Before the NCAA releases their ruling on Penn State’s fate this afternoon, and in light of yesterday’s statue removal, I’d like to comment on Joe Paterno and others involved. My opinion is admittedly an unpopular one, but its an honest one and you can disagree with it all you want.
Ever since the events came to light last year, we’ve talked about Joe Paterno. A lot. In fact, I would be willing to bet that we’ve spent more time on Paterno than on Sandusky, who actually committed a crime.
We haven’t spent any time at all on Tom Corbett, the current PA governor who, as then attorney general, oversaw the 1998 investigation into Sandusky which resulted in no charges being filed. We’ve spent very little time on PSU administrators who, at any time, could have acted more forcefully.
But instead, we’ve spent all our time on Joe Paterno. The Freeh Report concluded that Paterno acted maliciously to knowingly cover up Sandusky’s actions. That’s not the conclusion I drew. Rather, my reading of the evidence in the report brought me to the conclusion that Paterno was willing to give Sandusky a chance.
After Paterno was notified of the incident witnessed by McQueary, he informed his superiors, stating that with such a sensitive issue he wanted to ensure that he followed all procedures properly. We know from a subsequent email that Paterno followed up with administration. The damning evidence is the email in which we learn that the administration decided to pursue a less harsh course against Sandusky “after speaking with Joe”. One could easily conclude from this that Paterno asked administrators to cover things up to protect the football program. But one could also conclude that he asked them to pursue a different course because he didn’t fully believe the allegations against Sandusky. And why would he? A previous investigation by the state attorney general found nothing.
That was an admittedly terrible decision, and it was one he should have, and did, pay dearly for. But I have a hard time concluding that Paterno acted to maliciously cover up a crime for the sake of football. I think he simply made a horrible mistake.
This is a story with a lot of villians and few heroes. Joe Paterno, however, is very much a lesser villian here. All along the way, people in positions superior to Paterno’s could have acted and did not. And yet, we focus on Paterno to the extent that PSU is actively trying to remove him from existence. But what of everyone else? Why are we not focusing on them and destroying their reputations? Quite to the contrary, one of them is a sitting governor who was, by all accounts, the very first person to fail to stop Sandusky.
Is it really the case that we believe one mistake, even such a horrible one, is enough to warrant overlooking a lifetime of service to a community? Enough to warrant a literal wiping of evidence of that lifetime from history?
Our focus on Paterno was far too great, and our reaction to him far too severe, in light of our lack of focus on and lack of reaction to those more culpable. The Freeh Report, being treated as the final nail in the coffin of Paterno’s legacy, was irrelevant, because we all knew he was guilty before any evidence was presented. The media frenzy surrounding him in the past year made sure of that.
520 Chestnut 
Leave a Reply