As far as I can tell Sandusky was given “emeritus” status after he was told by Paterno he would not be Penn State’s next head coach. I have found nothing thast indicsted sports coaches receive tenure as policy.
Sandusky used the “emiritus” entre to continue using PSU faciities for his foundation—and child molestation. He was discovered by McCreary raping the boy in the shower. It took at least two years before Sandusky’s “emeritus” status was revoked. Thus, denying him use of PSU facilities. During that period Paterno had to have observed Sandusky’s continuing use of Penn State facilities. I believe, too, Paterno could not have been oblivious to Sandusky’s continuing to be seen squiring individual kids to football games.
You seem to have a real problem with moral responsibility. Paterno may have met his administrative responsibilities. He did not meet his moral responsibility. To pretend that is not so is to eshew the concept of morality in the first place or simple moral blindness. A moral person would not have not tolerated the University’s continuing association with this creep—even at the expense of his own job.
Not sure what diversity has to do with any of this. So far as I know the race(s) of the kids has/have not been reported. Anyway we’re talking about Center County, PA. I believe it remains a fairly white population.
The rejection of a moral standard brought this on Penn State. All the rest of the components od the scandal—tenure, PC and Marxism—are symptoms of that environment.
Paterno had no power to remove Sandusky from campus.
The Athletic Director, who is still employed by the university and having his legal bills paid for by the university did have the power to remove Sandusky.
The Board of Regents hired a man to be President with a background involving the study of wife-swapping and swinging. This President had a stated goal of making PSU the most gay friendly university in America.
Unfortunately, lazy journalists and commentators want to make the story about Paterno, Paterno, Paterno.