My take on this is that the narrative on cases like this are rarely simple. The narrative on Sandusky is certainly simple: he is a predator, and he is mentally ill. His conduct was the very definition of evil.
As for Paterno, Curley, and Spanier, these are not intrinsically evil men. But it definitely appears that in covering the McQueary incident up and not going to the police, they did something that was absolutely evil . I don't think that their motivation can be reduced to something as deceptively simple as they were trying to preserve the integity of the institution, although I think that was a big part of it. I think that people have a natural inclination to disbelieve that people are around them could do something so evil. Paterno and Curley in particular probably found it impossible to believe that this guy they thought of as affable, big-hearted, and devoted to charity and service could be capable of raping a child. They probably rationalized to themselves that McQueary didn't actually see what he thought he saw. They probably felt that allegations against Sandusky would wrongly ruin his life when in fact he hadn't abused anyone. It is amazing how powerful a force cognitive dissonance can be when people want strongly to believe something.
None of this is to excuse the inexcusable. Their behavior in not reporting this incident cannot be justified in any way, shape, or form. All I am saying is that these three guys were most likely not consciously deciding to elevate the reputation of Penn State over the welfare of children.
As for Paterno, Curley, and Spanier, these are not intrinsically evil men. But it definitely appears that in covering the McQueary incident up and not going to the police, they did something that was absolutely evil . I don't think that their motivation can be reduced to something as deceptively simple as they were trying to preserve the integity of the institution, although I think that was a big part of it. I think that people have a natural inclination to disbelieve that people are around them could do something so evil. Paterno and Curley in particular probably found it impossible to believe that this guy they thought of as affable, big-hearted, and devoted to charity and service could be capable of raping a child. They probably rationalized to themselves that McQueary didn't actually see what he thought he saw. They probably felt that allegations against Sandusky would wrongly ruin his life when in fact he hadn't abused anyone. It is amazing how powerful a force cognitive dissonance can be when people want strongly to believe something.
None of this is to excuse the inexcusable. Their behavior in not reporting this incident cannot be justified in any way, shape, or form. All I am saying is that these three guys were most likely not consciously deciding to elevate the reputation of Penn State over the welfare of children.
