Joe Paterno and the Penn State sex scandal -- An Insider's View

For the sake of honesty, let me explain the title of this blog entry.  I am not a Penn State insider, but I am an insider into the workings of a public state university.  As an Adjunct Professor and faculty member of the State University of New York at Albany, I know the bureaucracy and consequences of reporting infractions and crimes on the campus of a university.

How is that important here?  So many reporters are screaming that Joe Paterno had no heart and that he was reckless and careless in not reporting the sexual behavior of Jerry Sandusky to the local or state police.  That outcry was what led the NCAA to posthumously strip JoePa of enough victories to remove him as the winningest coach in NCAA football history.

Here's a shocker for all of you -- HE DID THE RIGHT THING!

Did he do the right thing MORALLY?  No.  Did he do the right thing according to the university rules that he had followed so diligently for over 30 years?  ABSOLUTELY!  Remember, Penn State had NEVER suffered from major NCAA infractions or penalties during Paterno's reign as head coach, mainly because he followed the rules (and insisted his players do so) with almost military diligence.  To step outside the boundaries of university accountability and structure would have been unthinkable for him.

For those people still reading this, whose minds are rational enough to prevent their own bias to boil over and turn away from this post in disgust, let me explain a few things about the communication and enforcement structure at major universities.  Who knows?  You might learn something.

1.  ALL violations of university policy are reported, investigated, and resolved in-house.  Most universities have a disciplinary committee or office to handle such complaints.  A student or faculty member reports an incident to the committee, or a designated representative, and the committee investigates the claim.

Guess what?  Joe Paterno did that.  Former SI investigative reporter Joe Posnanski, while researching an upcoming biography about Paterno, unearthed copies of two memos sent from Joe Paterno to then athletic director Tim Curley.  THAT is the appropriate line of communication.  What happens when that "sacred" line is violated?  Well, look at what happened to Mike McQueary, the graduate assistant (later assistant coach) who witnessed an incident in the Penn State locker room showers between Sandusky and an underage boy in 2002.  At the time, he reported it to Joe Paterno, who reported it to Curley.  Curley must have reported it to then-president Graham Spanier (despite Spanier's recent claims that he was never informed of any wrong-doings by Sandusky), because McQueary spoke to Spanier and Curley in Spanier's office regarding the incident.  Spanier said that the incident would be investigated. Supposedly, at that time, McQueary left it alone after that, letting the university's Review Board conduct the investigation, according to university guidelines.

Last year, during a grand jury testimony, McQueary, now an assistant coach with the Nittany Lions, reported that he got frustrated with the seeming disregard he experienced from Spanier.  After consulting with his father, a former high school coach, he called the police.  Three days after that testimony, McQueary was fired for violation of school policy.  The violation?  Reporting the incident to local authorities.  He violated the designated line of communication, and designated procedure, and paid the price.

Now, would a figure as revered as Joe Paterno been fired for doing the same thing?  We don't know, but we do know that Joe Paterno knew that was one POSSIBLE result of violating university procedure.  He loved coaching, and loved coaching at Penn State, too much to risk such an outcome.  Perhaps he also trusted in the university's process more than McQueary and his dad did.  Whatever Paterno's reasoning, we know he did nothing wrong, according to codes of conduct and university policies he sworn to uphold when he signed his contract of employment as Head Coach of Football Operations.

2.  Any suspected crime that occurs on university property is reported to the University police.  ONLY if the police cannot perform an investigation, due to civil rights or felony levels, or are unable to perform an investigation, are local or state authorities notified.  If local or state authorities are to be notified, that decision comes ONLY from the university's Chief of Police, and the University Police department will be the ones to contact the appropriate authorities.

This means it is a violation of university policy for ANY student or faculty or staff member to contact state or local police directly regarding an incident that occurred on university property.  The consequences of violating such an act?  Students can be placed on probation or suspended, faculty can be placed on administrative leave (either paid or unpaid) or fired, and staff members are typically outright fired.

Does it sound severe?  Yes.  Does it happen?  More often than you'd think.  While I am unaware of any incidents at the University at Albany, where I teach, I do know it has happened elsewhere around the country.  As a member of the Union of University Professionals, a nationwide teachers union for University instructors, I have heard of such cases.  Often the UUP attempts to fight these cases on behalf of the faculty member, claiming "unfair termination."  Some of the terminations have been reversed, some not, but the key here is that terminations DO OCCUR.

What I find interesting is that I have never heard, nor can I find on the Internet, any indication that Freeh report officials or law enforcement officials or NCAA investigators have spoken to the Penn State University Police to see what, if anything, they did or didn't do about reported situations regarding Sandusky and young boys.  Based on grand jury transcripts from both 2009 and 2011, we do know that university police were contacted and conducted some form of investigation, but I have heard or read NOTHING about the resolution of those investigations, nor whether they were conducted properly or completely.

So who was lax in their responsibility?  That, after all, was the crux behind the punishments aimed at AN INDIVIDUAL, Joe Paterno, instead of an institution.  Penn State lost scholarships and postseason rights, and was charged a multi-million dollar fine.  Those were all punishments aimed against the university.  However, the stripping of wins were directed at Joe Paterno himself, an intention that NCAA President Mark Emmert freely admitted when theses sanctions were announced.  Clearly, the NCAA wanted to punish JoePa.  Since he was dead, they couldn't do things like "black list" him from every coaching at an NCAA school, like Jim Tressel suffered.  Instead, they decided that he should not be recognized as the most successful NCAA football coach in history.

My question is -- why?  Joe Paterno was guilty of nothing except following the rules and policies of the university, something the NCAA CLAIMS that they favor and encourage in their coaches.  After this penalty, though, you wonder if we'll start to see more "hot dog" coaches like Lane Kiffin, who openly disregard university and conference guidelines.  The NCAA has opened the door to chaos, and firmly demonstrated that they are more interested in being an authoritative despot than a crusader for fairness.

And what message are they sending in regards to the NEW winningest football coach in NCAA history?  By stripping JoePa of those wins, that title now belongs to Bobby Bowden, the former Florida State Seminoles coach who was refiled for continuing to play players ARRESTED and CHARGED with serious crimes.  He was also notorious for not only covering up a major academic cheating scandal involving nearly half of his football players, but then encouraging an assistant coach to determine if such widespread cheating could be quietly instituted in other courses, to help prevent key players from being benched for academic probation.  Is THIS the epitome of football coaches that the NCAA wants to spotlight?  There seems to be a MASSIVE disjoint between the rhetoric spouted by Emmert and the NCAA and the actions taken by them.