It's delusional. And I suppose finding out that this guy whom you held so much respect and admiration for and who represented a major part of your identity could disillusion somebody, or a whole group of people, I get it, but you have to step outside the Penn State bubble here, this is madness.
It's actually not delusional or madness. It's what the experts call "cognitive dissonance," and while I am not up on the literature, it is entirely natural and human to reject information that causes more of such dissonance.
It's not productive to continue posting the exact same information given your comprehension of it is different, and I hate to engage in a circular discussion, but I just want to again point out that Curley and Schultz were privy to all the gruesome details about the 2002 allegation, were privy to the 1998 investigation, and were responsible to take action and did take the criminally insufficient action of telling him not to bring children around anymore. This is wildly different than Paterno's role. Most people (including the PA Attorney General) understand the vast difference there.
OK. Here's something else. Part of the problem is that you are basing your conclusion solely on Joe Pa's grand jury testimony, in which he obviously testified just enough to prevent himself from being accused of perjury (which is interesting in and of itself).
Do you really believe that in 1998, when Sandusky was being investigated by local and university police, that the police informed the university's general counsel but no one let Paterno know that Sandusky was being investigated? Do you really believe that no one let a head football coach know that his defensive coordinator might be arrested and go to prison?
In 2002, Curley and Schultz agreed to ban Sandusky from the football building. Do you think Paterno was informed about this? And if he was informed, do you think a reason for this ban was discussed? Do you think Paterno said to Curley and Schultz, "Why are you banning Jerry? He's not a child molester?" Or do you think Curley and Schultz didn't tell Paterno about someone being banned football building and Paterno never knew about this?
In 2008, Sandusky was banned from a school district after a mother complained. Do you think Paterno never knew about this?
In 2009, the PA AG began an investigation into Sandusky. He was, I assume, subpoeaed to testify. But knowing that Sandusky was being investigated about an incident that was not the 2002 incident, did Paterno do anything?
While it is unlikley we will ever know exactly what Paterno did know, it seems odd (or coincidental) that at every step, Paterno just happened to do the minimum required by law. You can infer that he didn't know anything about it, but the inference I get is that he deliberately did the minimum required by law because he actually knew about what was going on.
And it's the same thing with the Second Mile. Sandusky informs the board of the allegations against him, and while he resigns from the Second Mile, he continues fundraising for them.
The saddest thing to me is that the concept of "cognitive dissonance" is usually applied in the context of religion, or religious beliefs - like the followers of the guy who predicted the world was going to end last March (and October). Although that may just highlight how football - college for some, professional for others, and both for still others - has become a religion in this country.
Edited by wade boggs chicken dinner, 31 January 2012 - 03:09 AM.