But by Pennsylvania and federal law, he was required to report this to acual law enforcement. Both as a University employee, and as a member of the board of The Second Mile.
No matter what policies Penn State may have posted or had Paterno sign onto, those policies do not trump the law. Joe is toast.
Mcqueary, yes, under the law you cited becauae he observed the act. Paterno, no because he did not witness it nor could he testify to it in court. He had no first hand knowledge of the act other than what was reported to him nor do we know what degree of certitude McQuaery relayed to Paterno By the standards you are trying to establish any person who has been told someone did something criminal whether they believe it or not must report it directly to the police. You would have more of a case if Paterno did not report it to those responsible under university policy for debriefing McQueary and making the report to the police. Paterno may be morally and ethically guilty of something in the end and maybe should be fired after a serious investigation is made. My point is that the Board made no serious investigation of the facts before canning him within 24 hours. They acceded politically to public opinion.
Paterno’s inaction in 2002 is even worse when taken into context with the 1998 investigation.
Prior to 1998, Sandusky appears to have been a well-respected assistant coach, and Paterno’s likely successor. After the 1998 investigation, Sandusky was not charged with a crime, but retired at a relatively young age for a college coach before the 1999 season. Not only did he retire, he was apparently never even offered another college coaching position.
I don’t know if the Penn State officials tried to influence the DA’s decision about Sandusky. But Sandusky must have been forced to retire, and Paterno must have been involved in the process. Other colleges somehow must have learned that it would be risky to hire Sandusky. What’s amazing is that Penn State realized the need to remove Sandusky from his coaching position, but gave him emeritus status and continued access to the program and facilities. That decision is mind-boggling, and might be one that costs Penn State some money.
It’s hard to guess why McQueary didn’t take immediate action on Friday night when he reportedly witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a 10-yr old boy in the locker room shower. Yet McQueary reacted as several others soon would: He thought it over until the next day, and simply reported it up the chain-of-command, keeping the information in-house.
When McQueary met with Paterno on Saturday, Paterno couldn’t have been taken completely by surprise about Sandusky’s attraction to little boys. Paterno also thought it over until the next day, and simply sent the information up the chain-of-command, and kept it in-house. Curley hesitated a little longer, but did essentially the same thing. And Sandusky was still allowed to continue his affiliaton with the Penn State football program until this year.
It seems as if there was a combination of institutional arrogance, corruption, and fear of exposure. It would have been embarrassing if Sandusky had been simply involved in a typical NCAA recruiting scandal. But Sandusky was a Penn State affiliate who sodomized a young boy on campus, and they all worked together to cover it up.