I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you actually stating that Sanduskey was covered up because it would be bad publicity for homosexuals? If so, do you have a single piece of evidence to support that?
I would like to report to businesslawyer, an officer of the court, that my statements made are from public statements by the former University president and how I've noted how organizations conform to higher ups interests; and that I have no evidence in this case that should be turned over to the courts.
Very simple, didn't say had evidence on anything, just read #1 and have observed #2:
1. president wants the most homosexual friendly campus in the country (Sandusky is accused of illegal sexual acts against same sex youths).
2. if you want to stay in an organization you do not buck what is important to the higher ups and over time you will be hired and promoted because you support what higher ups value.
Seems to be conventional wisdom that protecting the Penn State football team was "important to higher ups"; this is adding one more "important to the highest up person who was fired for his handling and praise of others in their handling of this matter" to the mix. Doubt if' actions by those involved were all due to any "one" reason such as protect Penn State football, but probably many, including just being lazy and trying to take the easiest and least risky actions related to how the hierarchy of Penn State (up to the President) would view their actions.
In case you missed the 1st sentence in the post "Has to be more than just to protect the football team"; so your "do you still beat your wife" straw dog question of: 'Are you actually stating that Sanduskey was covered up because it would be bad publicity for homosexuals?" is not what I said.
If you had asked "are you stating in an organizational environment where it was known that the President of the University wanted the most homosexually friendly campus in the country and all his subordinates knew this that any subordinate who needed to bring forward information to the President that was negative to BOTH Penn State football AND to maintaining the most homosexually friendly campus in the country would best be served by avoiding doing this and making it go away? Then you would be asking a question related to what I posted and I would have been able to answer you.
If Sandusky was found having sex with a 10 year old girl by the assistant coach, presumably this would have gone down differently and presumably it would have been due to the sex of the victim (non homosexual event). Don't remember any "inside jokes at College Park about Sandusky and little girls". Not saying for sure as have no evidence to prove this, just sayn'.
