Agreed. While it may be accurate, I don't think I would have gone down that path either.What could Paterno have done?
1. Follow up with Gary Schultz, repeatedly
I think this is very important. As of now, I don't think any of us know what the response from Shultz to Paterno and especially McQueary (since he was the witness), was at that time. He said in his deposition (about 8 years later) that he believed "nothing criminal had happened", but i would really like to know what he said then. I also can't believe that Paterno is being crucified and not Schultz. It was Shultz's job to drive the investigation. I don't care if he heard rape or "horsing around", he should have driven the most thorough investigation possible. From all accounts, it appears he didn't. I vote him villian #2, yet no one is saying a word.
2. Contact the police directly if not happy with Schultz's replies
See above - though again, several lawyers have indicated that he couldn't do much with the police since he wasn't a witness.
3. Sit down with Sandusky to discuss
The reality of this being useful at all is basically zero.
4. Follow up with kids who Sandusky had contact with
And say what? Run around town saying you think he is a child rapist? You just can't do this
5. Suspend Sandusky, remove him from the campus
The AD (and university president) were the ones with authority to do this, and they sort of did. I emphasize sort of because is was only a partial attempt, but again, we are all limited as to what we can do in response to rumor.
or, 6. Do the minimum possible communication and not follow-up, like Paterno. A first-year coach on his first day on the job could have done as much as Paterno.
I understand the Psych 201 stuff and I don't agree with the application here. The best way to describe KR's counterargument would be "ad hominem".