I take offense to her statement. I don't feel the need to be "petted" or given special treatment. I just ask that people not continue to jump to conclusions and realize that while college is four years for some people, Penn State is more than college to many of us Alumni. It represents so much more than just somewhere we earned a college degree. No need to be hateful. The Penn State goggles statement also falls along those lines. Normally I agree with what you say but, I am a bit upset you would feel the need to say something like this, as well.

Then her comment does not apply to you. Duh. Use your reading comprehension skills.

You will get over it.

The fact of the matter is that Penn Staters like you are one of the reasons why this will keep being about Penn State--almost to the detriment of the much larger point.

The "Penn State goggles" statement is far from offensive LOL

No one is telling you how to feel, but if you can't enter a discussion without proclaiming "OMG WE ARE PENN STATE I CANNOT EAT OR BREATHE BECAUSE PENN STATE IS TARNISHED" then, yes, you need to take a step back.

Look at this as "a child abuse case" and not as "a child abuse case at Penn State involving Penn State students and alumni in the state of Pennsylvania"

And I am amused that someone who proclaims "Penn State is more than college to many of us Alumni. It represents so much more than just somewhere we earned a college degree" will be in denial about sometimes wearing Penn State Goggles that erode her reading comprehension.

Sure, als463 feels empathy and sympathy for these children. But after it is all said and done, als463 has typed more in all of these threads about her love for Penn State than she has about these children and the details of the actual trial.

It's also naive to think that this is unique to Penn State.

Part of group pride is the belief that your group invented the wheel.

Alas, this has become about Penn State again. :eek: Thanks, als463!!

I certainly appreciate what you're saying and I believe that the majority of PSU graduates are of a similar mind.

But to those who are seeing this tragedy from afar may read things on message boards by a small minority who are vocal and angry that PSU is in the spotlight and that includes those who never set foot on the PSU campus, and are only followers of the sports teams. These folks grind their ax, so to speak, from a football fan's POV, and it can negatively affect the overall impression that others may have of the institution.

The surest cure is time, in my opinion.

And here I thought we'd gotten past the PSU aspect of all of this. als463, go back and read my post in context with the three before it.

Report Finds Penn State President, Paterno Concealed Facts About Sex Sandusky Abuse


A Problem Far Greater Than Penn State

Re the second article - how many of the boys who were abused actually went on to play football for Penn State? Of those, how many were superstar players?

I mean I kind of understand what they're saying, but the crux of the situation is that Sandusky used his powerful position to gain greater access to these boys. It didn't DO anything for the school. It didn't give them a better football record (like the paid for players at SMU). It didn't put more money in PSU's pocket (like the paid for players at SMU).

He could have just as easily have been, say, the guy who runs the Creamery who made a point of employing underage girls with big breasts. I'm also sure there are superstar professors at every school who could get away with this.

Comparing PSU and SMU is just apples and oranges. If you want to say "this is what happens when college ball is too much of a big deal" you have to gut the whole system, not just Penn State. And really, what happened has nothing to do with football. It has to do w/ people in powerful positions abusing that power. PERIOD.

You agree with the article.

And it does have to do with football if football (college athletics) is the crux of what makes some institutions "larger than life." There are certain types of structures and institutions (i.e., religion; highly profitable entities) where such power is most likely to be unquestioned and unchallenged thus breeding such abuse.

Every school has power dynamics and problems whether based on academic rigor or athletic rigor. I know from firsthand experience that the power dynamics at schools celebrated more for athletics tends to be (not always but usually) different than the power dynamics for schools known more for academics. Power dynamics are power dynamics but how it is handled by the schools and the public does differ. People will be angry over an academically well-known school but people will damn near kill you and eat your first born child over an athletically well-known school. That is why it is not only about power but about the specifics of football (college athletics). That topic can be its own GC forum.

I do agree with that part. I'm just saying that since it's probably not going to happen, giving Penn State an SMU-style death penalty is pointless. I'm also saying PSU is more like the Catholic Church scandals than what happened at SMU.

I initially made a Catholic Church comparison but edited it out to avoid potentially derailing the thread.

Great article. I don't know what the solution is. Would turning Sandusky in when they first knew about him have destroyed their program? I don't think it would have. I think with their squeaky clean image, they could have weathered that storm, and I'm puzzled that they made this decision. The risk just seems to great, though hindsight is 20/20.

If destroying their program was the most important thing, that is the problem.

It can be difficult depending on the circumstances but there are people and institutions that make the right decision even when it is not the most popular/easiest/most convenient/most profitable decision.