If you can't understand why the most powerful man on the Penn State campus had a moral responsibility to see these accusations fully investigated once they were reported to him then I really don't know what else to tell you.
But in a way, Paterno's reputation is working against him. If it were just some schlub coach from a mid-major school and something like this happened, he would catch heat for it, it would headline ESPN for a day or so, and maybe get canned, but there would be nowhere near the firestorm that happened with Penn State.
Paterno is supposed to be the moral compass of the Penn State football program (if not the whole Big 10 or major college football). He's the grandpa that has coached since forever and if there was one program that was clean in all the mess of college football, it is (or was) Penn State.
And its that reputation and that power that was his downfall. If there was anyone I'd pick to expose a tawdry mess like this, it would be Paterno. There are many schools and many coaches that I wouldn't put it past them to sweep something like this under the rug. But Paterno would have been about the last guy I'd expect it of. Fair or not, that's the expectation.
Pay attention to the open sky
I don't think Paterno swept anything under the rug. The cases of Schultz and Curley will bring a lot of facts to light such as how seriously did McQueary make it sound. He's already testified that he toned down his language in describing it to JoePa
I think it's interesting that all of the cautionary notes to avoid rushes to judgment that could end careers do not apparently extend to the allegations made Messrs. Schulz and Curley.
As for the contention that McQueary's testimony will somehow exonerate Paterno because he said he "toned down his language," I really don't know what to say:
Then there is Paterno's own grand jury testimony:McQueary described the meeting with Paterno, saying "I went to his house and sat at his kitchen table and told him I saw Jerry with a young boy in the shower. That it was way over the lines and extremely sexual in nature. The rough positioning I described but not in much detail." He said Paterno told him, "Sorry you had to see that. You did the right thing." Paterno followed up with him several times in the months following the incident, McQueary testified.
If you really think that Paterno has less moral culpability because, maybe, McQueary didn't use the words "anal rape," then, as I said before, I don't know what to say. I absolutely cannot understand the continued defense of Paterno, who has not been indicted of any crime and who has not really suffered any negative consequences of this whole scandal that were not fully deserved even if we completely believe his version of events (which, incidentally, I absolutely do not, nor can I see how any intelligent person who is even passingly familiar with the facts here can believe his story).Here is what he said: McQueary called him on a Saturday morning, he couldn't remember what year.
McQueary told him he'd seen Sandusky who was "fondling a young boy" in the showers of the Lasch Building.
"It was of sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't push Mike ... because he was obviously very upset," according to his testimony.
Last edited by top6; 12-27-2011 at 06:16 PM.
Just for context the issue concerns the rape of children in Penn State showers that were directly under Joe Pa's supervision.
My best friends mother is a retired middle school teacher and she told me that teachers are told they are considered "mandatory reporters". To which she said if they see it they are to stop it, go up the chain of command, and call the cops. If someone says something is wrong they are to go up the chain of command and not anyone else.
Paterno's getting beat up pretty bad in the middle of this but are university personnel held to the same standard as secondary teachers?
Also, if he cared about his legacy at all, or PSU anymore, he should have retired before the season, or as soon as he realized what was being investigated. Short of that, he should have resigned in November, and shouldn't have forced the university to do what it did. He's basically handled all of this wrong, all the way back to the moment he first found out that there were credible allegations that Sandusky molested children (which according to him was in 2002--although again that is completely unbelievable to anyone who is actually following this case).
Last edited by top6; 12-28-2011 at 12:40 AM.