Simply because CB had access to his files and IMO could have cherry picked them.
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
I'm not trying to mute anyone. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
Everything can be done better. It is very rare that is unusual or stressful situations, everything is done perfectly. Setting aside any legal arguments, the question becomes "does someone's actions during that event pass muster based on the situation and information available at the time". The way that C/S/S responded, while not perfect, was certainly reasonable at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to throw stones at it, but in the moment it was a reasonable course of action.
My thought is that the general public would be exposed to news that they had not seen before, would cause some people to re-think their assumptions, such as:
Just my thoughts. Sorry you asked?
I think you overestimate the public giving 2 sh!ts about a serial pedophile to be honest.
I see. Thanks for clarifying. That's certainly possible.
I recall the story of the secretary retrieving his files from his old office. Were those turned over directly to Baldwin?
Agreed.
I'm considering the JVP angle being told on its own, taking out the JS stuff. That was the premise for what I referenced in the last couple of posts. I disagree with the JZ approach of tying in JVP with JS being innocent. I want the JVP angle to be carved out on its own, because I think it stands well on its own.
And if that helps to change peoples' minds about C/S/S, all the better. But I'm not thinking along those lines.
The thing is if you really want to be honest, they didn't do that great a job for their positions. It wasn't criminal IMO, but certainly I could see them being canned for it if they were at a public place as well. Hindsight or not, you bring in a lawyer, but don't keep records of any of this with HR? You don't put MM on the record and date and time stamp it? Why not? Then you don't listen to the lawyer and audible away from the sensible call for a "humane" one.
I do think there is more information out there, but I starting to think it may not be for the better. It's odd that those who said they would review the reports never go public after they make those declarations. New BOT members or Barron. Either the reviews never happened or maybe there is an Oh Sh!t moment going on behind closed doors? It is odd the way the BoT was so quick to fire Joe and toss everyone under the bus. Maybe that was their was their own CYA piece, but what about those that came on after the mess, none could speak up? There is a cone of silence there that is very, very, very, very odd.
I think you (inadvertently) hint at part of the problem.
As soon as child sexual abuse (as I've mentioned many times before, pedophile is the wrong word to use here and "serial pedophile" is non-sensical) enters the equation, people not only assume guilt, but lose their ability to think rationally. This is not to say that CSA shouldn't taken very seriously, but people have a really, really hard time having level headed discussions about anything having to do with CSA.
I honestly think that the public reaction to a murder of a child is less sensationalized than CSA. Which is mind boggling.
I always take Joe out of this. He was handed a sh!t sandwich and it was a no win one. Yes in theory he could have played superhero, but it wasn't smart to do so IMO and he was fine with what he did IMO. At the end of the day, the man was a football coach. He wasn't an HR person, or administrator, he was there to teach kids football, life, and raise money....and he did that very well.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how the Nassar crimes BOLSTER the alleged crimes at Penn State in many people's minds, when the 2 situations could not be more different.
"didn't do a great job" is subjective. If PSU wanted to put them on admin leave while they reviewed their actions, I think that would have been totally appropriate. But the reckless overcharging by the OAG precluded that. I would like to think that PSU would have understood the overcharging and still placed them on admin leave until the legal proceedings ended, but the BOT definitely didn't do a good job.
Why do you think it would have been appropriate to do anything related to HR? JS was not an employee. They talked to the people that they felt would address the problem.
Regarding, "It's odd that those who said they would review the reports never go public after they make those declarations" I'm assuming you are referring to the A9's review of the Freeh report and underlying documents? Isn't it the case that they are under court order not to discuss what they've found (i.e. a condition of the review was that everything remain sealed)?
Sigh. Your English 15 TA would be disappointed in you.
A pedophile is "one who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children". This is a) not illegal (i.e. actions are illegal, not thoughts); b) not what Jerry was (his crimes were against pubescent boys, not children).
I believe the work you probably want is pederast, which is someone who acts on the above attraction (i.e. has sex with boys). Even then, this isn't the right word, as I believe that most of the victims were 12-15 years of age (i.e. pubescent).
So thanks for both missing and demonstrating my point.
Based on what has been made public, I have no issue with JVP and how he handled this.
As I detailed in a post yesterday... They employed multiple risk response strategies. They transferred the risk to TSM by passing the report along, they mitigated their remaining risk as much as possible by telling JS to not bring kids on campus, they accepted the minuscule amount of risk left. The fact that people use hindsight bias to say they should have done something differently is just mind boggling.
LOL, oh so that is the clarification you wanted. I stand corrected there and boy did you show me.
I believe you wanted to use the word "WORD", not the WORK as you did, but I still knew what you meant just like people understand what Jerry is. If that somehow makes you feel better saying Jerry wasn't a PEDOPHILE, by all means have your trophy.
It like you conflate a typo (word vs work) with blatantly using the wrong word.
I'm not looking for a trophy; I'm looking for people to understand the words that they use. Or perhaps it is a purposeful mis-direct on your part, by calling him a pederast (which you aren't even doing because you don't have the proper vocabulary) which sensationalizes the crime beyond that it actually was.
That I can't answer, but I do know CB told Tim and Gary not to review their "notes" before testifying in front of the GJ.
I said all along they should have been suspended initially pending the legal outcomes. That isn't an off the wall move to make. As far as why not go to HR, Joe and MM were tied to the school. MM was a GA and Joe was the HC and this was their second known accusation with Jerry so it makes sense to do that. Why in the hell would they go to a lawyer if it were nothing at all? You can't have it both ways. A simple recorded report from MM puts all of the questions to rest of when this occurred and what actions were taken and why.
Sounds like a very good reason to keep ones mouth shut.....in the shit hole justice system of The Commonwealth.
Joe had nothing to do with it from an HR perspective.
MM reporting something he saw to police (or in this case, not reporting something he saw to police) ISN'T an HR matter.
They consulted a lawyer as a CYA that went above and beyond what they had to do. And you criticize them for that?
I hope you never make an honest mistake in your professional life. Or if you do, those that judge you have more realistic standards than you hold C/S/S to.
Not sure who you are replying to, since they are blocked, but only a Penn State grad would have the possibility to know what English 15 is. I have a pretty good idea who it is though, because so many posts are missing, and only one person is that obsessed with this subject.
I've been out out of school too long, and my transcript has English 30. Did they recently rename it to English 15?
He assaulted children and if you want to call him a pederast, by all means have at it. Somehow that makes you feel better or something...6 years later and you're worrying about that BS. Really, well you really flipped my world upside down there.
You asked why involve HR, well Joe was an employee and one of his GA's was making a report of something that may have occurred on campus. That alone is a pretty good reason. I'm not criticizing them for going to a lawyer, but I am for them ignoring what he said. You really couldn't figure that one out on your own. I forgot you cannot criticize anyone involved as that means you hate them all and want them to burn at the stake.
I really hope you are not in a position of any responsibility for any company as apparently you are worried more about image than anything else apparently. Spanier himself saw and stated the risk, but dare anyone else call them out for it. It means he actually knew this could blow back on them....but I don't think he could have ever anticipated any of this...and I'm not blaming him for that. I am simply saying he even saw the risk of not making the call. It's so odd how some people get so bothered by saying that.
Last edited:
Panda, maybe you are older than me. In the 90s English 15 was "Composition and Rhetoric" (I just looked at a copy of my transcript I have at my desk) and was the freshman writing class everyone had to take.
(I was responding to Lajolla who doesn't like it when I point out issues with his vocabulary).
He didn't assault "children". That's the point. Are making that assertion to sensationalize the issue or do you not know the definition of "puberty" either?He assaulted children and if you want to call him a pederast, by all means have at it. Somehow that makes you feel better or something...6 years later and you're worrying about that BS. Really, well you really flipped my world upside down there.
I have no problems with it, but you better get out there and correct the intetwebs.....a ton of articles used the term pedophile so you really do need to correct them. It makes it so much better.
Maybe you know more about PSU HR procedures than I do, but if one of my direct reports came to me saying they may or may not have seen a crime in our building's gym, it would be a matter for the police and building security, not for HR.
I googled it:
What is English 30?
ENGL 030, Honors Writing and Composition, is an honors rhetoric course that qualified students take instead of ENGL 015. Since ENGL 030 replaces ENGL 015 as an introduction to upper-level writing courses, it is important that it perform the same function as ENGL 015. Like the students who take ENGL 015, students who take ENGL 030 should learn to invent various kinds of arguments and to adapt them to a variety of clearly defined audiences and purposes.
So you are going with the "everybody else is ignorant, so that allows me to be ignorant too" defense? Fair enough. Good luck with that.I have no problems with it, but you better get out there and correct the intetwebs.....a ton of articles used the term pedophile so you really do need to correct them. It makes it so much better.
This isn't about PSU HR procedures, but just in general. You wouldn't inform your HR manager after calling the police? Well then I was right about your place in a company as you seem very ignorant on the issue. It makes sense why you come off as naive as you do.
I suspected as much. Panda was one of them "smart kids" ;-)
I wouldn't call the police. I would advise my direct report to call the police if they thought they saw a crime. I would call building security to alert them of the possible situation. And I wouldn't call HR, because if my organization that is not an HR issue (unless the crime was against an employee or by an employee, but even then it only becomes an HR issue after security finishes their investigation, and they report it to HR, not me).
Edit: and I would talk to my boss to make sure that I had the policies correct here because this doesn't come up every day.
Last edited:
Sounds fair, but this was a second report on the same person. A person you VP had a note on that said at worst it was borderline criminal and or was wildly inappropriate at best. A lawyer then tells you to make a report just in case (CYA) and you don't. You then state by not doing so you leave yourself vulnerable for blow back. But how dare I be critical of that decision. Fine you don't find any fault with them at all or somehow don't want to hear an opinion that varies from yours.
Yes, but the "same person" is not my direct report. My direct report is the "reporter" not the "reportee." That's a massive distinction which takes me out of the loop pretty quickly.
Ok, maybe you are feeling guilty for something I guess, because this was up PSU's chain and guess what happens when you're the president, CEO, General, Admiral....and something happens under your watch even though you weren't aware at the time. Sometimes you get relieved from duty and it's not always fair.
Not to mention, MM was also a student and JS an emeritus professor. The whole administrative mess was much more complex than a simple HR employee relations matter.
Similar threads
