FIAF – Break stuff edition
Can someone please esplain something to me, as illustrated in this article that is quoted in the comments from here:
Nevertheless, the die had been cast and Paterno’s fate sealed when the Pennsylvania State Police Commisioner implied he was guilty of a lapse of “moral responsibility” by not contacting law enforcement officials directly and when he was accused of a greater interest in protecting the PSU “brand” than in protecting a child. Both charges are reprehensible. Correctly or incorrectly, Coach Paterno was following proper chain of command protocol in reporting to his higher up, Curley, and trusting the athletic director would fulfill his obligations. There is no basis to conclude he valued the safety of any brand over the safety of children, although there is merit in concluding he should have banished Sandusky from the campus, and especially from the shower rooms, until the matter was resolved even if they were still allegations.
How does following the “proper chain of command protocol” fulfill Paterno’s obligations when he’s been informed of a crime? In case you haven’t read the indictment, particularly the “victim 2” info, you should.
What the “graduate assistant” reported to Paterno wasn’t merely a vague accusation of something questionable. He actually saw Sandusky anally raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower.
[excuse me while I go break some things]
The grad student didn’t even report this until the next day – a Saturday morning. Paterno, in turn, didn’t tell his “immediate superior” until Sunday.
A WEEK AND A HALF LATER, the grad assistant was called into a meeting with the Athletic Director and the Senior Vice President for Finance and Business to report what he had seen.
In what world is this proper handling of such an incident?
Now, for a little “break stuff” mood music: