On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:54:06 -0800 (PST), MZ <
for...@mdz.no-ip.org>
wrote:
>You may be right, but Paterno's the boss. He knew what was going on.
>As boss, part of his job description is to exert control over what
>goes on in the facilities. While McQueary had an ethical obligation
>to do something about it, Paterno had an additional obligation -- one
>that he got paid for -- and he failed at it. So, even if you ignore
>the ethical issues here, the fact is that Paterno did a pretty crappy
>job as a manager, which was essentially his title.
He wasn't Sandusky's boss. Sandusky had retired 3 years prior to the
2002 incident. Paterno wasn't the owner of the building where the crime
was committed - that was Penn State property. The only obligation he had
in accordance with the established protocol as far as his job title was
concerned was to report the information to the Athletic Director, which
he did. Paterno had no managerial responsibility, or indeed authority,
to do anything else beyond that.
The question then becomes, what exactly did McQueary tell Paterno that
he had witnessed? If he did indeed inform Paterno of the graphic details
that he supplied to the Grand Jury, or even just made sure that Paterno
was aware that some kind of sexual incident had occurred, then Paterno
certainly had a moral responsibility to follow up and see that action
was taken which would be commensurate with the crime. It would be very
interesting to find out from McQueary exactly what he told Paterno that
day.
More heinous to me, at least until we get more information, is the
behavior of Curley and Schultz, who allowed Sandusky to keep using Penn
State facilities with the stipulation that he was not to bring any more
young boys to the campus. It's the equivalent of saying, "We don't care
what you do, just don't do it here."
--
graybeard