First, calling the police has nothing to do with hearsay. Hearsay is a rule of evidence.
Second, unless something said out of court is offered to prove the truth of the utterance, it's not hearsay. I can testify that I heard Bob tell me he saw John rape Mary. If that testimony is offered as evidence that I heard John say that, then it's not hearsay. If that testimony is offered as evidence that John raped Mary, then it's hearsay.
For Paterno to report that somebody told him that Sandusky abused somebody isn't hearsay if it's offered to prove that somebody told Joe about Sandusky. It's only hearsay if it's offered as proof of the rape.
Third, you would be surprised. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that in Evidence class your professor will joke that the rule is actually an exception to the exceptions to the rule.
Fourth, most state's child abuse laws mandate reporting in school and similar situations by people in authority who hear a creditable claim of abuse. Yeah. So does Pennsylvania. The only question is who has the obligation to report that abuse that he or she didn't see.
I've actually posted the link to Pennsylvania's reporting statute on a couple of your posts about hearsay. Have you missed it?
Finally, Curley reporting it, under your analysis, would be double hearsay. So . . . wow, we have a bigger problem.
You keep bringing up hearsay.
What am I missing?
And it wasn't to a post regarding reporting crimes to police but a response to someone claiming that someone "KNOWS" someone raped someone and "PROTECTS THEM FOR YEARS".
You seem to really, really want to believe the worst but you don't even know if McQueary even told Paterno the boy was raped.