The Rhetoric of Firing Paterno

You may already have seen this, but the New York Times today published a summary of conversations with a third of Penn State's Board of Trustees explaining their actions during the first week of the Sandusky mess.  Although the interview/event likely was orchestrated by the board's PR firm, it does certainly clarify some previously murky details; likewise, the board members' recollections strike me as sincere, even in the midst of other probable communication objectives.  (You are free to disagree, of course!)

So perhaps you could blog about the rhetoric of their stories, or their use of this interview (itself a rhetorical action--in addition to content, the fact of the event itself is designed to communicate), or about the responses you might see to it on Facebook today.

Source: Gene J. Puskar/Associated Press

Or if you're looking to compare two reports against each other, you might consider this report from a former trustee about the flawed nature of the board's governing and oversight structure, which he believes created an institutional culture riddled with flaws.  He blames these systemic cultural forces for any potential shortcomings in the way Joe Paterno handled the Sandusky situation.  Keep in mind that he does not currently sit on the board (although he's running in this Spring's elections), that his experiences with the board are historical (so some things might have changed), and that his explanation came out before the Trustees had their NYT conversation (so a few of his conjectures about details turn out to be inaccurate).    It's long, but as a concerned student it's a perspective worth knowing.  And it could make really good fodder for an RCL blog entry on its own.