Joe Paterno got caught offsides (on our shifting line of morality). Not to justify his actions in any way, but the truth of the matter is that 50 years ago, when Paterno came of age, this type of loyalty was considered the norm.
It has only been in the past few decades that (in some cases) the rights of victims have superseded the moral precedent of blind loyalty - just ask the catholic church.
Yesterday I saw the movie Edgar J and, as portrayed, Hoover was also caught offsides. In his case it wasn't so much an immediate penalty as it was a gradual re-examination; almost as if a surveyor was redrawing the cultural map and found Hoover miles north of moral acceptability.
The conflict being, of course, that both Paterno and Hoover did some worthy stuff - so to put them on the other side of acceptability also forces culture to take sides.
I mention this not merely as a observation, but because it is a symptom of our current adaptive methodology. This conflict instigated by that moving morality line seems to be a major factor on how methodology is being adapted into the new century. Whether it is the complaints of political correctness or the battle of the 99%, much the catalyst for change is coming not from what is most efficient ( e.g., Taylorism) or from collective aspirations ( e.g., the moon landing), but rather simply from the conflict of trying to figure out what is acceptable.
Brooks vs. Pollitt to illustrate the point
