He acknowledges that he was told that "something inappropriate" happened in the shower between his friend and former #1 assistant and a 10 year old boy.
Even if we can believe that he didn't then ask, "what are you talking about? Be specific," he then made the choice to take the action that was one step above doing nothing. He chose to simply report to his superiors.
What he did not do is quite obvious - from contacting police, to admonishing his friend, to warning the charity that his friend used to target fatherless boys . . . nothing.
The historical context of his choice to do nothing is quite clear - it was during the very public revelations that the Catholic church had been actively covering for the child rapists. There can be no doubt that Joe understood that the reach and the effects of his friend's action could be lengthy and dramatic, and that inaction would almost certainly result in more rape and abuse.
It comes down to this for me.
He said nothing for one or a combination of these reasons:
1. To protect his friend.
2. To protect his program/himself.
I'd like to believe that he was afraid, like a person might be if he witnessed a violent crime and the threat of retaliation existed, but that seems implausible in this case.
I conclude that he made the following conscious choice - he chose to protect himself/his program/his friend knowing that it would result in more raping of boys.
Ergo, while I would never support a good Samaritan law that attached criminal liability to inaction like this, I certainly believe that he failed morally in the duty that we all have to, first, protect all children everywhere from violence and abuse. So I agree with immediately canning him.
The history books must not read, "retires after X seasons in cloud of questions over child rapes." Instead, they must read, "fired midseason after storied career for failure to protect children being raped."