By way of Instapundit we have:
Let's see...proportional rates likely HIGHER than those of the much reviled Catholic Church....check
Coverup....which we're all told is far worse than the original crime...check
Massive media attempt to generate public outcry to raze the schools to the ground and salt the earth on which they stood? No
This is a classic example of the media applying radically different standards to groups it likes versus those that it doesn't. Think, for instance, of how much cultural attention the less than around 5000 lynchings over the course of about a century got. Way more than the disproportionate black on white murders get, and a lot of the lynchings back in those days were frankly, quite justified.
Let me relate an old family story of mine. I'd have been inclined to dispute it but for the fact that a postcard from the beginning of the 20th century was produced as photographic evidence.
A malefactor in a Southern state raped a girl. He was convicted by the jury and sentenced to death. Nobody seriously disputed the fact that he was guilty. However, he was a crony of the state governor. The governor pardoned him---incidentally breaking the 'honest graft' rules of his contemporary up North (George Washington Plunkitt, who called the penal system the Forbidden Fruit). The good citizens of the capital city in question decided they'd have none of that, so they strung the convicted and pardoned man up from a lamp post, and made a postcard of it. I suspect a lot of lynchings were similar, despite the popular narrative in the media that all lynching victims were innocent black people murdered by wicked white people (in this case, I'm pretty sure that the lynched was neither innocent nor black). History is always messier than any clean narratives progressives like to spin.