A person who felt it was being handled. Paterno came to realize that Sandusky had some sort of sexual problem when it came to children. I don’t believe he had any idea just how serious it was though or just what all went on. At any rate he felt it was serious enough to warrant action and he reported it to Penn State’s administration, who he met with later and joined in a decision to force Sandusky to seek treatment for his problem or face having his known behavior reported to his charity and the Dept. of Human Welfare.
I don’t know what happened after that. He may have believed that Curley and Schultz were handling it, and that Sandusky was getting the help he needed and the problem had been taken care of. Again, I don’t know, that’s just speculation.
What I do know is that he reported it and a plan of action was undertaken that seemed both humane and in keeping with what most people in a position of authority would regard as a wise and proper way to handle the problem. There was no talk at any time among the people involved expressing concern about Penn State’s reputation, it’s alumni donations or its football program. Rather the focus was on getting the problem addressed while still not ruining a man’s home, reputation and family life, and not negatively affecting The Second Mile charity who all involved believed was doing a lot of good for a lot of disadvantaged children.
Keep in mind also that Sandusky was no longer under Joe Paterno’s authority or supervision and therefore really wasn’t his problem to deal with. Sandusky had been out of the football program for three years at the time of the shower room incident, and from three to thirteen years by the time the incident came to light. For how long was Joe Paterno supposed to be keeping tabs on this person who he had no direct contact or control over and who wasn’t even employed by the same university department? Technically, any of the school’s department heads bore as much responsibility for stopping Sandusky’s behavior during that ten year period as Joe Paterno did.
I can tell you that if I were in Joe Paterno’s shoes I would not be trying to find out all the gory details of exactly what happened either. And I wouldn’t be appointing myself marshal over the next decade to ensure that he never misbehaved again. I would endeavor to find out if a serious problem exists and I would take steps to get it addressed. Once that was done I’d wash my hands of it and try not to think of it again, trusting that the people I’d reported it to were handling it as they were supposed to, and expecting that the threat of Sandusky’s being arrested and their being held culpable for his subsequent crimes would be sufficient to ensure that they did their job.
People simply don’t go around endlessly following up on crimes and misdeeds they were at one time responsible for taking action on. You’re a police officer, right? Do you endlessly keep tabs on the people you’ve arrested to see if they’re continuing to offend once they’re back out on the street? Do judges strive to keep up with the lives of people they once sentenced to make sure they aren’t committing more of the same types of crime? When a supervisor in a large company has a discipline problem or personality clash with a subordinate who gets transferred to another department, is he expected to keep up with that employee indefinitely, trying to keep tabs from then on as to whether that employee’s still acting out and behaving the same way in his new job that caused problems in his old one, and coming in for criticism if he doesn’t?
The world just isn’t wired that way. People learn of problems and they take steps to deal with them, then they get on with their lives. My guess is that Paterno learned of the problem, took steps to deal with it, and then most likely simply got on with his life in the belief that the problem had been handled. And I think that’s what just about anyone lacking the benefit of hindsight and the ability to second-guess would do.
