PSU Trustees Caved To Media Frenzy

The Penn State Trustees are cowards. How hard would it have been to call in Joe Paterno--a man who dedicated himself to PSU for over 60 years--and ask him to explain? The Trustees did not take this simple step because they were crushed by the media (and public) blitz of righteous, ignorant, indignation.  

In the days leading up to and after PSU Head Coach Joe Paterno's termination, virtually every journalist I read or listened to proclaimed his or her certainty of Paterno's gross dereliction of duty and--in most cases--called for his termination. Here's just a sample. There are many more:

• Andy Staples of SI, likely seeing his first ever opportunity to be a tough guy, wrote a scathing article titled: "With no explanation for inaction, Joe Paterno must go now." He wrote that at 12:46 pm on November 8, perhaps coincidentally right after Paterno's opportunity for explanation--at least to the press--had been revoked by PSU.

• Michael Rosenberg of SI castigated Paterno in an article titled "Joe Paterno, Penn State failed miserably in sad Sandusky case."

• Mark Schlabach of ESPN.com wrote "Paterno was fired because he failed miserably while making the biggest decision of his life."

• Scott Ostler of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote "Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserved."

• Jemele Hill of ESPN.com wrote "Paterno should never have been allowed to coach another game."

• Bill Plaschke of the LA Times concluded that "For the sake of a university whose continued association with him would damage its success and stain its honor, if Joe Paterno doesn't quit, they should fire him."

Stewart Mandel of SI was one of few who sympathized with Paterno, but even he wrote "No question, Paterno should be held accountable for his inaction in the Sandusky saga."

On what facts do these wannabes base their damning judgments? The only credible information accessible to the public is contained in the grand jury presentment. It reveals without question the following: that Sandusky is a serial child rapist; that in 2002 Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky performing inappropriate, perhaps sexual, acts on a child in the PSU locker room; that the next day McQueary informed Paterno at Paterno's home that Sandusky had performed inappropriate, perhaps sexual, acts on a child; that the next day, Paterno called PSU Athletic Director Tim Curley to his home and relayed some form of the information that McQueary had relayed to Paterno; and that, at a later date, PSU VP Gary Schultz (head of campus police) was called to a meeting with Paterno and Curley where Paterno relayed some form of the information that McQueary had relayed to Paterno. Those vague pieces of information are the only mentions of Paterno in the grand jury presentment--approximately 8 lines in a 23 page document.

A short lesson in the law: A grand jury presentment is a report (not a transcript of testimony) written by the government based on sworn testimony and other evidence procured by the government. In other words, it is the government's interpretation of the evidence that the government gathered to obtain the indictment. For example, during the grand jury proceedings, Paterno and McQueary were likely questioned by the government--not their own counsel. We've all seen Law & Order. Imagine Jack McCoy questioning Paterno and McQueary. A prosecutor frames his or her questions so as to obtain the information necessary for an indictment.  

In short, a grand jury presentment tells only one side of the story. 

On what facts did the PSU Board of Trustees rely to become so thoroughly informed of Paterno's role in the scandal such that he must be fired? They read the grand jury presentment. That's it. Eight lines of a biased, government document. Vice Chair of the Board, John Surma, said this, among other things, at his press conference: "We do not know anything more about the actual details than the grand jury report." Amazingly, he also said: "We do not yet know all of the facts and there are many details that have yet to be worked out." He should have just said: "The Board looks forward to learning why we fired Joe Paterno, or whether we really screwed up.”

What didn't the Board do? They didn't read a grand jury transcript (probably hundreds of pages of sworn testimony from, among others, Paterno); they didn't meet with Paterno; they didn't meet with McQueary; and, I can assume they didn't meet with Curley or Shultz (based on Surma's statement that they relied only on the grand jury report).

While being chased down by a shocked and frenzied public led by a contemptuous media, the PSU Trustees leapt right over due process, or any process. For that, they are cowards.

What should the Board have done? I agree the sight of Paterno on the sideline Saturday against Nebraska would have been terribly awkward, even offensive. So, the Trustees should have suspended Paterno pending an investigation that would consist of, at the very least, separate meetings with Paterno and McQueary. The investigation, if intense, could be fruitful and completed in a week. If a proper investigation revealed that Paterno was informed that a sex act had been performed on a child and he covered it up or ignored it, then Paterno would be fairly terminated at that time.

But, what if Paterno wasn't the sinister monster or negligent bystander he is condemned to be? What if Paterno followed up with Curley or Schultz and they told him, "Don't worry about it, we took care of it." What if Paterno had no authority over Sandusky in 2002, because Sandusky was retired, and not a coach on Paterno's staff? What if Curley and Schultz had sole jurisdiction over Sandusky at that time? After all, Sandusky was listed as a professor emeritus--not a coach emeritus. What if Paterno never saw Sandusky roaming the halls of PSU so as to have an opportunity to confront him? What if Paterno hated Sandusky and took comfort in knowing Curley had investigated the issue? What if McQueary in fact told Paterno that Sandusky was merely "horsing around?" Also consider that for the last 10 years many have assumed Paterno was merely a figure head. Now, he's responsible for everything? There are so many unanswered questions, more than these, and the Board admitted it. Cowards.

The termination of Joe Paterno is a product of our society's lazy lust for swift judgment--and I'm not referring to legal judgment. We all know that takes too long. Rather, I'm referring to the rush for answers that naturally results from the opportunism, arrogance, and righteousness that run rampant in our culture, especially the media. And because this is a child molestation case, the righteousness becomes an unstoppable force. No one wants to be the guy who says "Wait, let's get the facts" when a child has been abused. People will remind you to "think about the kids" or worse, accuse you of defending the child molester. The media, many people I know, and the PSU Board didn't want to wait. Way too risky. They all wanted to be the hero and tell everyone how bad they feel. There's not enough time for the facts when we have some serious hand ringing to do.

Perhaps in time we will learn that Joe Paterno deserved his fate. If so, no harm no foul (although the process of his firing will always be a farce). On the other hand, what if we learn that Paterno was far less culpable than the media says he is--or not culpable at all? Then, we have just witnessed a travesty of justice that could have been easily avoided. Someone in the Board meeting simply needed to stand up and say: "Wait, let's get the facts." But, they were all cowards.