I almost hate to speak up here, but there is always more than one side to a story, and most people do tend to act with integrity as they understand it. If we see Penn State as somehow exceptional, rather than typical, we endanger ourselves to the realities of abuse and how we handle it in our own circles. The problems at Penn State, and the way they handled them are in fact, not very different from problems we have dealt with in our own denomination. Such issues are extremely messy, and difficult to deal with honestly and justly.
Consider the following reasons such situations are difficult to deal with:
When there is an accusation of innappropriate sexual contact, it is almost always dealt with confidentially until the allegations can be substantiated in some way. We have a 'presumed innocent' society that doesn't have a special clause for sexual misconduct, and sexual sins are emotionally difficult for most of us to talk about, let alone investigate and respond to appropriately.
Second, because things are handled confidentially, most people assume that they don't have all the facts, and must trust those doing the investigation to deal with the situation appropriately. Further, most of us don't really want to know all the details.
Third, because sexual misconduct is such a difficult thing to deal with, we try to avoid dealing with it whenever possible. That means we can tend to believe it never happened, even when it did, since if it didn't we don't have to do anything.
Forth, sexual abusers are almost always, charming, well-liked, and enjoyable people to be around. They are the kind of people we tend to believe over accusers (who can be inarticulate, angry, and socially inept), especially when it's one person's word against another. They are often very good at explaining away or reinterpreting details. Mr Sandusky's interview displays somewhat typical behavior, though he is not as 'smooth' as other abusers I've dealt with.
Finally, sexual abusers rarely see their own actions as abusive (Mr. Sandusky didn't), and can easily persuade those who want to believe them that they can believe them. The total lack of shame on the part of an abuser, makes them quite believable, as they appear forthright and not to be hiding anything.
It is very, very easy to judge, after the fact, and from the outside. But when you're in the middle of a case yourself, it's never easy at all. Even determining whether or not abuse occurred can be a huge challenge. Our own denomination's abuse prevention policies are both recent and necessary, and often not understood.
The one thing we should learn from this (IMHO) is that such an investigation should be done by someone with training in sexual abuse/misconduct and from outside the organization in which the abuse occurred. When we are not personally connected to accuser or accused, we are much more likely to be able to approach the situation with better objectivity. Training is also essential, in that those who do such an investigation need to be able to recognize the signs of abuse, and the personality traits of an abuser.
What impressed me the most was to hear the interview Bob Costas had with Sandusky on NBC, and he playing the role of "poor guy" and with that, assuming that the children are the one who're lying . You can find it on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xy0L8MUsOE&feature=related
Hopefully money and other privilege won't prevent justice.