<p>Is Paterno a scapegoat? Yes and no.</p>
<p>We have 1 convicted criminals and 4 people accused of abetting him and covering up his crimes. Of those, it seems like Paterno is the only one that people want to talk about, even though 2 of the 4 are going to trial and another (Spanier) is currently free and clear despite having ultimate responsibility (as university President), significant knowledge (from the documentation), and definite education in this matter (as a professor in Human Development and Family Studies). This is not restricted to the public - the Freeh report offers to rather vague second-hand emails, given without context or testimony as to the meaning, and interprets them to say that Paterno had full knowledge. In any actual court, this level of evidence would perhaps meet the minimum standard of evidence needed to advance to trial, but would fall far, far short of that required for a conviction. Despite this dearth of actual evidence, Freeh makes a definitive statement of guilt - the US Supreme Court will have 9 different opinions on a well-documented, well-evidenced case, but Freeh has one opinion and we must all adhere to it, despite the fact that it is based on … 2 emails? Between other people? That reference him in approximately one sentence each, without detail? Yeah, there is a certain amount of scapegoating going on.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it is clear that Paterno at best was guilty of the same failures that surround pedophiles everywhere - any child abuse case is filled with coworkers, friends, and family who SHOULD have seen what was happening and done more, but failed to do so because they didn’t want to or couldn’t believe that this person could do such a thing. No one (credible) is saying that Paterno is guilt-free, in the best case he still failed to catch things that as a coach and administrator he should have caught.</p>
<p>This is the problem - the spectrum on which Paterno falls includes ordinary human failing and gross criminal behavior, and the dearth of evidence means that (Freeh’s opinions aside) there is not and probably never will be adequate evidence to really know where he actually was. You think that he knew everything and was a willing collaborator? You might be right! You think that he was ignorant of the whole thing, having handed it over to people he thought would address it correctly? You might be right there, too!</p>
<p>Now, I am not currently a student - I graduated 6 years ago. I am somewhat of a football fan, in that I watch a few games each year on TV - I have been in Beaver Stadium twice, once to work concessions for a charity and once for the Blue-White game, never to actually watch a game. I do not now and never have owned anything bearing Paterno’s name (other than the occasional scoop of Peachy Paterno ice cream, which was delicious and for which I will never apologize), and the only Penn State apparel I have ever owned was either given to me or additionally bore the name of a group in which I was an active member. I have never been a Paterno fan, thinking him a decent coach but one I would have preferred to see replaced a long, long time ago so that Penn State would have had a more modern team strategy.</p>
<p>But to me, the evidence is not enough to convict a dead man of abetting a child molestor.</p>
<p>So hang Sandusky from on high, but until someone gets some real testimony or evidence on what Joe knew (something that might still happen with the Curley/Schultz trials) I will reserve judgement on Paterno.</p>
<p>
Always a good question. Given the scope of authority given to Spanier and Schultz in particular, it might be a lot! And the BoT certainly had willful ignorance, so no one was watching!</p>