It’s (Still) About the Penn State Trustees
January 12, 2012 · Education · 0 CommentsPenn State Trustees knew about the sex-abuse allegations and grand jury investigation into Jerry Sandusky at least as early as May of last year, seven months prior to the release of the explosive grand jury report’s release, according to Penn State President Rodney Erickson:
Penn State University trustees were briefed by then-President Graham Spanier about a grand jury investigation of child sex abuse allegations against former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky months before his arrest, Penn State President Rodney Erickson said. …
Despite anger from alumni and others directed at the board of trustees, including calls for their ouster, Mr. Erickson said he believes the board is still in a position to provide meaningful leadership to the university.
But he acknowledged criticism that the board and university administration had been too cozy.
“There needs to be a healthy separation,” he said.
And as if that weren’t enough, Jerry Sandusky was given a ticket to Beaver Stadium and access to then-President Graham Spanier’s box to watch Joe Paterno’s record-breaking 409th win. This was just a week prior to his arrest on multiple counts of child sex abuse.
Could there be any clearer indication that Joe Paterno’s firing was a means to scapegoat a legend — someone who could be offered up as the most visible and delicious figure to blame — by a cowardly and basically ineffectual Board of Trustees?
Whatever blame one wants to place on Coach Paterno for not “doing more” to stop Jerry Sandusky must be amplified by one thousand with respect to President Spanier and the Board of Trustees, the head and ultimate stewards — who where aware of the investigation and allegations — any yet did nothing to distance themselves or the institution from a man under criminal investigation for child sex abuse.
Penn State’s new president Rodney Erickson, in suggesting the present trustees can still “provide meaningful leadership” is saying what any employee must, I suppose, but his defense of his bosses shouldn’t be taken seriously. This is a board that was apprised of Jerry Sandusky’s alleged depredations at least seven months prior to the crisis breaking, and their reaction was – at best – blind faith in President Spanier and his administration.
If their collective inaction on this central, single, critical issue is not enough to assign them blame for dereliction of duty, what is?


