riffjim4069 said:I opt for well-organized abusive institutional control. Although some may vehemently disagree (and they would have a valid argument) the Sandusky Scandal largely focused around the criminal actions of a.) a "former" football coach who has no official role nor association with the football program to my knowledge and b.) the actions of school administrators. While this matter may have brought great embarrasement and shame to the football program, it did not directly involve the football program, per se. Now, if an "active" coach or players were involved with these incidents...well, now that's quite another story.
I disagree. And draw on this argument from the NY Times, which is much more eloquent than I could be.
The argument that the extensive cover-up had nothing to do with football is absurd. Jerry Sandusky was treated the very way he was, as if he were the victim, because he was a member of the Penn State football family. Like the Mafia, it’s a membership for life as long as you don’t snitch on other made members.
If Sandusky had been anything else but a former assistant coach so instrumental in the school’s rise to football glory in the 1990s and Paterno’s commensurate rise to idol status, would there have been such handwringing over what to do? Would there have been such a disgraceful blind eye turned to the obvious evidence that Sandusky was a pederast?
Of course not.
Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys