ShareThis Page
No PSU cover-up |

No PSU cover-up

A coin toss is often used to resolve a dispute. The Oct. 3 Penn State-Army coin toss did just that, but the dispute was far from the playing field. When news broke that Bruce Heim, former Second Mile board member, was chosen to take part in the pregame coin toss, Penn State supporters voiced disapproval. The invitation was revoked. However, as a result of Heim’s public acknowledgement that he had been made aware of the 2001 Sandusky incident, a dispute was resolved. There was no Penn State cover-up.

In several reports last week, Heim indicated that he decided to keep The Second Mile’s board in the dark when former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley notified then-Second Mile CEO Jack Raykovitz in 2001 that Jerry Sandusky had been seen showering with a boy in the Lasch Building.

Curley not only followed reporting rules, he exceeded them. However, Raykovitz, as a mandatory reporter, ignored The Second Mile’s legal obligations and the report.

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) has continually questioned why Penn State administrators have been held responsible for mistakes made by The Second Mile. With no clear case against these Penn State officials, PS4RS calls for the state Attorney General’s Office to drop charges against them.

Maribeth Roman Schmidt


The writer is executive director of Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.