Why Firing Paterno was the Right Move

I've been thinking about this a lot over the last couple of days.  I'm not sure why, as I'm not a Penn State fan and don't really care about Paterno, but it's in the news, so I guess it's been in the back of my mind.  I think firing JoePa was the right thing to do, and here's how I came to that reasoning.

I read the grand jury indictment of Sandusky yesterday during lunch.  It was...not an easy or pleasant read.  In it, Paterno seems to have done the right thing: he was told of the alleged incident and called his superiors the next day, presumably following university policy on these matters.  He didn't sit on the info for a few weeks, he didn't hide it or cover it up.  So why does he deserve to be fired?

I tried to put myself in his position, to see how I would have reacted.  I thought of someone I've known and worked with for a long time, someone I respected deeply, and thought about how I would react if I found out about him what Paterno supposedly found out about Sandusky.  For those who know the people I work with, the person I chose for this fiction is Jim; I can't think of anyone who I respect more that I would be shocked to hear allegations like this about.  The circumstances would all be different, of course, because Jim & I don't have the same organizational relationship that Paterno and Sandusky did, nor do either of us have the same stature within the overall company that Paterno and Sandusky had inside of Penn State -- not even remotely close to it!  But it was the best I could come up with.

So, how would I react if someone came up to me, someone I trust, and said: I just saw Jim having intercourse with a girl of about 10 or 11 in the conference room.  That's what this is about, folks, Sandusky raping a child.  He wasn't "fondling" the child or "acting inappropriately" or anything like that -- he was raping the child.  I'd like to think that if I personally saw Jim doing this, I'd've beat the snot out of him with whatever objects came to hand, like office chairs, whiteboards or conference tables.  Granted, Jim could probably beat the snot out of me with his bare hands, but I'd like to think I'd have adrenaline and righteousness on my side.  But Paterno didn't actually see this happening, so that's not a fair comparison.

So I went back and tried again.  Paterno says, according to the grand jury report, that he was told that this grad student saw Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".  OK, so go with that knowledge, I thought to myself.  I would certainly report the incident according to company policy (assuming our company had a child abuse policy, which I doubt it does; but I was trying to put myself in Paterno's shoes, so I pretended it did and that I followed it).  Would I stop there?  Should I stop there?  I mean, I could jeopardize an investigation or whatever if I tried to talk to Jim about it.

Would I even believe the allegations?  I mean, I know Jim.  I've known him for close to 22 years.  I know his wife, I know his kids, I've been to his house.  We've shared with each other stories about the loss of loved ones -- we're not friends outside of work, but I feel I know him pretty well, and that he knows me.  No, I wouldn't believe the allegations, I couldn't!  Jim wouldn't have done those things, I know it.  I just can't believe that of him.

But this is a child we're talking about, a person who cannot protect herself.  Surely I'd have to do something to ensure that, if the impossible could be true and pigs were really flying, that Jim didn't have access to do something like this again.  But what could I do, really?  And this is where it fell apart for me, and I sort of understood that maybe Paterno should be cut a break in all of this.  Would I try to make sure, somehow, that the higher-ups followed up with this as they should?  Could I even find out whether or not they did?  Would they be legally able to tell me?

OK, maybe I'd talk to Jim directly.  After all, we're colleagues, we trust and respect each other.  But maybe I shouldn't -- again, maybe I'd be interfering with an investigation.  No, I decided after some deliberation; no, I'd have to confront Jim.  I owed him that much.

So, what would I tell him?  What would I ask him?  What had this other co-worker told me, that I could then bring to Jim and try to make some sense out of it?  And this is where it all fell apart, again, and I became convinced that Paterno should be fired.

The grad student that walked in on Sandusky saw him fucking a child.  Not fondling, not touching inappropriately, not exposing himself -- he saw him fucking that child.  The grad student was distraught and told his father, and the next day he went to Paterno's home and told him what he saw.  According to Paterno's testimony in the grand jury report, Paterno saw that the grad student was "very upset" and reported to his superiors that the grad student had seen Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy" in the showers.

If someone had told me that about Jim, I would have asked for details.  "What do you mean he was doing something inappropriate, what was he doing?  Are you sure?  Are you sure it was Jim?  Tell me exactly what you saw."  I can't believe Paterno didn't react in a similar vein.  This is a man with legendary integrity, who passionately helped his students on and off the field.  I can't believe that he didn't ask for details, for proof.

But let's suppose he didn't.  I believe he should have, and I think it's a moral failing on his part not to have done so.  This was not a college-aged student, not a football player capable of bench-pressing a small automobile, not an adult capable to some degree at least of protecting himself. This was a child, in danger.  If Paterno didn't understand the implications that a senior coaching staff molesting a child would have on his team's ability to recruit new talent and raise money for the university then he's stupid, and I don't think anyone believes JoePa is stupid.  He must have deliberately -- consciously -- not tried to find out anything but the vaguest of facts, willingly and knowingly putting his head in the sand, did the bare minimum of what he was supposed to do and prayed that it would not come to light.  He did nothing to help that child.

If he had, in fact, asked for details and heard what Sanudsky was seen doing to that child, then I would hold Paterno as responsible as Sandusky for every subsequent molestation that that sick bastard did, because he had the chance to stop him and he chose not to.

That's why I think it was right to fire Paterno.  He either knew what happened and covered it up or deliberately refrained from finding out what happened so it could be covered up.  Of course, I don't know that either of those things are true, but that's the conclusion I drew when I tried to put myself in his shoes.  It's a shame that such an incredible legacy is tarnished by this, but that's nothing compared to what happened to those kids.  In fact, it's next to meaningless in that light.