Rocco put his finger on a very important point -- I'd like to understand the thinking that led to awful decisions with horrible consequences. Three possibilities occur to me --
1. Joe was an old school guy who couldn't wrap his mind around something that society kept hidden for so long. Myt mentioned this the other day. I'm not persuaded, but it's a possibility.
I'm not buying this at all. Paterno was quaintly behind the times in matters of style (references to "lettermen sweaters," for instance), but he was by all accounts a well-read and worldly man. Such a man could not be oblivious as late as 1998 to the pervasiveness of sexual abuse.
2. On the other end of the spectrum, Sandusky was protected because he was a keeper of family secrets -- wrongdoing in other areas that could take down the program and ruin Joe's legacy. I've seen no evidence of this. In the main, the program seems to have been as advertised, which makes this even more incomprehensible.
I agree. As I said in the other thread, I think the Freeh report rules out the possibility that Sandusky was a keeper of secrets.
3. The concept of scandal, which has a very specific Church based meaning that antedates the sex abuse scandal, though it obviously pertains to other institutions as well. Simply put -- the institution or someone in its employ may have sinned greviously and created great harm, but do not acknowledge it because that will be used as a weapon against the institution, which is the font of much greater good.
The doctrine of "scandal" is idolatrous enough in church; it's absolutely absurd applied to something as ultimately trivial as a college sports program.
Of course, Paterno didn't see his "grand experiment" as a trivial thing, so you may be on to something.
I don't for a minute believe that Joe would have taken a hit, reputationally or fundraising wise, had he turned Sandusky in 14 years ago. Instead, that would have simply reinforced the belief that Joe always does the right thing.
But could it have hurt him recruiting? Was Penn State slipping from the ranks of the elite at that time? Its last consensus national championship was won 12 years before. The team was 4 years removed from its last undefeated, untied season. Given Sandusky's prominent role in the program, I can understand if Joe feared that the program would be beaten to death with this. And because Penn State stands for the summum bonum ... scandal must be avoided.
There was no need to "turn in" Sandusky in 1998. The police were on the case. It's not Paterno's fault they declined to press charges. It emphatically
is his fault, however, that as Sandusky's direct supervisor with knowledge of the situation he did not (1) ensure that someone from TSM was notified of the investigation, and (2) make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that Sandusky was no longer welcome to bring TSM kids on campus.
When McQueary told Paterno what he saw in 2001, Paterno's moral obligations were crystal clear. Problem is, by that time Paterno's opportunity to play the white knight had passed. If Paterno had referred McQueary's report to the police, when the facts came in he would've been (rightly) blasted for not doing more in 1998. Therefore, he committed the greater evil of covering up the 2001 incident to cover his lesser evil of not doing more to stop Sandusky in 1998. The notion of "scandal" you mention may have helped him rationalize this, but his motives were fundamentally no different from anyone else who countenances a great evil to keep their personal sins (even venial ones) from coming to light.
I watched this last night and came away from it thinking they will do something and it won't be a wrist slap. That guy was careful with his words, but I no longer think they'll shrug their shoulders and say "Beyond our purview!"
I agree. Emmert is obviously going to use this "unprecedented" scandal to create a precedent for more sweeping NCAA oversight of member institutions. It's a shrewd move, because the public outrage at PSU will make it difficult for other member institutions to check Emmert's power grab.
The question, then, is whether PSU can challenge any NCAA punishment in the courts. I know that NCAA sanctions normally aren't judicially challenged, but that's because the legal theory for sanctions is usually not controversial. Normally, the controversy revolves around the facts; if member institutions didn't defer to the factual findings of an NCAA investigation, the system would collapse.
If, as I suspect, the NCAA's grounds for punishing PSU are less than airtight, Emmert will be under pressure to impose a light sentence, such that PSU decides it would rather accept the punishment than incur the PR hit that would come from fighting it. Personally, I think this would be the worst possible outcome -- no action by the NCAA is preferable to a slap on the wrist.
