This is my final opinion piece on the unfortunate and tragic events unfolding at University Park in State College, Pennsylvania. Again, the purpose of the opinion piece is not only the relevance and significance of the news event, but the fact that I am a Penn State Alum ('92) and wish to share my opinions on the events that have engulfed my Alma Mater.
As a Penn State Alum, I feel a bit more proud this morning. I know there is broad diversity among Alumni, the student body, and the fans over the action taken last night by the Board of Trustees (BOT) against the legendary head coach Joe Paterno. In a controversial issue like this, combined with the legendary nature of Joe Paterno and what he meant to Penn State football and Penn State as a whole, differing opinions should be expected. Differing opinions are what drive successful universities. It is a coveted, protected, and valued necessity.
For me, I stand beside and behind the action taken by the BOT last night. We caught a glimpse yesterday of a slight division on the BOT, based on past loyalties. However, important to note, the action taken last night to immediately oust Joe Paterno and University President Graham Spanier was unanimous. It was unanimous because it was the right call.
Interestingly, a civil attorney representing some of the alleged victims, opined that the BOT got it wrong.
"The board of trustees got it wrong. They should have consulted the victims before making a decision on Mr. Paterno," Ben Andreozzi said. "They should have considered these victims watch TV and are aware of the students' reaction and may not want to be associated with the downfall of Mr. Paterno.
Mr. Andreozzi is entitled to his opinion. I give him credit for taking up the plight of those innocent victims. What he fails to understand is this is no longer just about ???the current victims' and any association of those victims with the ultimate demise of Joe Paterno. It is about what could have been done, what should have been done, and what was not done, to deter and to ultimately avoid having any victims whatsoever. Perhaps Mr. Andreozzi's opinion is a bit biased considering he will be representing the victims and could possibly make a nice profit from any civil suit against the University. Kind of ironic that the man who could bring suit against the University disagrees with the University action it took to fix what went wrong.
Read the whole editorial here