Does it not seem that Paterno is a bit of a scapegoat here for being the most public figure? From what I have read, he was not a witness to the crime, heard second hand, and referred the matter to his superior. So this is not a "cover-up" attempt, but rather we are discussing "did he do 'enough'". As he said, in hindsight, he would have done more. Did he have reason to assume that an incompetent investigation would ensue? Did he have reason to doubt the witness' story? We don't really have answers to such questions it seems, yet there has been this "get em all out!" mob mentality all too typical of a media-frenzy-fed public. Is Paterno too iconic of the old boys club of yesteryear to get a fair shake? Even if he did not act as well has he could in that incident, why do we crucify this man for his demerit in view of his merits? Barring further revelation on the matter, I can only conclude that this is a pr move by the university, bowing to media's microscope. Shedding themselves of Paterno at this point seems like a "big move" for them and they probably would not have been able to shake the public outcry without doing so. But is Paterno's dismissal (presuming his resignation was prompted) simply an instrument of public relations? Shall his reputation be based on an incident he 'did indeed take to his superior' and we will pretend he was involved in a cover-up simply because we don't like Penn State or football or men in charge? As it stands, any criticism I have of the man remains limited.