That meeting did not happen for 10 days.

http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2011/11/mike-mcqueary-in-protective-custody.html

I tend to agree with her analysis here. And Book has been wondering some of the same things, which is what I place priority on. The things people aren’t thinking of. 

Now that more details are coming out, I’m wondering how long each of the members of the board have been on the board, and – assuming they were in fact members of the board for the last five years – why they should be held any less guilty. Seems to me they should resign en masse.

Or find out where the buck stopped ….

 It’s legitimate to question actions after the fact when people can usually mull over their options. It’s not legitimate to second guess the experiences of other people vis a vis crime as it is happening to or around them, because most people, and I’m talking about you all here as well, have little to no experience dealing with real crime or criminals. Thus their view is neither expert nor particularly sound. Much of what people pick up about crime… is when they hear about it being talked about by other people on the news. Like Penn State. They lack the experience and wisdom required to make a judgment, and plus they don’t have the facts of what actually happened. Maybe if they were seasoned criminal and citizen guards that deal with crime and criminals like child molestors all the time, maybe they could intuit what should have happened based upon scant evidence, but that doesn’t apply here.

 So the whole prejudice thing comes from moral expectations, not realistic or sound judgment of the facts on the ground. Let’s be clear about that. People who want to second guess, monday quarterback, and all that stuff just wish for people to have “better” behavior. They’re not actually forming a judgment of how to make people have better behavior utilizing personal experiences. Morality is not truth. The facts on the ground do not always lead to a moral solution acceptable to society. Morality is dumb, basically. It doesn’t know how to determine truth; it can only force people to behave or misbehave.

People think that because they went to college, they know how something like Penn State works. They have no clue. Evidence one, they had to be told about the corruption before they ever figured out. Big fat lot of good their “college” degrees allowed them to figure that out ahead of time. So basically, if you were ever an administrator or made hiring/firing decisions, you will more easily see why corrupt people had to be fired at Penn State. However, if you have most of your life experience dealing with crime, then you might have higher expectations rightly about how Penn State or the authority figures should have acted. But those things don’t cross each other. A person that believes Penn State should be purged, is not making the same judgment as monday quarterbacking what people should have done upon witnessing what they thought was improper behavior on campus grounds. This also applies to muggings. People who have been mugged, like Robin, don’t have any better judgment concerning serial killers and arsonists, just because they were knew how muggers work. One does not follow the other.

This is another example of the popular human tendency to believe their experience and expertise in A somehow magically transfers over to all kinds of other human fields and experiences. It doesn’t.

Charles is spot on.  All the Penn State higher ups already knew about Sandusky before this shower rape incident.  They already knew!  The assistant coach may have frozen at the moment of moral decision – and collapsed – but the higher ups deliberately turned their back on these poor kids.  Now that more details are coming out, it’s clear the firings are entirely justified.