Moral Standards

If you've been living under a rock this week, Joe Paterno is being accused of not doing enough to prevent the horrendous acts of molestation allegedly committed by his assistant, Jerry Sandusky.  Paterno announced he would step down from a 46 year career as head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions, a decision he said he made so that the Board of Trustees could focus their attentions on "far more important matters."  The Board of trustees shortly thereafter announced their dismissal of Paterno, effective immediately.  

It has not been made clear how much Paterno knew about the actions of Sandusky.  It is clear that he did what he was required of him by bringing the information he had to the attention of his superiors, and putting it in their hands.  Could Paterno have done more?  Most likely.  Was he aware of the severity of the situation?  As yet, we do not know.  Has he been condemned before all of the facts have been brought to light?  Absolutely.

But this is not about Joe Paterno.

This is about the system of persecution used in this country, spearheaded by the media, to condemn anyone who commits any act which is contrary to the perfect standard we expect all public figures to uphold.

A word being thrown around in wake of the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal – yes, let us not forget this is a Jerry Sandusky scandal, not a Joe Paterno scandal – is “human.”   I have constantly been reminded that I need to think as a human, not as a Penn State Alum.  As if the two were mutually exclusive.

But in our brandishing of the word, “human”, we are forgetting to allow others to be just that. 

Joe Paterno, a man who has committed a lifetime of good deeds, may be condemned as evil by one misdeed?

Yes, this was a grave mistake, a horrific lapse in judgment, but one that is surrounded by more than half a century of improving people’s lives for the better, and bringing positive change to the world.

Yet one mistake can erase all of that.  A mistake which broke no laws.

Is that the standard we are expected to uphold?

Who among his condemners has never broken a law, actual or moral?

Who has never made a decision he regrets?

Who has never deserved a second chance, or a better chance, based on their deeds as a whole, and not a single instance?

We set up our public figures for failure, and the bigger they are, the bigger we want to see them fail.  Is there no possibility for forgiveness for anything anymore?  Is anything less than perfect now deemed unacceptable?  Who will live up to these standards?

 There is also another issue at stake here.

Paterno got fired for failing what police called a "moral obligation" to alert them to the crimes.  

Let me emphasize, the Police sited a “moral obligation”.

Think what you want about what Paterno did, or didn’t do, the bottom line is that he didn’t commit a crime – yet the police still spoke out against him.  When did they start getting the authority to pass judgment on people outside of the legal ramifications of their actions?  Where does this new found authority find its limits?

Don’t we make laws to decide what constitutes a crime?

Can the police now prosecute people for moral crimes?

Who decides what is a moral crime?

“Well, the radar only got you at 56, but it looked like you were driving a lot faster.”

This is not about whether or not you think Paterno’s actions were wrong.  This is about who gets to decide. 

The police do not get to pass judgment on people if they do not commit a crime. 

The police have already invented enough crimes to find most of us guilty of something.  Isn’t that enough?

We now can be judged on our morals, as well?

Can you live up to that standard?