[AnotherUnixGeek]

Absent actual proof of wrongdoing PSU could not suspend his privileges without legal jeopardy.

And yet they did exactly that in 2011, before Sandusky was finally convicted.

And the "professor emeritus" title isn't exactly a requirement for retiring football assistant coaches. Sandusky retired after the investigation of a 1998 abuse case - the Pennsylvania attorney general's report on the case stated "Sandusky admitted showering naked with Victim 6, admitted to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admitted that it was wrong".

Why would Penn State think it appropriate to award an Emeritus title to a football coach who had just come through a child sexual abuse investigation and admitted to showering naked with a child? Where is the judgment or common sense on that campus?

[who knows what evil?]

Where is the judgment or common sense on that campus?

Like most universities; they have an agenda.

[FredZarguna]

Not even a good try. In 2011 the grand jury investigation was well underway and it was clear that Penn State would face no legal challenge to revoking Sanduskys privileges.

As for the rest... yawn. This is the typical Paterno haters cherrypicking. The 1998 investigation by both police and the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare CLEARED Sandusky, and that was the only facet of the investigation of which his exit contract negotiators would have been aware.

Again, a very feeble effort on your part, indeed.