J. Gordon Hylton's Proposed Penalty for Penn State: Forfeit All Wins after Paterno learned of Sandusky's crimes but failed to report them

In a comment to Howard's post on Paterno's statute, UVA Law and Marquette Law Professor J. Gordon Hylton -- the nation's leading expert on the intersection between sports, law and history -- suggested a penalty that I haven't heard elsewhere:

An appropriate penalty would be to require Penn State to forfeit all of its football victories since Paterno learned of Sandusky's criminal acts but failed to report them. (This might be 1998, or it might be earlier.)

This would remove Paterno's name from the top of the all-time coaching victories list and from any association with coaching excellence.

I'm not saying that this should be the only penalty, but it should be part of the penalty.

Makes a good deal of sense to me.

CFI UK's Conspiracy Theory Day - the videos

Ian R Crane (an actual conspiracy theorist) - "Conspiracy Theory vs Deep Geopolitics"

Chris French and Robert Brotherton "Conspiracy Minded"
Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller (from DEMOS think tank) "Truth and The Net"
Karen Douglas on Conspiracy Theories

Public memorials and Penn State

Legal historian Al Brophy of UNC and the Faculty Lounge writes some interesting stuff on public memorials and monuments, particularly in the South. This has become the new locus of discussion at Penn State, as the trustees and others try to figure out what to do with the Paterno iconography that dots Penn State and State College. These include a statue, the family name on the university library, and a famous mural in town (the mural artist recently removed the halo from over Paterno's head).

The current sentiment on the Board of Trustees is to leave the statue, at least for now and pending a broader public discussion) I was struck by the comment of one trustee, who insisted "The statue represents the good that Joe did. It doesn't represent the bad that he did." Can they have it both ways like that? Can a monument to someone with a divided legacy (as Paterno now has) simply remain in place, pretending there was no bad? Do the trustees at least have to acknowledge in the public conversation that they are determining that the good Paterno did outweighs the bad and thus warrants keeping the statute (a reasonable position)? I actually don't particularly care what they do with the statue; I'm more interested in how the conversation about the statue honestly addresses that Paterno genuinely did something wrong and the statute represents that just as much as everything else.

Actually, I am far more disturbed by the announcement that they are going to renovate the locker rooms and shower areas where some of Sandusky's assaults took place. While this has been described as an attempt to "erase the legacy of Sandusky's crimes," it also strikes me as an actual and symbolic attempt to whitewash the past in a way that covers the university's role in those crimes. I am not suggesting they have to turn the shower into a shrine or a museum. But their first response is to bury the crime scene. And to get a shiny new athletics facilities, when the special treatment of athletics is a major part of this whole mess.

Playing at Truck Festival next Friday

The Heavy Dexters (I play drumkit) are playing at Truck Festival next Friday 6 or 7pm. Some tiny stage behind the loos, I imagine. But still, it is Truck. Say hi of you're there and in the mood...

Truck festival.

Just told (wed evening) by Truck we're not now playing. Thanks guys @truckfestival.

PPS just offered 40 mins at 6pm

G4S deal

I notice that the £284 million new deal private security firm G4S struck with the (Tory) Government was, in effect, that they would get £20,000 per security employee, for each of the 13,700 security staff they promised to supply (but will fail to supply) for the Olympics. We all now know how little training and vetting those staff are getting.

But my question is - why was the deal ever made in the first place? G4S are paying those staff £6.50-£8.50 per hour (after promising £14 per hour, according to one potential employee.) Three weeks full-time work at 40 hrs per week will earn each security employee a maximum of about £1,000 each.

So, where does the other £19,000 go that we the British taxpayers are paying for each of them? How on earth could this have been thought a good deal for the British public?

I imagine G4S are generous Tory party donors but is there any other explanation?

Thoughts on Penn State

I recommend other commentary on the Freeh Report and Deadpsin is gathering lots of tidbits, but with a clear attitude and anti-PSU perspective. I will add only two things:

1) There was nothing surprising or unexpected in here. We knew or at least strongly suspected pretty much everything in there, whether because it had leaked or because it simply makes sense. Nothing happens within a major college football program without the head coach knowing, so the idea that Paterno knew as little as he suggested has always rang false. Ditto for the university president, who must be on board to allow the insularity to develop.

2) Any program that insists it is "different" (as Penn State did for years) is fooling itself and, eventually, will be exposed. "A culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community." "A football program that did not fully participate in, or opted out, of some University programs." A "closed community," an "'island, where staff members lived by their own rules.'" Those words could be written about any big-time sports program at any school at which misconduct occurs. This case is different only in degree, in the extraordinary and heinous nature of the particular criminal misconduct. But the circumstances that allowed it to happen prevail (perhaps necessarily) for any big-time sports program.

Legal Analysis of The Freeh Report on Penn State and Sandusky

I have an SI.com column on the Freeh Report, released a few hours ago on Penn State and Jerry Sandusky. I discuss key findings from the report, limitations of the report, how Joe Paterno's family may try to counter the allegations, and legal and NCAA implications for Penn State. Hope you have a chance to read it.