT (Surma) completely botched the reasons publicly stated for Joe's removal. It should have been administrative leave with pay and Surma should have said that the BoT wasn't making any judgments about the legal or ethical culpability of Joe, Spanier, McQueary, Curley, Schultz, Sandusky, etc. Surma also should have pleaded with the media (public) for due process and "innocent until proven guilty," but the plea would have fallen on deaf ears at that time.

And, of course, they completely screwed up in failing to consult with Joe (so far as we know) and in the manner they delivered the news to him.

 

[demlion]

Two parts here....for those who took the action and made Joe the public scapegoat:
It's worked out poorly if what they intended was a desire to limit damages and move on.
If what they intended was to cover their own malfeasance and corruption -- so far they have evaded that responsibility for the most part.

For the University -- the actions have been disastrous financially and in reputation.

To the extent that they sought to shift the blame for this stuff from their fellow BoT members and TSM Board friends, I cannot deny that they momentarily succeeded, and maybe some of them will die before we get even.

But they ought to have been more careful in what they wished for. Thousands upon thousands of good people with fine educations will treat their names as Mudd for a very, very long time, as Paul Suhey Jr. found out, and the beauty is that they will never know when they are among us. They will always be afraid wherever they live to get a Civic Award or recognition of any kind, because WE could be there waiting to remind those who honor them that they are dishonest, lying scum, whatever good they may have done.

I will NEVER forget what they did. Until a full accounting is rendered, and they own not only what they did but WHY they did it, forgiveness is not an option. They can avoid famous, recognizable people like Franco, but they will not be able to forever avoid PennStaters in their communities, in their companies, or in public. When they are called out publicly, it will confirm and heighten the low level anxiety they feel already, and will commence it for those who have not felt it up to now.

It will never be over until they are dead. I am prepared to live with that if they are. And that is assuming we do not eventually get our hands on the emails (undoubtedly there are some) which tend to show it. In that event, they will be made to feel sorrow about this if only for themselves.

 

[psuro]

Suspending Joe from coaching was the right decision. However, the BoT (Surma) completely botched the reasons publicly stated for Joe's removal. It should have been administrative leave with pay and Surma should have said that the BoT wasn't making any judgments about the legal or ethical culpability of Joe, Spanier, McQueary, Curley, Schultz, Sandusky, etc. Surma also should have pleaded with the media (public) for due process and "innocent until proven guilty," but the plea would have fallen on deaf ears.

And, of course, they completely screwed up in failing to consult with Joe (so far as we know) and in the manner they delivered the news to him.

It was simply not a football matter. It only became that when no one in the BoT stepped forward, and the media went ballistic. Suspending Joe, much like his firing, simply added fuel to the fire that still smolders.

 

[Evan Ceg]

It was simply not a football matter. It only became that when no one in the BoT stepped forward, and the media went ballistic. Suspending Joe, much like his firing, simply added fuel to the fire that still smolders.

Whether or not it was a football matter wasn't definitively known at the time. And suspending Paterno did pull some fuel from the fire, because the concern at that moment had to be what was good for the University as opposed to what was good for Football or for Joe's legacy. Had the University acted defiantly in those days, it would have had far greater negative effect on the University's brand than what has transpired, bad as it's been.

Once Curley and Schultz were indicted within 24 hours of Sandusky, it was going to be a public cluster f*** no matter what. The BoT managed to make it even worse.

 

[91Joe95]

Suspending Joe from coaching was the right decision. However, the BoT (Surma) completely botched the reasons publicly stated for Joe's removal. It should have been administrative leave with pay and Surma should have said that the BoT wasn't making any judgments about the legal or ethical culpability of Joe, Spanier, McQueary, Curley, Schultz, Sandusky, etc. Surma also should have pleaded with the media (public) for due process and "innocent until proven guilty," but the plea would have fallen on deaf ears at that time.

And, of course, they completely screwed up in failing to consult with Joe (so far as we know) and in the manner they delivered the news to him.

Maybe you should take a step back and look at why the press turned the way they did. The bot was already stoking the fire.

 

[EPC FAN]

Suspending Joe from coaching was the right decision. However, the BoT (Surma) completely botched the reasons publicly stated for Joe's removal. It should have been administrative leave with pay and Surma should have said that the BoT wasn't making any judgments about the legal or ethical culpability of Joe, Spanier, McQueary, Curley, Schultz, Sandusky, etc. Surma also should have pleaded with the media (public) for due process and "innocent until proven guilty," but the plea would have fallen on deaf ears at that time.

And, of course, they completely screwed up in failing to consult with Joe (so far as we know) and in the manner they delivered the news to him.

Whether or not it was a football matter wasn't definitively known at the time. And suspending Paterno, as a SOP matter of administrative suspension, did pull some fuel from the fire, because the concern at that moment had to be what was good for the University as opposed to what was good for Football or for Joe's legacy. Had the University acted defiantly in those days, it would have had far greater negative effect on the University's brand than what has transpired, bad as it's been.

If they had only been more measured and rational, instead of bowing to the media mob, lots of this could have been avoided.
To me, it was very telling that Surma delivered the BoT message instead of Chairman Steve Garban. Surma had an axe to grind over his nephew. He used that axe that evening.

 

[Misder2]

Whether or not it was a football matter wasn't definitively known at the time.

I disagree, I believe it was known at the time. It was known to be a TSM problem.

 

[91Joe95]

Whether or not it was a football matter wasn't definitively known at the time. And suspending Paterno, as a SOP matter of administrative suspension, did pull some fuel from the fire, because the concern at that moment had to be what was good for the University as opposed to what was good for Football or for Joe's legacy. Had the University acted defiantly in those days, it would have had far greater negative effect on the University's brand than what has transpired, bad as it's been.

Oh, they knew it wasn't a football matter. They knew Sandusky had been off the staff for several years. They knew psu's reporting procedures. They knew the reporting laws in the state. They knew Paterno had nothing to do with Sandusky's emeritus status. They knew how a grand jury worked. They knew Linda Kelly stated Joe had been a cooperative and forthcoming witness for the prosecution. They knew Linda Kelly stated Joe had followed every law and procedure to the t. They knew Joe's character and belief systems.

 

[ApexLion]

Suspending Joe from coaching was the right decision. However, the BoT (Surma) completely botched the reasons publicly stated for Joe's removal. It should have been administrative leave with pay and Surma should have said that the BoT wasn't making any judgments about the legal or ethical culpability of Joe, Spanier, McQueary, Curley, Schultz, Sandusky, etc. Surma also should have pleaded with the media (public) for due process and "innocent until proven guilty," but the plea would have fallen on deaf ears at that time.

And, of course, they completely screwed up in failing to consult with Joe (so far as we know) and in the manner they delivered the news to him.

With all due respect and civility that I can muster: WTF, where were you and others four years ago? Seriously. I was on this board that night and we even had lawyers who should know better claiming that Surma was doing the right thing. Looking back, I even think Surma knew he was doing the wrong thing as he "Nixon quivered and sweated" thru his one and only opportunity to be on the television.

 

[ApexLion]

Two parts here....for those who took the action and made Joe the public scapegoat:
It's worked out poorly if what they intended was a desire to limit damages and move on.
If what they intended was to cover their own malfeasance and corruption -- so far they have evaded that responsibility for the most part.

For the University -- the actions have been disastrous financially and in reputation.

I would be curious, since PSU is a research university, about some research on the damage done and the possible positives of the BOT actions. I wonder if anyone in the Communications school is working on a MA or Ph.D. thesis. I know some professors are working on the PR/crisis analysis and writing articles and book chapters but I would be curious to see a) what is the criteria that could be researched and b) the results of the actions of four years ago in light of the criteria established. In other words, what has been accomplished and what hasn't been accomplished but what do we need to evaluate? I suppose you could look at things like relative research dollars and admissions (applications) but those things are often predicated by other factors unrelated to crisis management. I would think internal polling as well as public sentiment (brand research) may be more illuminating and just a start.

 

[Bob78]

If they had only been more measured and rational, instead of bowing to the media mob, lots of this could have been avoided.

To me, it was very telling that Surma delivered the BoT message instead of Chairman Steve Garban. Surma had an axe to grind over his nephew. He used that axe that evening.

I think Garban could not in good conscience deliver that message. I believe he knew what was going on and how wrong it was that they were scapegoating Joe. And others knew that as well. Only no one spoke up with any true resolve. I've heard that this greatly disturbs Garban to this day.

 

[Op2]

This gets into contingencies. "X happened and event subsequently unfolded this way, but if X hadn't happened how would events have unfolded?" That by nature is to some degree speculative. But the indelicate way JVP was ousted aside, if you think any scenario that involved PSU leaving JVP in his job without even a suspension would have turned out better for PSU in the long run I would strongly disagree.

 

[capkrokus]

Suspending Joe from coaching was the right decision. However, the BoT (Surma) completely botched the reasons publicly stated for Joe's removal. It should have been administrative leave with pay and Surma should have said that the BoT wasn't making any judgments about the legal or ethical culpability of Joe, Spanier, McQueary, Curley, Schultz, Sandusky, etc. Surma also should have pleaded with the media (public) for due process and "innocent until proven guilty," but the plea would have fallen on deaf ears at that time.

And, of course, they completely screwed up in failing to consult with Joe (so far as we know) and in the manner they delivered the news to him.

Agreed, but it may not have fallen on deaf ears if they had a press conference "during the day" and had JVP alongside Surma & Company stating JVP is on leave until due process is complete.

 

[bamasota]

I would be curious, since PSU is a research university, about some research on the damage done and the possible positives of the BOT actions. I wonder if anyone in the Communications school is working on a MA or Ph.D. thesis. I know some professors are working on the PR/crisis analysis and writing articles and book chapters but I would be curious to see a) what is the criteria that could be researched and b) the results of the actions of four years ago in light of the criteria established. In other words, what has been accomplished and what hasn't been accomplished but what do we need to evaluate? I suppose you could look at things like relative research dollars and admissions (applications) but those things are often predicated by other factors unrelated to crisis management. I would think internal polling as well as public sentiment (brand research) may be more illuminating and just a start.

Public sentiment? The general public has long since moved on from this mess. Why do you think that these "Epic" discoveries made by bloggers don't get national media coverage? Because it will not sell papers or generate clicks. The majority of people don't live their lives day to day based on this saga. They don't view Joe's fate as a "public beheading" but more as a university firing the head football coach, something that occurs quite frequently.

 

[Evan Ceg]

The public wasn't concerned with what was right and true, or with legal process. The public perceived Penn State as a hypocritical institution that valued football over the innocence of children, and however wrong that perception was/is, the University had to react to it. Some will say, "To hell with what the public thinks," but a great deal of the University's welfare is tied to the general perception of its brand. To have done nothing or to have acted in a way that would have been seen as excuse-making or as defiance would have only made a horrific situation even worse. The priority in those days had to be the University's mission and its value to 90,000 students and faculty, not the alumni, not Joe, not football.

Most of the BoT's decisions that week were indefensible, but they were right to act decisively. They should have acted on Saturday or Sunday, not wait until Wednesday night.

 

[demlion]

Public sentiment? The general public has long since moved on from this mess. Why do you think that these "Epic" discoveries made by bloggers don't get national media coverage? Because it will not sell papers or generate clicks. The majority of people don't live their lives day to day based on this saga. They don't view Joe's fate as a "public beheading" but more as a university firing the head football coach, something that occurs quite frequently.

I do not live my life day to day as though it depended on the outcome of this saga, either. OTOH, I try to deal with the injustices I see every day, and this is a very big one that happened 4 years ago. That the national media do not cover this has no more impact on whether an injustice has occurred than its similar failure to cover Jerry Sandusky for years after the abuse began. Their gullibility, laziness and unprofessionalism is not the shining evidence of irrelevance you seem to wish it were. Like I say, it's a long game. I am in to the end. If it bores or frustrates you, too bad. Don't watch what I do, and then you won't be bored or frustrated.

 

[waltsrug]

Public sentiment? The general public has long since moved on from this mess. Why do you think that these "Epic" discoveries made by bloggers don't get national media coverage? Because it will not sell papers or generate clicks. The majority of people don't live their lives day to day based on this saga. They don't view Joe's fate as a "public beheading" but more as a university firing the head football coach, something that occurs quite frequently.

I could give two sh*ts what the general public has or has not moved on from. This is OUR family and WE will continue to resolve OUR family's name. And the opinion of a Minnesota Ie Alabama fan Is useless and inconsequential to OUR family. But if makes you feel better up spout off what you think the general public thinks them more power to you

 

[ApexLion]

Public sentiment? The general public has long since moved on from this mess. Why do you think that these "Epic" discoveries made by bloggers don't get national media coverage? Because it will not sell papers or generate clicks. The majority of people don't live their lives day to day based on this saga. They don't view Joe's fate as a "public beheading" but more as a university firing the head football coach, something that occurs quite frequently.

While that may be true, this has been a Penn State problem for us to figure out and I'd like to know if anyone is researching the net effect of the BOT's actions. One data point could involve public sentiment. My reference to public sentiment was thrown out there as a possible criterion for research, nothing more.

 

[royboy]

Most of the BoT's decisions that week were indefensible, but they were right to act decisively. They should have acted on Saturday or Sunday, not wait until Wednesday night.

Did you really mean to say that?
1. They were late in addressing the whole matter, as you note. Like a doctor late to a critical operation
2. They damn near killed the patient, in this case the patient being the reputation of the University.

Their actions were worse than doing nothing. Decisive counts for nothing if it is wrong.

 

[SCNit]

I think it simply boils down to this. Penn State (my alma mater) and it's BOT at that time are now case studies across the nation, heck, maybe the world, in how 'NOT" to manage a crisis. Nearly every step they took added fuel to the burning embers of public anger with the Sandusky affair. The way they handled a notably honorable, yet imperfect human as we all are, was an abhorrent action.

 

[ApexLion]

This gets into contingencies. "X happened and event subsequently unfolded this way, but if X hadn't happened how would events have unfolded?" That by nature is to some degree speculative. But the indelicate way JVP was ousted aside, if you think any scenario that involved PSU leaving JVP in his job without even a suspension would have turned out better for PSU in the long run I would strongly disagree.

Very weird how you only show up on this issue. You are the dude that claimed the public should determine what Penn State should do, in essence the mob rules.

There isn't one person on this board who argues that Joe should have been left in his job as if nothing was going on. In fact, no one here mentions that option ever, except you. Curious.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

My reference to public sentiment was thrown out there as a possible criterion for research, nothing more.

If research were to be done on the subject, who would you like to see do it? Or to put it another way, if Penn State published its own research and findings on the topic, would you believe it?

 

[91Joe95]

The public wasn't concerned with what was right and true, or with legal process. The public perceived Penn State as a hypocritical institution that valued football over the innocence of children, and however wrong that perception was/is, the University had to react to it. Some will say, "To hell with what the public thinks," but a great deal of the University's welfare is tied to the general perception of its brand. To have done nothing or to have acted in a way that would have been seen as excuse-making or as defiance would have only made a horrific situation even worse. The priority in those days had to be the University's mission and its value to 90,000 students and faculty, not the alumni, not Joe, not football.

Most of the BoT's decisions that week were indefensible, but they were right to act decisively. They should have acted on Saturday or Sunday, not wait until Wednesday night.

The public was busy listening to the lies the bot was actively spewing before 11/9. They simply reacted and in a decisive manner?!? Nope.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

11/9/11. Never Forget. Never Ever Forget

 

[91Joe95]

This gets into contingencies. "X happened and event subsequently unfolded this way, but if X hadn't happened how would events have unfolded?" That by nature is to some degree speculative. But the indelicate way JVP was ousted aside, if you think any scenario that involved PSU leaving JVP in his job without even a suspension would have turned out better for PSU in the long run I would strongly disagree.

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.

 

[BobPSU92]

I forgot all about it by 2014.