Freeh Report: Misguided Outlets for Retribution

Vindication can toe perilously close to becoming vendetta. Wanting someone,

anyone

punished is the latter, and it’s often the knee-jerk reaction to an atrocity coming to light. Jerry Sandusky’s crimes against children are atrocities. He was found guilty on 45 of 48 counts last month, and will almost assuredly spend the rest of his life behind bars. Covering up Sandusky’s crimes, as Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Joe Paterno are alleged to have in Louis Freeh’s independent report is an atrocity.

Spanier was fired. Schultz and Curley stand trial for perjury and will face due process extended to all accused Americans. Well, most accused Americans. Paterno was fired in November and passed away in January. His absence and inability to answer any allegations against him will forever leave some doubt. Otherwise, Sandusky faces punishment to the extent of the law. If their culpability is proven true, the abovementioned PSU officials will face further consequence.

Nevertheless, the anger felt toward Sandusky and his alleged abettors will shadow rationale in many instances. The outcry for more penance, more eyes-for-an-eye, more retribution has already started.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution‘s Jeff Schultz called for the feared “Death Penalty,” a red button in the NCAA headquarters not pressed since SMU was found to have deep rooted institutional faults in the 1980s.

Jason McIntyre of The Big Lead went one step further. With evidence supported by John Infante, propriety of the NCAA Bylaw Blog, McIntyre wrote the Dept. of Education could close PSU. Not Nittany Lion, the entire university. And McIntyre isn’t merely reporting a possibility, but advocating it:

Punishment for punishment’s sake, doling consequence to thousands of students and employees for the actions of a very small few is irrational and illogical. Everyone affiliated with PSU in any fashion has come under fire from someone at some point. Everyone. A crime of unspeakable magnitude begets knee-jerk reactions of equal magnitude.

The PSU students and alumni that are criticized and advocated for punishment in some circles have raised millions to support children’s charities. We are not talking about bad people deserving punishment, but rather individuals confused and frustrated because someone they believed in is under fire in an atrocity.

When examined primarily through the scope of football, there are questions that need to be asked. Was Sandusky abetted to protect football? I believe so, and that’s troublesome. Were some, if not a majority of those PSU students raising funds enrolled at the university because of football? It’s likely.

Lindy’s published a report on football’s impact on university enrollments, using universities with newly christened programs as examples. Football is a part of the college experience, but when it becomes too important is a where problems persist.

Freeh left no ambiguity when asked if this was “a football problem.” He said, plainly, yes.

This contradicts Paterno’s assessment in a statement written in November and released earlier this week, the only connection to the late head coach we have posthumously. That makes moving forward difficult.

Should the statue come down? Probably. Paterno was a forerunner in civil rights in sports, and touted winning with integrity. Still, the statue remains as a reminder of a horrific chapter.

Because it appears to be a “football problem” would seemingly force the NCAA to take action — not because it’s accurate, considering these are matters for the judicial system, but rather to placate those who want vindication.

Is shutting down Penn State football via the Death Penalty going to change what happened? Bill O’Brien and his players had no connection to the atrocities that occurred there. Would it prevent future atrocities going unchecked in the name of football integrity? Jason Whitlock wrote an excellent column detailing how it’s not that simple, and SMU’s punishment is evidence.