I get your take, but I think you misread people's understanding of Paterno's role in this. I am not necessarily convinced that Paterno was 'actively involved in a cover-up' as Costas states. BUT - I do feel confident based on Paterno's GJ testimony, that he knew something ugly was going on, kicked it upstairs to his 'superiors' (term used sarcastically here given Paterno's clout and influence), and turned away from it. Indifference may not be cover-up, but Paterno had the respect and gravity in the University to put this tragedy to bed, and instead played the dottering old fool who 'never heard of rape between a man and a boy'. The other thing is how Sandusky was allowed to unexpectedly retire from the team in 1998, at the peak of his career. There is a lot of speculation here that he was forced out, for mysterious reasons, and I've always been troubled with not knowing what really went down there. One man for certain knew the details though, Sandusky's close friend. Joe Paterno.
Fair post...Paterno most definitely knew
something was going on; we can all agree on that. However, after reading
a lot on the subject I sincerely have major doubts that he ever knew the gravity of the situation; this based on a large variety evidence I've come across. Clearly he was pretty hands-off about the whole situation (and he was legally forced to be), and keep in mind that he was not actually in charge of Sandusky at the time (Sandusky wasn't his employee), and there was little he could legally do to keep Sandusky away, who had been granted "Emeritus" access at PSU. (Conversely, one can imagine a lawsuit coming his way if he tries to deny someone their legal access based on unfounded allegations.)
Claims of a cover-up by PSU are heavily weakened considering they called Sandusky's charity (The Second Mile) about the McQueary incident (who covers things up by telling others?). Claims of a cover-up by Paterno himself are very weak considering he reported it to the very people he was required to report it to. The McQueary incident itself is heavily weakened considering that the Grand Jury report introduced highly damaging
false testimony about that incident that is completely absent of the transcripts (claimed McQueary saw "anal rape", though he certainly never testified such). Those explosive (but false) accusations are what set the firestorm ablaze in the first place.
As for the relationship between Sandusky and Paterno, anything I've heard is that Paterno didn't really like him. I searched for a reference to share; the first I came across was this:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/joe_paterno_biography_describe.html The way I understand it, Sandusky wasn't forced out as DC, he quit to focus on his
charity (*ahem!*) after Paterno said he was not going to retire his position to Sandusky. If Paterno didn't like him, then reasons to intentionally cover anything up become increasingly weaker.
Paterno was a figurehead at PSU due to his legend and his kind public personality, but at the time this was going down, Paterno was in hot water (for sudden losing football), and his clout was probably at an all-time low. It would not have been a good time for Paterno to be making any demands.
His reputation is forever tarnished due to this; whether fully justified or only partially justified. The man still built that program, was extremely benovolent and donated greatly back to PSU, and - perhaps in flawed manner - ran a program that was championed across the nation. He prepared many men for their successful futures. For that, perhaps a statue - now flawed - is yet deserved. I'm not saying that I agree with putting it back up - at least not now - however, I understand why many people feel that it should.
All of that said, it can be a very emotional subject, and one that will forever have people of good minds taking completely opposite sides.
