Talk:Graham Spanier

Middle Name?

Does anyone know Dr. Spanier's middle name? I am rather curious, as he is commonly referred to as "President Graham B. Spanier" in press releases, but no mention of his middle name. (And no Google results.)
Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 02:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Basil

He was born in South Africa, so he acquired the U.S.A. citizenship, to my knowledge. I do not know his middle name though. Mr. Spanier's ancestors are Sephardic Jews from Spain, from there his Family Name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.91.33 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

Dr. Spanier has been the subject of many recent controversial decisions that many students object to. Maybe a section about this should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.71.40.45 (talk • contribs) 23 October 2006 07:10 (UTC).

Are there any that are particularly defining of his tenure? Or published criticisms in major publications? A way to quantify "many students"? Criticism sections must be handled with a higher degree of professionalism than most of Wikipedia's content out of fairness to the subject. But such a section, if substantiated, would undoubtedly improve the quality of the article. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 05:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Edits

Someone vandalized the Graham Spanier.jpg picture from the article. I couldn't figure out how to edit the picture or revert to the original version of the file (Hey Wikipedia...this should probably be documented somewhere easy to find), so I removed the vandalized picture from the article temporarily. Bstanfield (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You can try, but a vandal has been persistently hitting both the article and this talk page over the course of more than a year, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if he came back (I believe most edits were oversighted). I'd suggest you have it on your watchlist if you do. VegaDark (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

Graham is no longer the president of PSU.

76.84.55.229 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Source? So far, only rumors are being published. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ESPN is reporting both he and Paterno are out. 128.59.181.33 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Already incorporated into the spectrum of articles on this topic. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dont know much about doing wiki's but here is your source from the university http://live.psu.edu/story/56307#rss49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.222.137 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this phrase use the word "raping" rather than "abusing": "in which a graduate assistant said he witnessed Sandusky abusing a child on Penn State property."? McCreary's grand jury testimony says he saw Sandusky raping what appeared to be a 10-year old boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.201.122 (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the McLaughlin allegations. He recently (today 12-16-11)appeared on NPR and presented his story essentially the same as is presented here so that is a source that might be used as documentation. He added a fair amount of detail and said the "admissibility issues" centered around a two way consent law in Pennsylvania requiring both parties to consent to being recorded. He said he taped his abuser without the abusers knowledge. He also states he "recovered" the memory of his abuse in adulthood which suggests possible treatment for Dissociative Indentity Disorder. He stated he cannot make the tape he recorded public due to a confidentiality agreement in settlement with the man he accused of raping him, yet somehow the New York Times has a copy of its transcipts. Much of this detail enlarges one event and allegation relating to Graham Spanier and is likely beyond the scope of this article at this time. Who knows how important it may become if this story "grows".

76.4.88.56 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)DWright

Your first footnote leads to an article that reports charges were brought in the case McLaughlin alledges, but they were later dropped. This is confusing as the word "charges" generally refers to criminal offenses. Although this is possible, the likelihood is the statute of limitations had passed. McLaughlin alledges he was abused at age 11, almost twenty years ago today and about twelve years ago when he alledgely reported his abuse. This might mean he brought suit against his alledged abuser as he says he did and the case was dismissed due to settlement. Unfortunately, this article is not openly sourced.

76.4.88.56 (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)DWright

Digging deeper into this article, charges were dismissed against three of four defendants in Maryland and the fourth was acquitted. No hung jury, no controversal rulings by the judge. McLaughlin said he got a six figure settlement in a civil suit, but he's written a book and released a transcript of the tape recording he made of a telephone call with his allegded abuser to the NY Times. This indicates no confidentiality settlement which would be unusual to say the least.

76.4.88.56 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)DWright

There are several more links regarding the McLaughlin allegations that can be found through Google: 1.) Arizonia Man says Penn State official ignored his report of abuse, 2.) Victim says Penn State "rejected" his claims a university professor allegdly molested him, and 3.) New Allegations that Penn State Failed to Act, are the ones I reviewed thinking the section on his allegations could be stated a bit clearer.

The first article clearly states McLaughlin went to David Monk initially when this is not as clear in the New York Times article or in other articles. It states he spoke with Spanier secondly. In this article he gives as his motivation for going to PSU officials as to protect children. It seems odd in view of the quote from Monk why he would then speak with Spanier and now accuse PSU of not acting. I guess we will need to have more information on that.

The second article helps set a time line of events. In this article McLaughlin said he decided to confront Neisworth over the phone in 2001 as part of his therapy. When he recovered his memories is not stated, so that part of the time line is yet to be set. It adds a detail that Neisworth was reportedly tried in Cecil County, Maryland.

Oddly, this article does not focus on McLaughlin alledgely tricking Neisworth into a confession while tape recording him. The inference of therapy is in this statement, but it is not described nor is it explored with him in the interview in any manner. I did not do a research of therapies for recovered memories of childhood abuse. As a mental health professional I have a passing knowledge of treatments for recovered memories of childhood abuse.

Some may well support confronting ones abuser. Some may encourage seeking charges or financial penalty as a therapuetic response. I would question whether many would consider it therapuetic to trick ones abuser into confessing by pretending to have enjoyed the abuse. The history of recovered memories contains many controversial aspects, some that have turned out to be fraudulant and this raises more questions. Again, more to research before much can be said.

The third article is, I believe, a condensation. It is from the Here and Now show of December 17, 2011 I previously mentioned that I listened to when it was broadcast. It is an NPR report that attempts some depth not found in the other articles. There are several items of interest in this link.

In this report it has McLaughlin saying he has won civil suits against Neisworth, interestingly, in several states and not just in Maryland as is found in or implied in all the other articles. This report states the criminal charges against Neisworth and others were declared unfounded by the police and the courts, which differs from the New York Times article. Lastly, they contacted PSU for comment and added an e-mail received from Lisa Powers in response.

Ms. Powers wrote David Monk again adamently denied any personal contact with Mr. McLaughlin or having access to or receiving in the mail a tape from Mr. McLaughlin. He again acknowledged contact from a family member of McLaughlin. In this e-mail Ms. Powers states the duties of Mr. Neisworth were reviewed and did not include contact with children. In this she did not write, "David Monk says he reviewed...". She made an affirmative statement this review occured in factual manner. She stated Mr. Neisworth retired soon after the review and concluded there was no need for follow up to the review.

It remains a biography of Graham Spanier, not an article on Paul McLaughlin. Still, he makes allegations against Mr. Spanier and there are several other interests concerned with his allegations. The question remains how best to present what we know in a manner that is accurate and fair to all interests,

71.48.141.230 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)DWright

Today I rewrote the statement about the verdicts of the three men McLaughlin accused. The statement now affirms all three men were acquitted at trial. I did so after reviewing articles in the Baltimore Sun. I was able to find the article indicating the first defendent was acquitted at trial and several links to Neisworth being acquitted. I was able to find a link that said a third man was scheduled for trail and another that said none of the men McLaughlin accused was convicted. This seemed enough for the correction.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarity on resign vs. fired or removed

I think this article is essentially inaccurate on the characterization of Spanier resigning. While the first citation in this entry mentions him resigning, the second citation does not use that language. It says Spanier "has been ousted" which is quite different from resigning.

See also reporting such as http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/-joe-paterno-and-graham-spanier-out-at-penn-state.html

While there was talk of Spanier offering to resign at one point in the process, that's not the end result as reported by most sources. Whoever has the power to edit should rewrite these references (there's also one later in the entry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.30.205 (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We may never know the exact nature of his leaving the position as President of the University. It does not appear he left the position due to his own internal concerns. Reports may be he was terminated and those might be documented and added. Whether he was given an oportunity to resign or was terminated from the position it seems clear the Board of Visitors acted in a manner that facilitated his leaving that position and that might be a fair way to put this.

His leaving the position, obstensively because he voiced support for the two employees who are now charged with failure to report and perjury, may become an issue as this story unfolds and this distinction could become important. Right now it is unclear what conditions brought about his leaving that position. He reportedly is taking a sabatical and could return to Penn State as a professor. Maybe there will be more information on his return about his departure from the presidency of the university.

DWright76.4.88.56 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I raise a question in general about the value of released grand jury information in documenting an article such as this one. So much of it quoted in blogs is without context and, since this testimony and report are not to be released to the public, from a source that has a perspective or opinion to forward. It is often poorly handled by bloggers who report their inferences rather than the bare facts. I don't have the same concern about testimony at trial as that is public information and more open to review within the documentation process.

As to the editor who suggests using the word rape rather than the word molestation, this point was made on the Dr. Phil Show about two or three weeks ago and might be a better source than grand jury testimony. Although I agree it is more direct and accurate to call what Mike McQueary says he saw between Jerry Sandusky and a ten year old boy rape, it seems a term which will further incite public ire. I am sure we have all seen inaccurate information presented to the public on these events stemming directly from public ire. It might be better to not use this term and remaon with molestation, especially in the context of a higher standard for the criticism of the subject.

76.4.88.56 (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)DWright

With a bit more research I found the story of Karl Goeke. Cecil County Maryland issued an arrest warrent for him on September 21, 2005. America's Most Wanted TV show reports on their website he was working as a comic in a Los Angeles club know for raunchy humor at the time the warrent was issued. Police were not able to locate him. Someone, not identified, referred the search to America's Most Wanted and a story about Goeke aired February 25, 2006.

That story led to a tip to search the club within a week of the show. When police arrived he was no longer in the area. Another tip led to an apartment room in Portland, Oregon, where Goeke was found living under the name of a deceased man who Goeke had cared for previously. He was arrested on March 23,2006

The story "Ex-Professor is charged with child sex abuse John T. Neisworth, formerly of Penn State, is accused of abuse starting when the alleged victim was 12" identified the multiple states in the allegations as Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. This article quotes McLaughlin as charging Goeke as the initial abuser who introduced him to Neisworth and the third defendent, David A. Smith. The article contains this quote referring to Neisworth: "He has an impeccable record as a researcher and he's been a fine member of the faculty". This quote is attributed to David H. Monk. Other articles have McLaughlin putting that quote in the mouth of Spanier and still other have McLaughlin making this statment as a general "they".

The story "Team 4: Sex Charges against Penn State Prof, Pittsburgh man" identifies David A. Smith as a retired real estate agent from Pittsburgh. It says McLaughlin sued Goeke and Neisworth in New Jersey in 2003. Here the six figure amount is quoted as a cash settlement. It also says that McLaughlin taped a conversation with Goeke and as well as Neisworth in which McLaughlin alleges Goeke confessed. The article states this tape of Goeke is with America's Most Wanted. I did not see a referrence to possession of this tape on the America's Most Wanted website and I read all reference to Karl Goeke I could find. The language about Goeke is pretty strong, but no reference to a taped confession.

Goeke was the first of the three tried and Mr. McLaughlin was not the only defendant. Mr. McLaughlin found someone else who made similar allegations of childhood sexual abuse. Goeke was acquitted for a number of reasons.

The tape of the purported confession was not allowed into evidence because Mr. McLaughlin was in Arizona at the time he called. According to the Team 4 story Goeke took the stand in his own defense and testified the defendants had first tried to "shake (him) down for $100,000". I was not able to find interviews with the jurors saying what brought them to acquit. I have not found anything much about the trial of David A. Smith, but will look.

I am curious about these reports of tapes being held by America's Most Wanted and the New York Times. If McLaughlin sued Goeke in 2003 and turned over a tape purporting a Goeke confession to America's Most Wanted in 2005, then what would have been the conditions of the settlement? In a similar manner, if Neisworth settled with McLaughlin in 2003 and McLaughlin turned over the tape to the New York Times for the recent article, what were the the conditions of the settlement? It seems to me any settlement would require these tapes, if they exist, to at least be held confidential. Of course the settlement took place in 2003 and the trials in September of 2006 and that suggests an answer. These men were represented by competent attornies who must have known to expect an attempt at a criminal charge.

I am also curious about these reports of settlements. Some suits are time limited. The alleged victim has so much time to bring a suit after the injury before it cannot be brought. In the state of Virginia that is two years. Here Mr. McLaughlin was injured 20 years ago and any civil statute of limitations would have expired. The "Ex-Professor..." article quotes him as saying he "spontaneously" remembered these events in 2000 and the trial was held in 2003. Perhaps allowances were made for his memory.

Lastly, I am curious how a private investigator who has a program in Arizonia assisting victims of sex abuse to confront their abusers did not investigate basic elements of bringing a charge. Would he not have researched the law on criminal statutes of limitations and on laws pertaining to consent to tape telephone conversations? These seem the basic elements of his efforts and he is a private investigator who works with the victims of childhood sexual abuse. I found he was the head of a program through an internet search and can bring that information to the talk page later if needed. Does raise another question: What does he tell victims of sexual abuse he counsels?

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Update needed ? regarding date McQueary witnessed Sandusy abusing boy

Footnote #24 states at the bottom of the article prosecutors have updated the date Mike McQueary reported witnessing Sandusky abuse a boy in the showers of Penn State University from March 2002 to February 2001. This is the first I have seen this report. Has it been otherwise confirmed? What's the policy, should we change this now or wait for further confirmation?

I wanted to make this alert as it was at the foot of the article and could have been missed.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It can probably be safely changed. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to add this information after the statement Spanier has sued Penn State for his e-mails. That way it can be reported as additional information that is in the referenced article and is not yet independently confirmed. If the information turns false we can then easily edit the statement out and run less chance of confusing readers. What do you think?

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo has an article entitled "Sandusky strategy may pivot on accusers creditability" which states "Prosecutors recently had to amend the charges against Sandusky to allege that the incident McQueary said he saw occurred in February 2001, not in March 2002 as previously indicated." This gives some substantiation to the Centre Daily Times report. This article says nothing about the reason for this update. It could make a good footnote to this part of the story. I don't know how to make footnotes or to get you the link. Will get this to you if you want.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This article in PennLive.com,

Former Penn State University President Graham Spanier sues to see recovered emails Published: Friday, May 25, 2012, 11:33 PM Updated: Friday, May 25, 2012, 11:48 PM

States Spanier wants the e-mails to refresh his memory when he is interviewed by the Louis Freeh group the Trustees hired.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Source for Spanier as chair of the Kellog Commission

Kellog Commission's report "Kellogg Commission. 1998. Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution, Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges" lists Spanier as the chair of the commission. It can be retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=183 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.36.11 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction needed

... Sandusky sexually abusing a ten year old boy from March of 2002 to February 2001. [26]. It appears that nobody has noticed that the bolted phrase is not correct. --Mirrordor 23:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs)

Check out the rest of the sentence. It says that the original date of the incident was changed from March 2002 to February 2001. They originally placed the month and year of the incident that Mike McQueary witnessed as March 2002. But after further investigation (McQueary said that he was in the football building that night because he was fired up after watching a showing of the football film Rudy on TV), they found out the exact day was actually in February 2001. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Penn State child sex abuse scandal

There have been several charges in the Penn State child sex abuse scandal: both Gary Schultz and Tim Curley are charged with grand jury perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse. The indictment accused Curley and Schultz of only failing to tell the police and making false statements to the grand jury. There is an ongoing federal criminal investigation into the scandal, which involves Penn State subpoenas for information about Spanier, Sandusky, Curley, Schultz and the Second Mile. I'm changing the section title to the Wikipedia page of the same name, the Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Histopher Critchens (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)