According to the Freeh Report, Joe Paterno, after being told of the shower incident, said to Mike McQuery "You did what you had to do. Now it's up to me to decide what we want to do."Joe Paterno's decision? Rather than expose the unbearable actions of Jerry Sandusky, Paterno chose to do what was best for the Penn State football team.
Joe Paterno did tell the university president what he had learned. But that was all he did. The fact that Paterno lived with knowing all of this information for decades without any further action being taken is unthinkable to most people. But, in Paterno's, Spanier's, and Curley's minds, they were doing what was right for Penn State. They knew a scandal would not have been good for the storied program that they had all worked so hard to build. So rather than so what was morally right, Paterno and the others did what would help to advance the university.
When the news broke that Joe Paterno had been fired, the Penn State campus erupted in riots (see below). The man was more than just a coach, he was an icon who built one of the most storied programs in history.
Although it cannot be denied that the advancement of the program was given priority over any form of responsibility, the question can still be posed as to whether or not Paterno actually did what was right for the program. Maybe he thought at the time if he kept quiet the whole thing would blow over, and everyone knows the success he had as a coach. But, as things tend to do to leaders who have "dirty hands," Paterno's decisions came back to bite him, and the entire reputation of the university.
Since everyone has heard all about this over the course of the past two years, I am interested to see what you guys have to say. Did Joe Paterno have "dirty hands?" Have you ever seen the concept of "dirty hands" in this type of situation?
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was very well thought out and clearly stated. I could not help but follow the Penn State case pretty closely being a long time fan of college football as well as Joe Paterno. There is no question that Paterno did not handle the situation properly and for that reason many people feel he was an absolutely horrible person that permitted child abuse. It disgusts me to know that Paterno had knowledge of the abuse and kept Sandusky on his coaching staff anyway. It makes me think that Paterno did not even fully believe what Mike McQuery told him because I firmly believe if Paterno would have seen Sandusky doing this he would have immediately fired him as well as told higher authorities. But, I think because he was told by a trainer, he took the path of least resistance by just telling the University President of what he had heard and hoped that maybe it was not true or that it would blow over. By the time the case became national and all over the news, Paterno took an unbelievable amount of heat ultimately because people painted the picture that Paterno's program had a child abuser in it and Paterno knew of the abuse, and STILL did nothing to stop it. In my opinion, Paterno was put in an extremely horrible, weird, and surreal situation and even though he may not have handled it the right way, he in no way is guilty of anything that went on in the locker rooms or at summer camps. He simply trusted a horrible man that was able to fool Paterno into a man that he could depend on as an assistant coach. All in all, I do not think Paterno had "dirty hands" because people hate him for what he did NOT do rather than what he DID do and what he did do was pretty unbelievable as a head coach at Penn State University.
Thanks,
Dillon Dietz
I actually agree with you on most of what you said because for a while I thought that Paterno was being made out to be the villain. But what I said was in no way meant to compare what Paterno did to what Sandusky did. What I was attempting to say was that, by neglecting to inquire further after telling the president of the university, Paterno obviously neglected a moral obligation. He knew a man on his staff was guilty of such atrocities, and he took no further steps to seeing him punished, simply because of a desire to not see HIS program advanced. On the other hand, I do not question anything Paterno did as a coach, and I believe his legacy in terms of wins and losses, and the lessons he preached to his athletes are unmatched by any other college football coach. This was not a matter of trust in Sandusky, however, as Paterno knew what was going on. Its not as though Sandusky went up to him and said it was all a lie or tried to deny it, at least as far as I could tell. The findings of the Freeh report show that Paterno, as well as the president of the university, as I mentioned in the post, put the program ahead of anything else.
DeleteBrendan,
ReplyDeleteWhat you say in your post is true; however, I think Paterno's "dirty hands" could be interpreted in two ways. In your beliefs, Paterno had dirty hands because he covered up child molestation in order to protect the Penn State image. However, as we look at the PSU program today, was that really in the best interest of the school? A decade of wins were revoked, a five year bowl ban is implemented, and the football program is tarnished. Had Paterno & company reported this to the authorities immediately and gotten Sandusky arrested, there would have been some questions about PSU, but they would have gone away shortly and Paterno would have been praised. PSU would be in a much better situation reputation-wise today. I'd say Paterno's motivations were "dirty-hand-esque," but as we see his actions ended up not (because they simply did not help PSU in the end).
Dillon,
You say that Paterno "in no way is guilty of anything that went on in the locker rooms or at summer camps." I disagree with that. With the first couple incidents, probably not, but he knew that it was still going on! Once the number reached the tens and twenties, it's disgusting to think about letting it continue. What if instead of child abuse, Sandusky was a murderer? He'd bring people to Happy Valley and proceeded to slaughter them. Would you say Paterno could keep a clear conscious and be irreproachable then?
The role Joe Paterno was forced to play in this whole incident is the perfect example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's hard for me to say whether or not he had dirty hands, but I try and look at it from the perspective of Joe. He was presented information to an event that incriminated a member of HIS coaching staff, and there was nothing at the time to prove these events beside what he was told from one of the trainers. We like to think that if he would have gotten the information out he would have been looked upon as sort of a hero, but wasn't he the one that hired Sandusky and trusted him to be around children? Maybe he still would have lost his job and tarnished his reputation because of an event he didn't even witness. What would have been a better thing to do? I'm not justifying his actions just generally asking what would have been the best thing to do. Hindsight is 20/20 though and I'm sure everyone involved especially Joe wish they would have handled the situation better. From the begining I think the University was in over their head no matter what they did, since this form of child abuse is such a disgusting act and anyone who played a role in the situation should be questioned. It is extremely tragic that one mans actions have had such a negative impact on the image of a man who devoted his life to helping young people succeed, and even more tragic that it happened at the end of his life when he passed before he could justify his seemingly dirty hands.
ReplyDeleteBrenden, I enjoyed reading you post, and since you asked for my opinion, I will tell you. Joe Paterno's situation is not one where Dirty Hand's justifies his decisions. In the end, Joe Paterno died of a "broken heart," but his legacy was further damaged after his death. All of the program and his wins were vacated from 1998 and the program was hit with an extremely harsh penalty. The ramifications of Sandusky and Paterno's actions will be felt in Happy Valley for years.
ReplyDeleteFor Paterno and the rest of Penn State, the ends did not justify the means. Paterno moral wrong is not justified because it was committed for the common good. In fact, Paterno's moral wrong was committed for the good of one football team at the expense of the victims. I think many agree that in regards to moral wrongs, the harming of woman and children is off limits. Joe Paterno is not praiseworthy for doing what needed to be done so he could pass Bobby Bowden on the all-time wins list. The school now faces a significant, progressive scholarship reduction and a 5-year bowl ban. Many say that it will be decades before Penn State returns the level it once was at, if ever. Penn State is worse off because of the moral wrong that was committed, and that is why Dirty Hands cannot justify the decisions by Paterno and the Penn State Administration.