One Not for the Record Books

If a tree falls in a forest, with no one around to hear it, it may or may not make a sound.  But there will certainly be one less tree standing in that forest.

Yesterday, the Penn State Nittany Lions football team played their first game since the death of their legendary coach Joe Paterno and the conviction of longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexual abuse of numerous children.  They lost.  Paterno's replacement, Bill O'Brien, thus begins his coaching career with a record of 0-1.  He has a long way to go to catch up with his predecessor: Joe Paterno's final won-loss record stands at 409-136, making him the all-time winningest (let's just say that's a real word) coach in college football history.

Except he isn't.

In the wake of the Sandusky scandal, the NCAA imposed numerous appropriate sanctions on Penn State: The college paid significant financial penalties, and the team was barred from post-season play for several years.  As a further punishment--one particularly targeted at Paterno--the university's wins since 1998 were "vacated"; thus, Paterno's official career victory total stands at 298.

Penn State deserves punishment for its role in facilitating Sandusky's heinous behavior.  As far as I'm concerned, the football program could be eliminated entirely.  Joe Paterno, who took insufficient steps to protect children from the predations of his longtime friend and assistant coach, deserves a fair amount of condemnation.  The university has rightly removed a statue of the coach from its place of honor, and I think any time Paterno's name is mentioned, it should be followed by, "co-conspirator in numerous acts of child molestation."

I have a problem, though, with the idea of "vacating" Penn State's victories.  Just because facts come to light that reveal Paterno (co-conspirator in numerous acts of child molestation) to be less of a moral paragon than previously believed does not erase the fact--the fact--that the teams he coached racked up 409 victories.  (I think the fact that the NCAA did not vacate the losses suffered during that time indicates the logical bankruptcy of the whole proceeding.)  I have a similar problem with the decision to strip Lance Armstrong of his Tour de France titles in the wake of his refusal to continue cooperating with anti-doping investigations--but that at least makes a certain amount of sense: One could argue that Armstrong would not have won those races had he not been using illegal performance enhancing drugs.  Of course, since it seems like everybody else was using the same or similar drugs, any advantage Armstrong gained was probably negligible.

There is something more than a little Stalinist in the actions of sports officials rewriting history, airbrushing away accomplishments of those who are later found to have bent the rules in one way or another.  Like it or not, Lance Armstrong won seven Tours de France.  Pete Rose has more base hits than anyone else in baseball, and he belongs in the Hall of Fame--as does Barry Bonds.  As people of my political persuasion have long complained when faced with the distortions or Fox News and its ilk, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.  Sports history--like all history--depends on scrupulous maintenance of factual records.  And the factual record shows that the record for most wins by a college football coach belongs to Mr. Joe Paterno. Co-conspirator in numerous acts of child molestation.

Worse than the Cover-up

It has become a truth universally acknowledged that the cover-up is always worse than the crime.  This theory reached its apotheosis during the Lewinsky scandal.  While President Clinton's behavior with his overeager White House intern was, at best, inappropriate, it hardly reached the level of a crime, Lewinsky being a willing participant of legal age.  Had the President merely 'fessed up, he would have suffered some embarrassment, but the country would have been spared the drawn out spectacle of the impeachment and its concomitant paralysis of our entire system of governance.  To be sure, overzealous partisanship on the part of the Repuiblican-controlled Congress played no small part in the circus, but let's be generous and say that both parties behaved sub-optimally, and, again, President Clinton could have nipped the whole thing in the bud.

The cover-up was truly worse than the crime.

I thought of this today as I read a letter to the editor in today's paper, commenting on the latest revelations in the Penn State child abuse scandal.  Last week, a report condemned Penn State officials, including the late legendary coach Joe Paterno, for their inaction in response to Jerry Sandusky's actions.  Today's letter-writer asks, "Why do our political leaders, our business leaders and the heads of so many other important organizations and institutions never learn that the cover-up of a scandalous, illegal or immoral activity is almost always worse for those involved than the actual events being covered up?"

I submit that, in tbis particular case, we can safely conclude that the cover-up was not worse than the crime.

From Penn State to State Pen?

Today being Saturday, the day semi-traditionally reserved for sport commentary, I feel obligated to discuss the downfall of Joe Paterno, the longtime football coach at Penn State.

Unless you've been living under a rock--and no judgment here: Some of my most faithful followers are morlocks--you know Paterno was fired this week, a result of his actions--or inaction--in an unfolding sexual abuse scandal involving his former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky.  Several years ago, a graduate assistant informed Paterno that he (the assistant) had witnessed Sandusky molesting a young boy.  Paterno apparently reported the incident to his superiors and then took no further action.  Whether Paterno is criminally liable in the case will presumably be determined in the coming weeks.and months.  At any rate, he seems morally culpable for not reporting the incident to the police or otherwise following up on his report to the school administration.

What's disheartening in this whole affair--aside from Sandusky's obviously repugnant actions--has been the reaction of the Penn State student body to Paterno's dismissal.  A large contingent went to the coach's home on the night of his dismissal to offer the coach their support in his time of need--which might be OK--and to protest the university's action--which is not.

Let me amend that: Protesting is OK.  People can protest anything they want.  But protesting Paterno's dismissal seems pointless at best and offensive at worst.  What are these people protesting?  The firing of a man who preaches discipline and education and moral standards but who saw fit not to report a credible case of child molestation--rape, in fact--to the police.  Do these people feel Paterno was unjustly fired?  Would they have the courage to say this to the parents of the children raped by Sandusky?  To the children themselves?

Paterno's unique standing in both the local Pennsylvania community and the wider world of college football further condemn him.  Many players in this drama may have feared for their careers or reputations if they had made accusations against Sandusky, a respected member of the Penn State "family"; Paterno can claim no such fears.  The man is a legend.  He would have faced no personal consequences for making his concerns known and for following up on the investigation.  So why didn't he?  Could he just not be bothered?

Given the information that has come out so far, I suspect that Paterno will not face criminal charges.  He probably fulfilled his legal obligations by reporting the matter.  But he has lost whatever moral standing he may have held.  More importantly, though, the students at Penn State and around the world who lament the "injustice" done to JoePa should save their sympathy for the victims of these crimes and accept--if not applaud--the action that the university took.