[oman]

The guy who witnessed but did not intervene in the attack was not fired, even though he did not call the police. The guys who ran the university and had ultimate personnel responsibility were not fired, even though they did not call the police. The only person fired for not calling the police was Joe Paterno, a football coach they wanted to get of anyway. If this does not strike you as a conveniently selective attribution of responsibility, I don't know what to say.

I don't think an incident of this magnitude in any organization would ever result in non-selective attribution of responsiblity.  This is how the world works.  This is human nature.  And selective attibution of responsibility is often appropriate when you are dealing with persons who bear different levels of responsiblity.

I agree that with the limited amount of information we know, a whole lot of heads should have rolled.

Given the information we know, are you saying that Paterno should not have been fired?  Even if civil justice for the others is slow in coming?

If you agree that a responsible organization may have determined that firing him was part of an appropriate response to this affair, we might simply be talking around each other.

[FYI, I don't know if I would have fired anyone for "not calling the police directly".  I think McQuary should have clearly stopped the incident, taken responsibility and gotten the boy to a safe place.  I don't have an issue with someone in an organization telling someone that "the police should be brought into this matter, and if you want someone from HR or legal to accompany me while I report it, you have some time to get someone over here -- I am leaving in a few minutes".  I don't begrude anyone some shock at an incident like this, or if they are thinking more clearly, that their actions may have such an extremely big impact on an organization that it would warrant their leaders getting a "heads up".]

[oman]

The guy who witnessed but did not intervene in the attack was not fired, even though he did not call the police. The guys who ran the university and had ultimate personnel responsibility were not fired, even though they did not call the police. The only person fired for not calling the police was Joe Paterno, a football coach they wanted to get of anyway. If this does not strike you as a conveniently selective attribution of responsibility, I don't know what to say.

I don't think an incident of this magnitude in any organization would ever result in non-selective attribution of responsiblity.  This is how the world works.  This is human nature.  And selective attibution of responsibility is often appropriate when you are dealing with persons who bear different levels of responsiblity.

I agree that with the limited amount of information we know, a whole lot of heads should have rolled.

Given the information we know, are you saying that Paterno should not have been fired?  Even if civil justice for the others is slow in coming?

If you agree that a responsible organization may have determined that firing him was part of an appropriate response to this affair, we might simply be talking around each other.

[FYI, I don't know if I would have fired anyone for "not calling the police directly".  I think McQuary should have clearly stopped the incident, taken responsibility and gotten the boy to a safe place.  I don't have an issue with someone in an organization telling someone that "the police should be brought into this matter, and if you want someone from HR or legal to accompany me while I report it, you have some time to get someone over here -- I am leaving in a few minutes".  I don't begrude anyone some shock at an incident like this, or if they are thinking more clearly, that their actions may have such an extremely big impact on an organization that it would warrant their leaders getting a "heads up".]