For a long time I've not replied to any of these posts because I feel like replying is a lot like p*ssing into the wind but you seem to a least have an open mind so here it goes.
1. I'm sure you've heard this before but one of the Sandusky prosecutors, Frank Fina, said Joe was
not involved with a coverup. That he's seen the evidence and it's not there. Not that I view Deadspin as a reliable news source but this was the first link I found, there are others:
http://deadspin.com/prosecutor-from-sandusky-trial-joe-paterno-not-involve-1252192930. I get that this doesn't absolve him from the culpability of making the wrong judgement at the time. I think everyone just wishes he would have went to the police. But I do think it speaks to the "protect the football program at all cost" mantra that, as a Penn Stater, I believe is false. As a coach who was always lauded for doing it the right way, turning in a former employee would have only solidified that perception and would not have damaged the football team in any way. In a way you basically make this argument yourself. I mean how would a program whose leader is man who had amazing integrity be damaged. However, I can see why the argument is made that having a former employee turn out to be a pedophile would do damage to an organization but I just think that is the short view of how things would have turned out with respect to the football program. Now the 2nd Mile was clearly affected by having their founder accused and later convicted of a litany of child endangerment charges. More on this in #3.
2. I respect you for saying the community wasn't responsible for what Sandusky did however, not everyone sees things this way. Somehow because I'm a fan/alum of Penn State (and a local) I am part of culture that enables child abuse. What? How is that even remotely represent me as a person. This is where I become defensive. When communicated poorly, that defensiveness can be perceived as refusal to acknowledge the errors of those involved. But I can discern between people making the wrong decisions with how to handle the reporting of a crime of this nature contrary to those same people having nefarious intentions of protecting the football program, .i.e. they didn't get it right but they didn't go out of their way to get it wrong on purpose knowing kids would continue to be in danger.
3. At this point I disagree with this statement but my view could easily change based on more info being released. As of now it's apparent they reported what they knew to at least the 2nd Mile. Technically this fulfilled the letter of the law when it came to reporting back in 2001, the law changed in 2007. Now, I understand that technically fulfilling the letter of the law is not the same as fulfilling a moral obligation. However, if Curley & Schlultz were cautious with how they met the letter of the law it is far more likely to me that they were concerned about damage to the 2nd Mile vs. the football team. Think about it, the organization that essentially has had all the blamed laid on it, accused of the worst sports scandal ever is still functioning, where as the 2nd Mile, essentially accused of nothing, was considering dissolution a week after the arrest of Sandusky (
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/us/pennsylvania-second-mile/). Now at the time the 2nd Mile program was thought to be a beneficial program for many of the areas underprivileged and troubled kids. So again I don't believe C&S's intentions to be nefarious. Did they get it wrong? With the information we have, absolutely. But I also don't believe they were complicit in a coverup. Again I'm keeping an open mind and this view could surely change but at this point I can't make that leap. Maybe it's just me but I think the intentions behind their actions (or in-actions) are important.
So to answer your questions based on the response to your points:
1 - No, at this point I do not believe the football program should bear responsibility for what happened. But let's face it, it's easier to sleep better at night thinking that someone like Sandusky only got away with what he did because he was protected by football program run by a powerful coach. The alternative, that Sandusky was able to earn the trust of a community and do this under our noses is admittedly frightening. But failing to acknowledge this possibility doesn't make kids safer. I do want to emphasize the at this point part. I'm fully aware things could be revealed that adds responsibility to the football program but I, and I think most Penn Staters, believe that the more information that comes out goes towards releasing responsibility from the football program.
2 - Time will tell. I think we would like to know what Raykowitz (2nd Mile CEO) did with the informatation Curley relayed to him, and exactly what Curley relayed.
3 - The NCAA should have followed their own bylaws and run an independent investigation even though having this drug out by that process would have likely impacted recruiting and the football team more than the way it went down.
So my question to you is what information or fact would cause you to re-evaluate how you perceive the actions of the Big 4 and the responsibility of the football program? Hypothetically, if it turns out they did make a report to the Child Line would that mean anything to you? If C/S/S are all found not guilty will that mean anything? What about if the charges are dropped? Spanier wins his defamation case against Freeh? The Paternos win their case against the NCAA?
