The Penn State scandal: Shocking & despicable
State prosecutors say Jerry Sandusky, 67, a coaching legend at Penn State for more than two decades, sexually abused eight boys over 15 years, at least one in a campus facility. Investigators say the Nittany Lions' former defensive coordinator was a "sexual predator who used his position within the university and the community to repeatedly prey on young boys."
Mr. Sandusky, charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse, even is alleged to have used his own charitable foundation to aid his escapades, prosecutors say.
Worse, when head coach Joe Paterno reported one alleged incident (as relayed to him by a graduate assistant) to his boss, Tim Curley, the athletic director, Mr. Curley failed to report it to authorities, an indictment alleges. Curley and Gary Schultz, Penn State's senior vice president for finance and business, are accused of covering up the alleged crimes, then lying about it. Curley's on administrative leave; Schultz has "retired."
Mr. Paterno, who testified before a grand jury, is not charged. But that's no absolution. He should have contacted authorities immediately.
Penn State President Graham Spanier is not without culpability. Though not charged, prosecutors say he "reviewed and approved" a measure that banned Sandusky from bringing children onto campus "without any further inquiry on his part." Outrageous.
The courts will decide the fate of Sandusky, Curley and Schultz. As for Paterno and Mr. Spanier, they must resign.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.