Skip to comments.Survivors of sexual abuse appalled by Penn State unrest
Posted on 11/11/2011 6:47:52 PM PST by Hoodat
How does a survivor of sexual abuse respond to students rioting at Penn State?
"You're not getting it. You just don't get it," said Dave Lorenz who was abused by a priest as a teen.
"It's just stupid youthfulness."
Earlier this week, legendary head football coach Joe Paterno was removed in the midst of a scandal involving sexual abuse allegations against a former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky.
Watching footage of Penn State students rioting in the streets Wednesday night, Lorenzo shuddered, then hung his head.
What bothered Lorenz is that students "rallied around (Paterno's) house, cheering him up."
"The kids up there just don't understand what this does," he said.
"Stop thinking of the adult and start thinking of what happens to a child that goes through this. You love the adult, you may not know the kid. Start thinking of the kid and the horror they go through, because it's hell."
Kayla Garriott, a 22-year-old college student who was sexually abused as a child, said the open support for Paterno was disrespectful to survivors.
"That's the first thing people look at -- that their football team is without their head coach that's been there so many years. Nobody looks at the eight children."
The rioters are "never going to be in those children's shoes. It's not about football. It's about eight children who are never going to get back their lives back. They're going to live with this the rest of their lives. They might not get over that."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Narcissist that you are, I’m not surprised you think that
You really should look into some of the marvelous strides medical science has been making in the treatment of bipolar affective disorder. I truly hate to see my fellow man suffer so.
The point is that many people (I don’t know if this includes you, but I suspect it does) read the report and then assume that Paterno knew exactly what Sandusky had done and had been doing all along. The facts support that he had no idea until 2002, at which point he knew that his graduate assistant had seen something. Paterno has said repeatedly that what was told to him was not explicit or detailed, which explains why he would still not be certain what Sandusky was doing.
Most narcissists are quite insecure, hence their disorder.
That is not my guess. A full investigation will take place and put everyone on the bench. The Regents had heard enough to understand the culpability. I do not wish this on anyone but a decision was made based on information afforded to them.
It will never come back. This story has legs and now Texas is involved. Before you know it, the FBI will stream out.
The Regents know this.
and the plot does thicken....interesting and no doubt will become newsworthy in this whole case.
Certainly by '02, he had allegations by McQueary who was not just a "graduate assistant" but had been his quarterback as an undergrad, and who would really have no motivation to falsify allegations against Sandusky. Even if McQueary was intentionally vague, Paterno's account the GJ specifically included the term "something sexual" with a young boy. There's just no walking it back from there to "no idea."
Wake up people!!!
Sounds like you're intimately familiar with the pathology.
Tell PSU to stop raping children and maybe that distraction will go away.
Yes, I and my sisters were subjected to one as children. Does that satisfy you? I know the type quite well.
Take the sand out of your eyes.....
Nope. I'm sorry to hear about it.
Go ahead and punch on me. I hate it as much as you do. It is a bad time for Penn State.
Sorry... that’s not a punch..just a tap.
The abuser, Jerry Sandusky, faces up to 460 years in prison.
Paterno just got fired.
Then the entire board of the University should also be fired and lose any and all professor chairs/positions they hold.
I know I would be devastated to hear this from UT. The worst part of this story is the legacy of Joe Paterno. The last of the old school that has weathered the storms and created a very successful environment. It is a shame.
Wasn't he Sandusky's boss for about 30 years? He either knew or should have known that something wasn't exactly right with this person who reported to him. Lots of other organizations would hold an executive responsible for not protecting the organization from this kind of fallout.
I've wiped cleaner things than Paterno off the bottom of my shoe.
(I hope you took the sand of your own eyes before you typed that)...
Then another poster will come along and type: Colofornian, I hope you took the sand of your own eyes before you typed that to antceecee)...
And then some poster could address that poster with the same Q.
See how "fun" that never-get-off merry-go-round goes?
Bottom line here is that when you make a statement like that, you imply YOU are the one that has no sand in your eyes, and therefore ONLY your vision is trustworthy.
Come now. Making statements like that is worse than the chain letters people start.
The abuser isn’t getting a pass, he is under indictment.
Paterno is dealing with moral ones.
We are allowed to make moral judgments based on the facts.
That is fact.
The leadership of the institution is guilty.
Paterno did nothing to stop his friend, he just did the least he was required to do to protect himself.
Yes, but he wasn’t good enough to resign, he had to be fired.
These people sound like the defenders of Clinton.
Because it is allowed to continue.
Moreover, McQurry states that he did tell the details to Paterno.
Stop blowing smoke!
#1 Did you see this Friday column from the former sports editor in State College? Ron Bracken: Climate of secrecy led to crumbling of Camelot
What did Ron Bracken conclude as to how long JoePa knew?
"He may not have known what happened prior to 1998 when the first incident involving Sandusky and a child are reported to have occurred but from that moment on he should have been on high alert to the possibility of it happening again."
#2 Barry Switzer said this week that the coaching community is a tight-knit group and that "they ALL" knew. This is actually exemplified by the reality that here, Jerry Sandusky, was THE top defensive coach in the nation...and applied at the University of Maryland and a few other schools after leaving Penn State...yet NONE would take him...tho he was only 55 when he "retired" [more likely "coerced" into retirement]
...2002, at which point he knew that his graduate assistant had seen something. Paterno has said repeatedly that what was told to him was not explicit or detailed, which explains why he would still not be certain what Sandusky was doing.
ALL: Do you think flintsilver can get any more vague than that?
(a) "something of a sexual nature to a young boy" (Joe's testimony before a grand jury) gets "edited" to just "something..."
(b) "fondling" -- a very specific word -- gets spun into "not explicit or detailed"
ALL: Just skip Flintsilver's consistent Grand Jury "edits" and read it yourself...p. 7.
Oh, and btw, Flintsilver:
* When did "fondling" of 10 yo boys become less than a "felony" in your eyes? [Something not worth following up and thru over the months and years?]
* When did "fondling" of 10 yo boys become something that didn't need attention by responsible adults who might protect them?
Even if we grant the "delegation" of Joe lateraling this report to his superiors in 2002. What? This boy (or boys) didn't need protection in '03? In '04?
Are you telling us, Flintsilver, that if McQueary had seen Sandusky BEATING up a 10 yo boy...and came and told Paterno that he saw Sandusky "doing something of a VIOLENT nature" to a 10 yo boy, that this was "something" that wasn't "explicit" or "detailed" enough for Joe to have followed up over the long run?
What? Joe NEVER had ANY opportunity to even follow up that convo with McQueary? What, was McQueary too busy recruiting or workin' with the wide receivers for Joe to get a clarification on ANYTHING over a 6-year period or so?
Why do you and other Paterno supporters keep telescoping an entire relationship into a single weekend?
And, as both McQueary and Paterno realized that the admins were perhaps "stonewalling" any investigation, are you saying that perhaps the most powerful man in Pennsylvania had NO moral influence or could not give directives to an underling to go spend an hour or two or three talking to authorities by 2003, 2004 or so?
Your arguments are so pathetic that you insult the intelligence of so many others!
The local police were never notified, where are you getting this information from?
Sandusky was dealt with in 1998 in regards to showering with young boys.
And how do you know his wife didn't know?
If Paterno is a messenger, it took 9 years for us to get the message.
And Sandusky had access to the University for all that time.
When Clinton shamed his office, we blamed those who should have known and did nothing and those who tried to defend what he did by making it trival, as well as him.
I don't think Sandusky is doing any laughing now, but he was while his buddy Paterno was in charge.
Facts are unimportant to these people, they are defenders of the evil.
I second that!
You're missing the point, which is that both of them are hanging out in the wind, more likely to get whacked or suicided, before every similar sports program across the country gets exposed to investigation.
Both got fired for not doing what was MORALLY required, telling the REAL police.
Do you just go 'round exporting opinions that have been carefully shielded from reading the Grand Jury Presentment?
Let's just deal with Spanier on this post. You don't think...that maybe...just perhaps...just who knows...that the Board of Trustees actually read the Grand Jury Presentment??? Why, shock...surprise!
"Curley testified that he also advised Penn State president Graham Spanier of the information that he had received from the graduate assistant and the steps he had taken as a result. Curley was not specific in the about the language he used to in reporting the 2002 incident to Spanier. Spanier testified to his approval of the approach taken by Curley." (p. 8)
And especially this note on pp. 9-10: "Schultz confirmed that University President Graham Spanier was apprised in 2002 that a report of an incident involving Sandusky and a child in the showers on campus had been reported by an employee. Schultz testified that Spanier approved of the decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children into the locker room and the decision to advise the Second Mile of the 2002 incident."
Well, lookee there.
The previously accepted "formula" of Sandusky + kids on campus was no longer sanctioned in College Station...but if Sandusky wanted to use two Penn State satellite campuses for sports camps for 4th graders on up...Penn State Erie (Behrend) and Penn State Harrisburg (Capital College in Middletown) thru 2008...eh, that was "A-OK" by Penn State standards.
Tell us, Flintsilver: If what Sandusky did with little boys was so "objectionable" @ College Station, why wasn't it also "objectionable" @ other Penn State campuses?
You mean this was all fine & dandy...as long it was away from the epicenter of Nittany Lyin'ville?
The graduate student didn't see 'something' he saw a boy in the shower with an older man.
Normal people would find that disturbing, you don't seem to.
Yes and what does that have to do with these crimes and the justified outrage over them?
* Penn State Shame From Abuse Scandal Threatens Colleges Rise [Huge losses forecasted there in multiple areas]
* Moody's places PSU bond rating on review for possible downgrade [Penn State]
That's not the only thing that's been downgraded.
I've seen several articles over the past two days where Penn State students are genuinely concerned that a potential employer might be put off by where they obtained their degree from.
Hey, world focused on College Station. Quick! Look over there!
This thread is about crimes that were covered up at a major University, I am sorry that it doesn't rise to the level of importance we think it does.
Just a strong case of denial by those who believe in the cult of PSU.
From columnist Scott Ostler: "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more," Paterno said in a statement. That's pathetic. You need hindsight to tell you that you must do whatever you can to stop a dangerous criminal?
Source: Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves
#1 I saw one of those informal polls on Thursday that a Web site will do (can't remember if it was the Centre Daily newspaper or the CBS affiliate out of Harrisburg -- channel 21).
They asked whether the Board of Trustees did the right thing by firing Paterno.
At that time -- and again I'm not claiming it's a "scientific" representation -- but it provides a "glimpse" of an indication...the % breakdown was something like:
50% agreed with the BOT
35% disagreed with the BOT
The other 15% said to wait -- to allow more investigation-wise before acting
I would thereby guestimate then at least 1/3rd of Penn Staters informally sanction the idea that Joe's cover-up was a "good idea."
Of course, if you word it that way, they'd probably say "no way." But the bottom line here is a % somewhere in that neighborhood are still more a part of the initial problem than upholding a spirit of repentance that could lead to becoming part of the solution.
Allow me to summarize what I'm saying here with a Bible passage from 2 Peter (2:6-8):
6 ...if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was DISTRESSED by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was TORMENTED in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)
My "cultural" observation thus far of College Station...and I am by NO MEANS culturally omniscient...so I confess I could be off-base...
...is that so many folks have been more "distressed" and "tormented" (2 Pet. 2:7-8) over JoePa's departure...
...than what the apostle Peter described as the "depraved conduct of the lawless" and "lawless deeds" (same verses) ... which has included the very sanctioning of that conduct and deeds that led to his departure.
It reminds me of how some college students react to the pro-life movement that takes abortion placard trucks and art displays from campus to campus -- with these pictures all depicting aborted babies.
The "pro-choice" students seem inevitably more offended at the people who have brought the pictures than they are over the acts that led to these babies being aborted! How upside down!
These students are essentially part of the "pro-choice cult."
In the same way, Penn State has left the perception that it idolizes the cult personality of JoePa.
There's almost no sense reminding these personality cult members that JoePa has human sinful qualities along with the rest of us. He could ne'er do wrong in their eyes because they have culturally predetermined him to be a "god."
And the Penn State culture has reinforced that for how many decades now?
Hence, this is a corporate cultural matter...a pool of water that ALL in State College have been swimming in for anywhere from one year to decades.