We Are … a Tragedy
As a young boy I was first introduced to college football by my Uncle Meredith. I used to spend a lot of time inErieat thePeach Streethouse of my uncle and Aunt Ruth. I would sit in front of a black and white TV and watch the exploits of Howard “Hopalong” Cassady of the Ohio State Buckeyes. My uncle was an OSU fan and Cassady, the 1955 Heisman Trophy winner, was the star of the 1952-55 Buckeye teams. It was a time of less explosive football, especially at OSU, but Cassady scored 37 touchdowns in the 36 games he played. He was hero material. My brother began matriculating atPennStatein 1956, so, I became aPennStatefan and followed the team until I too attended PSU. Who can forget the 1959 season, lead by Richie Lucas at QB, ending with a 7-0 victory over Bear Bryant coachedAlabamain the first Liberty Bowl? My loyalty was sealed on November 7, 1964, whenPennStateupsetOhioState, then #2 in the country, at Ohio Stadium, 27-0. No one watching can forget Gary Klingensmith and Don Kunit running the inside reverse (scissors) against the mighty Buckeyes. PSU outgained OSU by an incredible 349-63 handing Woody Hayes his worst defeat inColumbusin 13 years.
PennStatewas always associated with football in my mind and I was a loyal fan up until they finally won a National Championship in 1982. It now seemed there were more important things in life than PSU football. I received a wonderful education atPennStategraduating in 1969 with a degree in economics. I was well prepared for law school. Joe Paterno became the head coach atPennStatewhile I was there. He took the Nittany Lions from a regional to national power; from winning Lambert Trophy’s to competing for national championships. This he did while demanding classroom as well as on field performance by his student/athletes. His motto was “Success with Honor”. Football thePaterno Waybecame synonymous withPennStatethe institution. Football was the public image ofPennState. It was an image of which all alumni and fans took pride.
In the last gut wrenching sorrow filled week, the image of the football program and the institution has changed. It is now known for sex crimes against children. Crimes spawned within the football community. With these revelations is seen the danger of a sports team being so important to the image of the university. The Jerry Sandusky case is an enormous human tragedy affecting many, primarily the 8 alleged victims of sexual crimes committed bySandusky. Although the accused is innocent until proven guilty by the Commonwealth, the entire affair has left the university’s reputation in tatters and has tainted the lives of all individuals connected with the allegations.
This is an extremely complex matter involving criminal and potentially civil ramifications. As this is written, there are members of the bar lining up lawsuits against the university and anyone connected with theSanduskycase. It will take months into years to sort out all that really happened. And, guilty pleas and civil settlements with confidentiality provisions may keep anyone from knowing the whole truth of the matter. We know what the 40 charge presentment says but there are a myriad of unanswered questions. What did the grad assistant really see in 2002? What did the grad assistant tell the head coach happened? What did the head coach tell his superiors? What did the grad assistant tell the athletic director and the vice president? What did the athletic director and vice president tell the president? And, what did any of the above individuals do with the information? Did any of them follow up on their reports when nothing was done?
Unless there are criminal or civil trials in this matter, it will be difficult to establish the actual culpability of any of the individuals involved. BesidesSandusky, only the athletic director and vice president have been charged with crimes, that being perjury. No other person associated with the “scandal” has been charged with a crime by the Pennsylvania Attorney General. I repeat: This is a complex matter and rushing to judgment about responsibility is a foolish enterprise. It is understandable, or course. Pontificating about the actors in this drama is much easier than thinking through these matters and waiting for all the facts to be developed. That is not how we operate in the instant analysis, instant gratification society in which we live. In the 24 hour news cycle to which we are subjected, conclusions are reached quickly with the hope and belief that wrong opinions will be long forgotten.
Two issues have concerned me over this whole sordid affair. The first is that it is difficult to understand why the administration atPennStateacted as if they were surprised bySandusky’s charges. The key players all were required to testify before the Grand Jury empanelled by the Attorney General. Did they think no charges would be forthcoming? The Grand Jury met over an 18 month period. There was plenty of time for the hierarchy at PSU to prepare for the firestorm that would occur when charges were filed. But, the president, the two charged with perjury and the Board of Trustees were seemingly caught off guard by the Grand Jury findings. Was it arrogance, foolishness, indifference, or all of the above? When the two administrative officials were charged with perjury, the president issued a public statement of unequivocal support of the two men. What was he thinking?
The entire performance of thePennStateauthorities was inept and foolish. Where was the empathy for the alleged victims? These were horrific crimes against children. Yet, the immediate administrative stance was that the two charged with perjury are good men. Their response is indicative of the attitude exhibited by the famous: We Are Penn State. It is as if the president was saying: “you have to be kidding; these men are above reproach because they work for me atPennState”. This was a gaffe of major proportions and set the tone for what was to follow.
When the seriousness of the matter became apparent, the silence of the days that followed was baffling. What then ensued was more confusion. The athletic director charged with perjury took a leave of absence to pursue his defense. The vice president also charged with perjury retired. The Board of Trustees announced the formation of a committee to examine what really happened in the whole sorry mess. Next, the head coach announced he would retire at the end of the football season. However, later in the same day of the coach’s announcement, the president resigned or was fired and the head coach was fired via the telephone. All of this done behind a shield of silence with the Board finally having a press conference on the day after the firings.
What happened to the fact finding committee? Did they complete their work and find that the president and coach were culpable? No, the committee is going to press on with their work. Were the firings a response to the public outcry for something to be done? Were these two men out in order to stop the public relations nightmare because of the administration’s ineptitude in handling this matter? Were these two men sacrificial lambs offered up as a sacrifice (albeit an inadequate one) for the sins known and yet unknown of thePennsylvaniaStateUniversityand all its agents in the Jerry Sandusky scandal? We do not know if they thrown to the wolves to satisfy mob lust, but they were suddenly gone replaced by interims.
This brings me to the second, more troubling, issue. That is the sanctimonious attitude of the talking heads who commented on thePennState“scandal”. It was a cacophony of moral indignation toward all the names in the indictment ofSandusky. There was an overwhelming moral superiority of “woulda, shoulda, coulda” directed to those who have been made household names by the media. It was as if the press and its commentators represent the moral compass ofAmerica. Individuals of whom we know nothing of their moral standing in their respective communities were claiming the moral high ground in a matter they knew only from a 23 page document. This in a society where choice is god, tolerance is its sole virtue and where individual freedom means “anything goes.” It has been surreal.
The head coach and graduate assistant have particularly been subject to withering criticism for moral failings. Although these two targets of moral disgust were found to have acted within the law, the pundits demanded more … what would be moral perfection in their eyes. After all, this affair is about children, the most vulnerable of our citizens. When children are being sexually abused, there is demanded by these moral police escalated standards for the sake of the children. There is more than an odor of hypocrisy here. Not only to we not know the moral standing of the critics, they all should be asked where they stand on abortion. Where is the moral outcry when a woman has an abortion? Sure, having an abortion is legal, but should not there be a higher moral requirement to protect the MOST vulnerable of children, the unborn? The moral magpies exhibit a selective imposition of moral perfection, a moral perfection that neither they nor the head coach or graduate assistant possess.
It is convenient to moralize about another’s failure. It helps keep the spotlight off you. It is easy to say what you would do in a vacuum. Moral actions are always perfect in a world of your making. But, in the real world, with all its imperfections and warts, demanding moral perfection of others is above any human’s pay grade. Even those who deny Jesus Christ is deity [a position to which I do not hold] recognize him as a good teacher of morality. When he came upon the woman caught in adultery whom the officials were going to stone to death, he requested the individual without moral failings to cast the first stone. None did. They understood that they could not demand moral perfection for they did not possess such themselves. When they all left Jesus did not condemn her for her moral failing, he knew no one was capable of moral perfection. This is a good lesson for us all.
For the third time: This is a complex matter. Yes, it is an unmitigated tragedy. But, there is much we do not know; and may never know. In such a climate we must be slow in making personal judgments on who the villains are apart from the accused. And, we need to remember the law under which he is charged deems him innocent until it is otherwise proved by the prosecutor. No less a presumption should be applied to those who are not charged with a crime. It seems ludicrous for any of us to be the judge of the morality of the conduct of another. As a Christian, I certainly cannot. For what may seem like good moral teaching of Jesus is authoritative and binding on me. Unlike the many who exercise some sort of moral superiority, I have none. I am a sinner like all the characters in this repulsive drama. Truth be told, there is no one who possesses the moral perfection to pronounce moral judgment on another. This matter needs to play out in the criminal and civil courts. In the meantime, we all need to quit throwing stones.
