Penn State has a very long way to go in its rebuilding process and in trying to recover from what Jerry Sandusky brought upon them. Some Penn State followers like myself are willing to give new coach Bill O'Brien a chance to help that process along on the field. But others are still hung up on how and why Joe Paterno was fired in the first place, and even now still refuse to admit why it had to happen.
That was further proven over the last week, as a series of town hall meetings hosted by Penn State president Rodney Erickson was dominated by Paterno questions. Coincidentally, Paterno gave his first post-firing interview to the Washington Post at the same time, which further fueled the debate.
There is still a passionate faction of Paterno loyalists - if not as passionate as those who rioted after he was fired - that still argues he didn't have to be forced out. Yet in making that argument, it is holding the university back in the rebuilding process and making Happy Valley even more out of touch than it was already revealed to be.
The pro-Paterno crowd argues that given his status and his decades of accomplishments, it entitled him to deserve a better fate than what he got. Under normal circumstances, they would have been absolutely right, and would have had more than just cause to protest over how he was fired by the phone before investigations ran their course. But these were not normal circumstances.
The fact of the matter is that no matter what Paterno did over the decades, or how much he won for the Nittany Lions, absolutely nothing cancels out what he allegedly didn't do in this matter. None of that is an excuse for keeping around someone who failed to properly report an alleged child molester when he had the chance 10 years ago.
Paterno's interview did seemingly strengthen the case of his defenders, as the ex-coach argued that Mike McQueary wasn't clear enough in explaining the matter, that he had no idea how to handle something like "rape and a man" and that he tried to pass it on to people who he thought would know better. They can say that he trusted the wrong people and got the wrong kind of information, and that his age and unfamiliarity with such a crisis was a proper excuse.
However, they would be wrong on believing any of that is an excuse - not when it comes to alleged child molestation and the possibility that it was going on under Paterno's nose. Paterno built himself up to be a moral leader and built Penn State as the beacon of college football for decades. By those standards, nothing less than the maximum effort in bringing this matter to light would have to do. And because Paterno sealed himself in the closed off Penn State culture and helped create it, he is the one who made himself ill-equipped to report the matter to actual people who knew better - like authorities outside of Happy Valley.
Paterno defenders can say he did what was required by reporting up the Penn State chain of command and making it their problem. But the absolute barest minimum would have been to report even higher, not be too naïve to consider that the administration might have been more concerned with protecting Penn State, and get Sandusky away from campus forever unless it was 100 percent proven later on that the allegations were false. Not doing all of that right away might have been excusable, but choosing not to do it for the next nine years isn't.
Whether he was too old or old fashioned to consider any of that, or willfully ignorant of the matter, none of it is a real excuse that holds up - at least not real enough to justify this continued passionate defense of the man. All that these protestors are doing is making it even harder for Penn State to move on and try to go forward, as if it wasn't hard enough.
All they are doing is making themselves look as willfully ignorant as Paterno and the administration was in closing their eyes and ears to Sandusky all these years. And all they are doing is continuing to make significant portions of the Penn State family look backwards and outraged about the wrong things.
These people are calling for the heads of the administration and the board of trustees for firing Paterno - but if they demanded their heads way back in November 2011 because they protected Sandusky and those that didn't bring him to justice sooner, then Penn State would be much better off than it is now. In fact, considering how Penn State dithered around for several days until the board finally had to step in to remove Paterno, it is even more outlandish to believe they had it in for him.
Paterno was perhaps a scapegoat for everyone else that stayed quiet about Sandusky and got to keep their jobs. But as long as the university still has to fight these old fights over one of the few things it eventually did right during this crisis, the chances for real reform and the change that will save Penn State are becoming much more remote.
Robert Dougherty is a life-long Philadelphia resident and Penn State fan.
Other stories by this contributor
Paterno interview shows his time passed long ago
Penn State's last win with Paterno tainted further by Sandusky
How Alabama and Penn State were linked in 2011
Tide's BCS title game defense on par with 1987 Nittany Lions
1 comment