Nov 10th 2011, 22:45:16
		
I had this discussion with a few other people and feel the need to share my thoughts:
Joe Paterno may have, according to Pennsylvania law, fulfilled his requirement by reporting it to the people above him.  Those people, by failing to act on it, definitely have morally and legally failed and deserve any punishment handed to them.
Despite the fact that maybe Paterno fulfilled his LEGAL obligation by the law, if you're in a position where you are put in charge of children (and for this argument, I'm still counting 18-22 year old college kids as children, whether that's fair or not), you should be concerned if you haven't heard about an investigation and you still say the alleged perpetrator around campus or around kids.  At that point, Paterno should have followed up.  If he was told that there had been an investigation and there was no evidence of wrong-doing, then Paterno's clean.  However, from all that's out there, this doesn't seem to be the case.  Reporting an incident once and never following up on it despite the fact that the guy was still on campus is at least morally problematic, and at least by the laws in my state, if I didn't follow up, as a mandated reporter (as I'm a H.S. teacher), I could even be in trouble legally.
I'm not one of those people that thinks Paterno needs to go to jail or have all his wins revoked, but he definitely deserved to be fired and to go out on terms other than his own.  Announcing his retirement wasn't enough.
Maybe something will come out that will change my mind and I'm certainly willing to be open-minded if future evidence either shows Paterno as more innocent or more guilty than he appears to be, but Paterno had to go.