Letters to the Editor
-
Not necessarily appalling
Paterno was asked to comment on an alleged assault -- guilt had not been established. Instead of simply comdemning the young man, he stands up for the possibility of his innocence. It's not as if unfounded allegations of rape are unheard of. When I first read Paterno's rather disjointed comments, my interpretation was simply that he believes there should be no rush to judgement -- that we have no immediate way of knowing what transpired, and that an athlete could certainly be duped by a 'cute girl.' Doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility to me.
Was it the most deft answer to a sensitive quesion we've ever heard? Of course not. Should he have expressed concern for the alleged victim of the crime? Surely. But why jump to the worst possible conclusions about JoePa? What exactly did we expect from an 80-year-old football coach? A sensitivity training seminar?
If it turns out that this athlete did sexually assault someone, then he deserves serious punishment and the victim deserves our endless sympathy. You won't get any argument on that count from me, and I seriously doubt you would from Joe Paterno, either.
-
He may have been speaking from experience
I think Bryan is right.
His own player, Anwar Phillips had previously excepted expulsion on pending charges of which he was late acquitted. Maybe Joe was thinking "we've seen this act before, this kid is going to get crucified on charges that may later turn out to be nothing." Of course there's a chance that those previous charges were acquitted because of a lack of evidence and that a real assault occurred in Phillips' case, just like it's possible a real rape occurred in Nicholson's case as well.
He definitely could have couched his statement better, a little "If the charges prove to be true, then the kid is getting what he deserves," would have gone a long way, but keeping open the presumption of innocence isn't scandalous as far as I'm concerned.
-
I disagree with King entirely
King, I love your column, and I heartily disagree with you about JoePa's resignation.
As a University of Colorado student, and resident of Colorado for the past 8 years, I know that it takes more than a public apology to change the culture of a sports program. CU and coach Gary Barnett were accused of promoting the CU football program with sex and parties, which is different from Paterno's making insensitive comments; however, the underlying solution is the same: you must change the culture that makes it okay to exploit women and promote dominant masculinity within the program. When coach Barnett made insensitve comments about the alleged rape of a woman (Kristen Hnida) a few years ago, his public apology, and the apology of the university, did nothing to change the football program as a whole--this was made evident in the later recruting scandals at CU.
In order to change the attitude of an entire program, indeed an entire school (much of the college environment promotes unhealthy sexuality, although football programs seem to attract the most attention), you need symbolic and actual change: public resignation, reforming leaders, better oversight, etc. JoePa should retire and start the reformation at Penn State.
-
Response to allegations too quick but otherwise appropriate
The leadership of NOW is better than the leadership of the NRA, who often threatens violence against alected officials. But both of them have the tendency to, if you'll pardon the expression, jump the gun. The college player in question was charged with a serious crime, not convicted. If (and this is a big if) Nicholson is convicted and Paterno continues to defend him, then yes Paterno should resign. But merely defending one of his players, however poorly phrased, is admirable. Would Tosti-Vasey feel better if he had said, "AJ's a good kid. I don't think he did it."? I'm glad the issue is raised, since I'm sure this is the tip of an iceberg, but whether a crime has been committed has yet to be determined. (And if it turns out that Nicholson is not guilty, will Tosti-Vasey come down as hard on the woman for filing a false charge of assault?)
-
why shouldn't Paterno have to answer for his actions?
If I make stupid and inappropriate comments to the public in my professional capacity then I have to justify myself to my employer afterwards. JoePa is rightfully subject to the same scrutiny. Should he be fired for his comments? Arguably not, but it shouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility. (And suggesting that he should be fired won't silence discussion any more than it already is -- Paterno's comments were in response to a reporter's questioning. It's not like he ever voluntary spoke about the issue.)
Paterno is asked about the allegations because of his tenure as coach at Penn State and, as such, essentially speaks on behalf of the football program (if not the athletics department more generally). If Penn State wants to claim that sexual asssault is not to be tolerated, then it should ensure that its highest profile coach does not condone it.
I'm a criminal defense attorney, I more than understand and agree with the presumption of innocence (although I could note that the court of law generally has a higher burden than the court of public opinion). Nicholson hasn't been proven guilty and Paterno was right to not suggest that he was. However, I find it hard to digest the posting suggesting that his comments weren't so bad. Presumably, if you are reading this you've read King's article so I won't reiterate the points that he made. However, it is worth noting that Paterno's comments (at least the widely excerpted ones) don't go to the fact that we don't yet know what happened (which is how it seems to be defended). "A cute girl knocks on the door. What do you do?" only suggests that even proven allegations may be justified and that Nicholson alone was the victim.
-
Obviously different reactions
When I first heard of the controversy I sure was expecting to hear that Paterno had said something along the lines of "She was asking for it" or "Let's be fair, all heterosexual sex is rape anyway" for it to anywhere near justify the kind of outrage being directed at him. When I ended up reading what he said, though, I couldn't help but feel a little shortchanged.
Paterno, who is 79 years old let's remember, was asked a question about a situation he pretty clearly doesn't know a lot about. He gives a rambling, non-specific answer that looks like he's giving more sympathy to the accused than to the alleged victim(In some of the reports of Paterno's comments I seem to remember him saying something along the lines of "It's a bad situation for all involved" which kind of veered towards more neutrality though)
But, really, is any harm done here? Does anyone think that Paterno's comments represent the institutional policy of Penn State?
I just can't help but feel that people are looking for a story where there is none.