I'm not afraid to say it, so here it goes...
The reason Penn State didn't fire that guy who molested those young boys is because it was a homosexual issue. I work at a major (collegiate) institution, and I know at that time when they were trying to shove homosexuality and anti- homophobism down our throats, they could not have some thing like that going public and serving as any sort or indictment against homosexuality. You see, the colleges are pushing the all-accepting, progressive institutions look. Bad press would be the worst thing that could possibly happen to them.....and if that means they sandbag doing the right thing for this boy and sweeping it under the rug....that's what they'll do if going public with it is going to embarrass them. Chances are they probably threatened Joe Paterno through vague but unmistakable innuendo to be quiet.
Now I'm not saying the situation is an indictment against homosexuality because it isn't. But colleges are shamelessly evil behind closed doors. Their number 1 position in our society is not to serve society by educating our youth, that's just the biproduct. Their number one purpose is tuition dollars...to serve themselves. Somewhere along the way, colleges stopped being institutions of higher learning, and became corporations. The "progressive" place I work at would sooner kill an innocent person that allow bad press which could potentially be bad for business. That may seem like a stretch, but when you consider all of the things I've witnessed over the course of 25 years, it is not an entirely ridiculous thought.
Let's put it this way: Being a male manager with college students working for me, I am in a quite dangerous position by way of just simple human nature. Part of my job involves having to reprimand and terminate people. I'm a boss with over 250 employees, so that's a given.
All it takes is terminating a female with a chip on her shoulder: if she so chooses to "say" I sexually harassed her, and I'd be gone. It wouldn't matter if I didn't, it wouldn't matter if she could not prove it....it wouldn't matter if it would be obvious that she was reacting to a reprimand, I would be goner than gone. Why? Because the University could not risk looking like an "uncaring" place by not acting on behalf of an alleged victim. It'd be easier for people to believe a male would do that and they could preserve their reputation for upholding justice on behalf of poor poor women by getting rid of the evil perpetrator....by giving the lib press what they would love to see. And with a legal department that has very long purse strings and (probably) the most powerful legal authority outside the state government itself, they would know how to put down any reasonable doubt defenses should the REAL victim in the situation choose to litigate the decision to terminate.
Social progression has been a cash cow for colleges and the media for years......
Otherwise....WHY wasn't anything done with the situation when it happened? Why was it swept under the rug for all of these years?
Penn State, like any other university has chosen their sacrificial lambs. They (mostly) avoided standing in an unfavorable light and they gave the media what they would want to see....they fed the dogs.
So I'm not as quick as others to indict Joe Pa for this one, because my belief was that they told him he knows nothing, or he'll be in the unemployment line. I think there's a sh*tload more to this than the media wants us to know, and so much more than the board of trustees is willing to release. After all, they can't be firing themselves, can they?
