On Friday, a letter to the editor titled “No we won’t forget, Joe,” was published. The author held nothing back in showing her clear disdain for Joe Paterno.
She accused Paterno supporters of being ignorant of the facts of the grand jury report, even though she sounded more as if she was reading directly from the Freeh report. She was even audacious enough to spew the outrageous “Paterno Cult” argument, because his supporters are passionate about having his constitutional right to due process exercised, and don’t believe that the few vague emails in the Freeh report are sufficient to warrant the tarnishing of his entire legacy.
It is easy for some to continuously rehash the argument that Paterno should have called the police when he heard the 2001 complaint. However, the full legal correspondence from the case, from the grand jury testimony, up through the recent Schultz, Curley and Spanier preliminary hearings, has consistently indicated that Paterno did exactly what policy said he should have done at the time, with the small amount of information he was given, and without the benefit of seeing the final outcome as we know it today. It has become much more apparent that Paterno was no god, and that he took more timely action than multiple people above him.
After all, riddle me this: If Paterno was the most powerful man at Penn State, why did he not simply say “no” when the trustees fired him?
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to the Centre Daily Times