My comment was not flippant. I was not arguing that he didn't know (see the quotation marks around "know nothing.") Nor was I defending Paterno. In my own work, I have been a mandated reporter for my whole career. In the post above, I was not speaking of the horror of child sexual abuse; I was trying to put the Paterno story in some historical context--my point being that Paterno is of the same generation as those who covered up abuse in the church. My post was a response to the one above it, about how PSU alumni and others, are in a similar position of denial about Paterno and PSU as Paterno and the bishops/clergy were about the seriousness of sexual abuse. Like many who refused to believe that priests were molesters or who refused to believe that the church would cover it up, there are those who can believe that Sandusky was a monster but Paterno couldn't possibly have known because they believed he was a great man--a man of greatness-- with a sterling reputation.
My point was that we can must acknowledge that Paterno, like Sandusky with The Second Mile, as well as the bishops involved in covering up clergy sex abuse, often did good things for their communities. We can acknowledge how those "good things" made it harder for the truth to come out. We can acknowledge that complexity without ignoring or trivializing the horror of their active abuse or their failure to protect kids. I was arguing against the "either/or" thinking that keeps people trapped in denial while kids are victimized. Abusers and their enablers are often powerful, charismatic people, at least in the world of the kids they abuse. Their very modus operandi is often to groom kids with attention, gifts, kindness, trips, privileges, all things that make kids feel important and grateful. Then there are the abusers who are beloved parents and grandparents, the very people keeping a roof over a kids' head and food on the table. And the other parent can't square up the loving spouse or engaged grandfather with a pedophile rapist. The type of child sex abuser that uses teaching, coaching, Scouts, the church, or dating a single parent to groom kids is often held in high esteem by the community--and this esteem has, in the past, made it hard to some people to report for fear of not being believed.
Abusing kids in any way leaves horrible scars, as anyone who has experienced abuse can attest. Abusers should be punished and kept away from kids; their enablers can expect to have their sterling reputations in tatters. But just as we can't rewrite history and ignore the abuse, we can't rewrite history and ignore the context that allowed it to happen.
