PSU: Paterno’s firing over ‘failure of leadership’

highwayman

Knows Less Than Coaching Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
7,916
Reaction score
1,589
Points
113
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP)—Penn State trustees, faced with continued alumni and student criticism for firing football coach Joe Paterno, on Monday released a statement intended to underscore their rationale for his ouster: “failure of leadership” for his actions following a reported sex assault involving former assistant Jerry Sandusky.

The board found that while Paterno fulfilled a legal obligation to tell his superiors that an employee claimed Sandusky abused a young boy in a shower, it said Paterno should have done more.

“We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno,” the trustees wrote.

In his first public comments since being fired at Penn State two months ago, Joe Paterno said assistant Mike McQueary "didn't want to get specific" about details in his 2002 allegation involving Jerry Sandusky. The trustees report comes after months of criticism from Penn State alumni over Paterno’s firing in November. The Hall of Fame coach died in January after a brief bout with lung cancer.

In its statement, the trustees said they had been asked by the Penn State community to “state clearly” the reasons for Paterno’s dismissal and the removal of the university president.

Sandusky is accused of sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15-year span. He has denied the allegations.

Then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary’s claim he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy inside a football building on the university campus is one of 10 such allegations brought by the state attorney general’s office.

The first round of charges against Sandusky was filed Nov. 5, four days before Paterno was fired and university President Graham Spanier was forced to resign.

The board also apologized for the decision to fire Paterno by phone late that night—a decision that drew the ire of many of the late coach’s supporters.

“We saw no better alternative,” the trustees wrote. “Because Coach Paterno’s home was surrounded by media representatives, photographers and others, we did not believe there was a dignified, private and secure way to send Board representatives to meet with him there.”

The trustees said they planned to apologize to Paterno for the way he was being dismissed but the coach ended the call before the message could be delivered.

Phone messages left for Spanier and the Paterno family were not immediately returned.

The board also said it decided not to wait until the next morning, saying it feared leaks would have Paterno learning his fate before an official announcement.

Bitterness over Paterno’s removal has turned up in many forms, from online postings to a note placed next to Paterno’s statue at the football stadium blaming the trustees for his death. A newspaper headline that read “FIRED” was crossed out and made to read, “Killed by Trustees.”

Paterno missed his team’s last three regular season games.

Link

I have to honestly say that I think it all went down the best that it could at the time.
 

My guess is Joepa was given a quit or be fired offer from PSU.
 

My guess is Joepa was given a quit or be fired offer from PSU.

Unless they are lying, many, many members of the board made it clear that no such offer was ever given. The possibility of such an offer was considered and determined to be not a strong enough response to what had happened.
 

Unless they are lying, many, many members of the board made it clear that no such offer was ever given. The possibility of such an offer was considered and determined to be not a strong enough response to what had happened.

I think GoAUpher is correct. +1
 

Ran a quick Google search for the NYT article I was recalling and found it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/s...-decision-to-fire-paterno.html?pagewanted=all

Quick note: it looks like I was thinking of the board's handling of the firing of PSU's president when I recalled the "no resignation/must fire" scenario. My quick reread of the article didn't show that for Paterno. However, my quick reread also reinforced what I got from my first read...that they were firing Joe (not going to allow him to retire) and the only question was how. If someone reads something different from it please feel free to point it out. I didn't have time to read every line carefully again. :)
 


Isn't this about the 5th or 6th time Penn State has released a statement about why they fired Paterno? Hope it's the last but I rather doubt it.
 

Bottom line. He put the Penn State Football Program above the molestation of a child. He should not be enshrined in anyway or form. I don't care if he was fired, asked to quit,or whatever. The guy will be remembered for one thing,:mad: and it ain't the number of football victories.
 

Bottom line. He put the Penn State Football Program above the molestation of a child.

To be fair, you don't know this. It is vital to note that what you have stated as fact is not necessarily a fact. The AD and VP he spoke to can be described this way, but have absolutely no idea what Paterno was told by them after he told them about the situation. To that point, we have no idea what he was actually told by McQueary in the first place. We have gotten (by my count) at least three different accounts of what took place. McQueary, himself, has changed his tune a couple times. You clearly have it in your mind that Paterno failed in his responsibilities, but none of us can say for certain that that is the case. Unfortunately, most folks are, and will continue to be, unwilling to change their minds in this regard.

Frankly, I don't care about how many wins he had or how many libraries he built. It could be an average guy off the street. Before I choose to drag a dead man's name through the mud, however, I typically want to find out what he ACTUALLY did to deserve my hate. The whole Paterno situation is just one more reason I am happy that the "Court of Public Opinion" doesn't have any legal standing.
 

To be fair, you don't know this. It is vital to note that what you have stated as fact is not necessarily a fact. The AD and VP he spoke to can be described this way, but have absolutely no idea what Paterno was told by them after he told them about the situation. To that point, we have no idea what he was actually told by McQueary in the first place. We have gotten (by my count) at least three different accounts of what took place. McQueary, himself, has changed his tune a couple times. You clearly have it in your mind that Paterno failed in his responsibilities, but none of us can say for certain that that is the case. Unfortunately, most folks are, and will continue to be, unwilling to change their minds in this regard.

Frankly, I don't care about how many wins he had or how many libraries he built. It could be an average guy off the street. Before I choose to drag a dead man's name through the mud, however, I typically want to find out what he ACTUALLY did to deserve my hate. The whole Paterno situation is just one more reason I am happy that the "Court of Public Opinion" doesn't have any legal standing.

Great post, the bolded was the best part.

+1!!
 



What I thought was weird was Paterno's lack of understanding the severity of the situation (at least it appeared that way). How he acted outside his home, etc. The whole thing was just odd.
 

What I thought was weird was Paterno's lack of understanding the severity of the situation (at least it appeared that way). How he acted outside his home, etc. The whole thing was just odd.

I agree with you. It seemed very odd, and it did look like he just didn't get it. I thought the whole thing was just sad on so many levels, with Paterno being only one of those levels.
 




Top Bottom