Penn State settlements covered 1971 Sandusky abuse claim

I wrote about the recent court filings that claimed Joe Paterno knew about Jerry Sandusky abusing boys as far back as 1976. It appears the claims of abuse go back further:

Penn State’s legal settlements with Jerry Sandusky’s accusers cover alleged abuse dating to 1971, which was 40 years before his arrest, the university said Sunday, providing the first confirmation of the time frame of abuse claims that have led to big payouts.

The disclosure came as Penn State President Eric Barron decried newly revealed allegations that former football coach Joe Paterno was told in 1976 that Sandusky had sexually abused a child and that two assistant coaches witnessed either inappropriate or sexual contact in the late 1980s. Paterno, who died in 2012, had said the first time he had received a complaint against Sandusky was in 2001.

Barron said the accusations were unsubstantiated, and suggested that the university is being subjected unfairly to what he called rumor and innuendo.

Responding to questions about the president’s statement and claims against the school, university spokesman Lawrence Lokman told The Associated Press he could confirm that the earliest year of alleged abuse covered in Penn State’s settlements is 1971.

Sandusky graduated from Penn State in 1965 and returned as a full-time defensive coach in 1969.

I suspect the allegations will go back further than the 1970s. It appears that Sandusky was a prolific serial rapist, and it is unlikely he began abusing boys after he graduated from Penn State. 

New revelations about Joe Paterno

“[…] in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Football Coach Joseph Paterno, that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”

This line appeared in a court order from an insurance coverage case for Penn State. That one line brought back questions about Joe Paterno’s knowledge about Jerry Sandusky’s sexual abuse of boys at Penn State University.

Paterno died shortly before Sandusky faced dozens of charges of sexual abuse. The question at the time was how much did Paterno know about the abuse. The former head coach was known for his legendary achievements in college football. That history was marred by the abuse allegations. His family denied that he participated in any cover-up, however, Penn State funded an investigation that found that Paterno may have known about the abuse in 1998. The current implication from the court order suggests he may have known earlier than that:

The order also cites separate references in 1987 and 1988 in which unnamed assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact between Sandusky and unidentified children, and a 1988 case that was supposedly referred to Penn State’s athletic director at the time.

All, the opinion states, are described in victims’ depositions taken as part of the still-pending insurance case, but that, according a PennLive review of the case file, are apparently under seal.

“There is no evidence that reports of these incidents ever went further up the chain of command at PSU,” Judge Gary Glazer wrote, in determining that because Penn State’s executive officers – its president and trustees – weren’t aware of the allegations, he would not bar claims from that time frame from insurance coverage.

There is no evidence verifying these claims.

A Dose of Stupid v121

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Alleged rape victims sue University of Tennessee over respecting due process

Several women allegding sex assault filed a lawsuit against their school for creating an alleged hostile environment:

Six women filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday claiming the University of Tennessee has created a student culture that enables sexual assaults by student-athletes, especially football players, and then uses an unusual, legalistic adjudication process that is biased against victims who step forward.

They cite dozens of examples in the suit, most of which have nothing to do with their specific cases and are not sex offences. The group argues, however, that the school’s permissive attitude created an environment that promoted the alleged sexual assaults.

One could make such an argument. Many schools do have separate standards for student athletes, and it is not uncommon for such students to get a pass when they behave badly. It is possible that this would include instances of sex offences.

Where the lawsuit gets bizarre is in the the last accusation:

The plaintiffs say that UT’s administrative hearing process, which is utilized by public universities across the state, is unfair because it provides students accused of sexual assault the right to attorneys and to confront their accusers through cross-examination and an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge who hears the case is appointed by Cheek, the lawsuit says.

In other words, it is unfair to provide accused students their right to due process. They should not be allowed to question their accusers. They should not be allowed to defend themselves. They should not be allowed to even see the evidence against them. This is “unfair” to the accusers.

The reason this appears in the lawsuit is because some of the cases in Tennessee have been dismissed due to lack of evidence. This lack of evidence would only come out found during evidentiary hearing or if the accused could question the accuser. As noted in another article:

It’s worth remembering why UT is not rushing to judgment: Its Chattanooga administration’s adjudication of an accused student got swatted down by a judge last summer, who said the burden of proof was on the school to show that (surprise) a student athlete didn’t obtain consent from his accuser. In other words, “affirmative consent” is not legally enforceable. […] This is what the group of six rape accusers want to end – a procedure that puts complainant (accuser) and respondent (accused) on the same legal footing. Where accusations don’t equal guilt. Where there’s not a predetermined result to satisfy a federal witch hunt backed by financial threats.

This is ridiculous and unethical. While it is understandable to decry a school protecting its student athletes (who are often the people the schools use to make money), it is indefensible to argue that we should remove due process because sometimes the accuser’s story does not parse. Yet this is the stage we have reached, where accusers and their supporters will trample other people’s rights for the sake of protecting someone else’s rights.

We will see whether the lawsuit continues. It is difficult to see how it this will go forward given the nature of the accusations. The complainants are essentially arguing the school acted improper by not violating the accused’s constitutional rights. 

A Letter to a Poser

I chose to avoid most of the coverage about #GamerGate because I already knew how the liberal media would spin it. It took little time before the claims of “misogyny” and “sexism” trumped any level of honest reporting. Only a handful of media outlets interviewed GG supporters, and most of those interviews continued to peddle the “all gamers are sexist men” trope.

The death threats against Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and Zoe Quinn continue to receive attention while the numerous threats and doxxing of GG supporters largely goes unmentioned.

What bothers me most, however, are the attacks on gamers in general. It is not that the attacks any different than the usual “they’re basement-dwelling losers” nonsense. It is that I assumed that people were past this kind of invective. I assumed people had seen enough evidence that gaming did not make anyone violent or hateful. I assumed that people had seen enough attacks on gaming to know that most gamers only want to play games. I assumed people had seen enough to know that gamers are people, too.

Instead, I saw people falling back into old habits, lambasting gamers as pasty white, unshaven, unwashed men living in their mom’s basements. I saw people who write for gaming publications calling for bringing back nerd bullying. I saw a geek culture icon attacking the very community that made his so-so film a $1.5 billion success.

Yet none of that prompted a need for a response. After all, these are far-leftists. There is little more that one could expect from them.

One article, however, did necessitate a response. Former NFL player Chris Kluwe took to The Claudron to attack supporters of GamerGate. His invective and ad hominem-filled rant perfectly demonstrates why the anti-GamerGate side has not won despite every attempt to do so. Below is my response to Kluwe’s rant:

You’re Not Helping v.25

Feminists have gotten a lot of mileage out of the Ray Rice NFL scandal. To be certain, the NFL’s attempted cover-up is embarrassing. Rice’s assault on his now wife was horrible. However, none of that justifies the baffling response several feminists had when other journalists mention Hope Solo.

For those unaware, Hope Solo is a United States soccer star who assaulted her 17-year-old nephew and her sister. Solo faces fourth-degree misdemeanor charges, yet continues to play while the case is pending. In contrast, Rice was fired by the Ravens and indefinitely suspended from the NFL. Several sports journalists noted the imbalance, which appears to annoy some feminist journalists.

Katie McDonough offered the most recent complaint:

[…] A conversation about whether or not Solo should be on the field right now does not require smug finger wagging about inconsistently applied standards of outrage, it requires a grappling with how sports leagues handle violent offenses. (That’s a far more complicated conversation to have than many of us are willing to concede.) Condemning what Solo is alleged to have done does not require erasing a history in which men have systematically used manipulation and physical violence to dominate, humiliate and kill women. And scrutinizing the top brass within women’s national soccer for their calculus around Solo does not require us to insincerely argue that women’s soccer and men’s football are sports that receive equal attention in the media — that somehow it’s just this one time that the public has fallen silent in an otherwise robust conversation about the women’s national soccer team.

Let us look at the two journalists, Juliet Macur and Cindy Boren, to see what they wrote.

In the mind of Dottie Sandusky

Matt Lauer interviewed Dottie Sandusky Wednesday on the TODAY show. Dottie maintained that her husband Jerry Sandusky is innocent. A jury convicted Sandusky on 45 counts of sexual abuse in 2012. Dottie testified at trial that she never witnessed or heard any abuse occurring in her home, and held to that position during the interview:

“Do I believe him?’’ she told Matt Lauer. “I definitely believe him. Because if I didn’t believe him, when I testified at trial, I could have not said what I said. I would have had to tell the truth.”

She believes the victims’ financial gain was at play.

“I think it was, they were manipulated, and they saw money,’’ she said. “Once lawyers came into the case, they said there was money.”

She also challenged the notion that she was a complicit, weak spouse manipulated by a strong-willed pedophile:

“I’m not a weak spouse,” she replied. “As you know…they call me ‘Sarge’ because Jerry said I kept everybody in line. If they want to say that, let them say that. I know who I am. And I know who Jerry is. And I know he did not do the horrible crimes that he’s convicted of.”

Crossing the line

ESPN ran a story on Mike McQueary recently. The article The Whistleblower’s Last Stand covers McQueary’s present circumstances following the fallout of the Jerry Sandusky trial and losing his job at Penn State. The article gives an account of when McQueary informed his players that he would not coach them in the next game. What makes the story questionable is this portion:

Behind closed doors, he singled out each player by name. “You are a good kid, this is why you are here, you belong here,” he said. “I’m not sure what is going to happen to Joe. I’m not sure what is going to happen to me.” Then, as he told them what he had seen and heard in that locker room shower a decade ago, Big Red began to cry.

The players listened in silence, their heads down. “He said he had some regret that he didn’t stop it,” says Patrick Flanagan, then a redshirt freshman receiver. “We didn’t want to see someone we looked up to get emotional. It was heartbreaking for all of us. We weren’t sure who to believe. You see an older man crying, someone you looked up to. It’s sad.”

Finally, McQueary confided in his players something he hoped would make them understand how he’d reacted at the time. He told them he could relate to the fear and helplessness felt by the boy in the shower because he too was sexually abused as a boy.

The article does not focus on that revelation. The only other mention of it is this: