Man, difficult subject. I guess I'd ask - does a failure of comprehension on Bo's part constitute a moral failing?
By Mr.C on 09:35:49 06/10/21
[In reply to "The dead guys who knew don't get to be heroes anymore, and the living guys who knew need to pay dearly. (m)" by Ivo Shandor, posted at 07:07:23 06/10/21]
I am not an athlete or any sort of psychologist, but almost certainly Bo's milieu was the uber-macho world of elite male athletics where the concept of sexual assault on 20-yr-old linebackers would have been so taboo as to be borderline incomprehensible, especially for a man of his generation. I really doubt that he was trying to "protect the program" near as much as he just couldn't even process the idea. "If it was so bad why didn't you punch him in the face?" would likely have been his mindset, if not his actual response.
((Please note that I'm just pontificating here - I obviously have no insight into the mind of Bo Schembechler or anybody else, heck my own brain is enough of a challenge.))
This is not a defense of his actions, but I'm looking for a plausible explanation, because from what I know of Bo he would have gone to actual war to protect his players. This sort of scandal coming to light in enough places (obviously at Ohio State too) suggests that the issue was systemic for a reason, and I don't think the reason was "State U uber alles".
: His name and likeness (statue, Schembechler Hall, etc.) are about to be purged from UM campus.
: It's sad because he is a beloved icon (hated by us, but still an icon) and it's tough seeing Icons fall