Reply #63: Right, about McQueary's culpability, but wrong about leadership.

[caseymoz]

I think he confuses "leader" with "hero." Why does the writer presume "a leader" will do the right thing, especially in what was a horrid situation that they aren't prepared for? The nature of shock is a profound failure to grasp the situation until it's too late. However, I have to say I would expect a lesser level failure than McQueary's.

What failed here every time was leadership. The coach, the President, they all either passed the buck or buried this. Why? Mostly to protect the program or cover their asses, and because of the fact that they were too focused on other things, like football. Or, and this is likely with shock, they simply disbelieved it. They were terrific leaders at football. The irony is that football is supposed to be a character-builder. It either isn't, or it builds very specialized character.

No, I wouldn't say the cowardice was as bad as the crime itself. Why? Simply because if the coward were there and not the perp, no crime would have occurred. If we could replace every perp with coward, crime would drop to zero.