A friend writes....
Ok, are you bothered by the NCAA action against
PSU? I hate PSU and I hate Paterno even more, but this seems to be way
over the top. Any punishment before the accused is allowed to put on a
defense is wrong, but this punishment is “cruel
and unusual.” I do think Paterno and others made some serious
mistakes, mistakes for which they should be held to account, and they
are being held to account. BUT to destroy the football program and the
school’s reputation is wrong. What Paterno did and is
alleged to have done did not involve cheating at his sport. Where
Spanier, the VP, the AD, Paterno and the BOT went way wrong was in
trying to protect the PSU brand and reputation at all costs. This was
their first instinct. Everything else became consciously
secondary. All athletic programs with big reputations and “legendary”
coaches are subject to this same mistake. As a member of the ******** here, I saw this up close 6 years ago. The first official
meetings were focused on protecting the institution
and its brand, rather than attempting to find out what if anything
happened for which [university] needed to answer. (MORE BELOW THE FOLD)
Also, look at UNC. [The fake classes scandal] could not have [gone on so long] with all that they are alleged to have done without higher ups knowing. The coaches have plausible deniability, but someone in the athletics dept knows every course the athletes take, how many pages of reading they have, and how many papers and exams they have to complete. They knew which courses were real and which ones were not. But I digress.
Also, look at UNC. [The fake classes scandal] could not have [gone on so long] with all that they are alleged to have done without higher ups knowing. The coaches have plausible deniability, but someone in the athletics dept knows every course the athletes take, how many pages of reading they have, and how many papers and exams they have to complete. They knew which courses were real and which ones were not. But I digress.
Here is my “defense” of Paterno. In 1998 there was
an allegation of sexual misconduct involving a child. The police (maybe 2
depts) investigate and bring NO charges. It appears this costs Sandusky
his job, because he abruptly retires. At
the time he was heir apparent to a storied program. His departure had
to be forced by Paterno. As I understand it, PSU also alerted the 2nd
Mile group and restricted Sandusky’s access to campus facilities,
although he kept his keys. Again the police
investigate and brought no charges. In 2001, when Paterno is informed
of alleged abuse, he apparently goes to his direct supervisor and the VP
in charge of campus police and reports what he was told. I think he
fulfilled both his legal and ethical obligation.
The AD was the person empowered to take Sandusky’s keys and or restrict
his use of campus facilities. The police held the power to investigate.
I’m willing to bet that 90%+ of the folk who are so quick to condemn
Paterno for not having done more, would not
have done as much. Or would have assume that they had done what they
should have had they done what JoPa did. I honestly don’t think it would
have occurred to me to call the police under those circumstances. With
hindsight and all that has since been revealed,
it looks like JoPa could have and should have done more. I’m not sure.
The higher-ups made the biggest mistakes in my view, probably because
they did not want to upset god, aka JoPa. Can’t you see something like
this happening here? No reasonable person should
conclude that Spanier et al didn’t care about the kids, or that they
put kids in harm’s way. In my view, this mischaracterizes what likely
happened. They were so focused on protecting the brand, and the $60
million in revenues a year, that they did not do
due diligence. Yes, this is bad, very bad behavior, but it is not
exactly what Freeh and the NCAA says that it is. Spanier, Paterno and
others should have been fired, but ripping up statues and vacating 13
years of wins seem out of proportion and somewhat
unrelated to the offense.
Shakespeare was brilliant and understood human behavior like no other:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interréd with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar [PSU, Paterno, Spanier…] was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interréd with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar [PSU, Paterno, Spanier…] was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
2 comments:
The NCAA didn't destroy PSU's reputation. That was gone as soon as the facts came to light. Perhaps now officials at these institutions (like the ones you saw up close 6 years ago) will understand what it really means to protect the institution and its brand.
In 2001, when Paterno is informed of alleged abuse, he apparently goes to his direct supervisor and the VP in charge of campus police and reports what he was told. I think he fulfilled both his legal and ethical obligation. The AD was the person empowered to take Sandusky’s keys and or restrict his use of campus facilities. The police held the power to investigate.
Whoever wrote that obviously hasn't been paying attention in recent weeks. According to emails from 2001 unearthed by Freeh's people in putting together his report, Tim Curley, the AD, actually planned to report the incident in the showers to the police, then emails the president, Graham Spanier to say "after talking it over with Joe, I'm not comfortable with that course of action." What would have to be true, then, for your pal's narrative to make sense, would be for Paterno to have inadvertantly talked Tim Curley out of doing the right thing without realizing it, and then been too intimidated by Curley (ha!) when informed of his intention not to report the incident to police. That's simply not a plausible interpretation of events, based on what was presented in the Freeh Report.
Post a Comment