Just when you thought the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky nightmare couldn't get any worse, it did.
Just when you thought the trials of former Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice-president Gary Schultz would bring clarity and closure to the worst, most tragic scandal in the history of college sports, they didn't.
Penn State never will get past Sandusky.
The truth never will be fully known.
We do know Curley and Schultz didn't do enough to stop Sandusky. There is no question about that. The two pleaded guilty before trial to endangering the welfare of children, a misdemeanor. They would have faced felony charges had they gone to trial. Many criminals plead down to avoid the possibility of more severe punishment, but, if you're Curley and Schultz and you know you didn't do anything wrong, wouldn't you fight to defend your honor in court?
"I wish I did more," Curley testified during Spanier's trial. "I didn't ask enough questions and, at the end of the day, that's why I plead guilty."
Spanier did go to trial and was convicted of a misdemeanor child endangerment charge, although he was cleared of more serious felony charges. He, too, didn't do enough to stop Sandusky. His attorneys have said he will appeal his conviction.
All of this is a heavy blow to Joe Paterno's image. It has been proven by the Curley and Schultz guilty pleas and the Spanier conviction that the three top leaders at Penn State were aware of Sandusky's child sexual abuse. How did Paterno not know and do more, as the most powerful man at the university, to stop Sandusky? Legally, authorities say Paterno was in the clear because he reported to his alleged bosses, Curley and Schultz, what he was told by assistant coach Mike McQueary of a sexual incident between Sandusky and a boy in a shower in February 2001. But morally? Paterno didn't do nearly enough. He chose to do nothing as he watched Curley and Schultz do nothing. He never will be fully cleared of, at best, indifference, at least in a significant portion of the court of public opinion.
Louis Freeh, the former FBI director who led the 2012 investigation that faulted Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno for their handling of the Sandusky tragedy, was quick to release an email after Curley's and Schultz's plea and Spanier's trial. "Today, they are convicted criminals," he wrote. "And Joe Paterno's once iconic legacy is forever marred by his own decision to do nothing when he had a chance to make a real difference."
Not much room there for misinterpretation.
I was willing to see what happened in court, but I said all along that if the three Penn State leaders were found guilty, I hoped they would have to serve prison time. I still believe that, although I don't expect it to happen. I'm convinced Curley and Schultz bargained to avoid prison in addition to testifying against Spanier. And I'm not sure Spanier's conviction will stand up to appeal after the head juror in his trial called it "a mistake." Richard Black went on to tell Philly.com that he was the last holdout on the jury before voting guilty on the misdemeanor charge. He also said he would apologize to Spanier if he saw him.
Clarity?
Closure?
We're back to where we started. The Penn State loyalists are looking at the court results and saying the three university leaders _ and Paterno, I'm thinking _ are exonerated because the felony charges of conspiracy and child endangerment didn't hold up. The Penn State detractors are looking at the same court results and saying they are unequivocal proof the university leaders allowed Sandusky to do what he did.
Count me among the detractors.
Count Al Lord among the loyalists.
Lord is a Penn State trustee who came out soon after the Spanier verdict and defended him, saying Spanier never knew Sandusky abused anyone. That's OK if that's his opinion despite the conviction, but Lord didn't stop there. Sadly, he didn't stop there. He told The Chronicle of Higher Education in an email: "Running out of sympathy for 35 yr old, so-called victims with 7 digit net worth. Do not understand why they were so prominent in trial."
Lord has been widely criticized for his inane, insensitive comments, but not nearly enough. How does a man like that rise to any kind of power? Sandusky was convicted in June 2012 of sexually assaulting 10 boys over a 15-year period. Those boys are not "so-called" victims. They are very real. Philly.com reported in January that Penn State paid $93 million in civil settlements to 33 Sandusky accusers. That money doesn't seem like nearly enough.
Lord apologized Monday, saying in a statement that his comments were "too flippant and caustic."
My response: Apology unaccepted.
But maybe this is all part of brilliant strategy by Lord. He is up for re-election to the board of trustees this spring, one of five candidates, including Paterno's son, Jay, for three spots. Undoubtedly, there are other Penn State alums who feel as Lord does, that no one in leadership at the university could possibly have done anything wrong, that all of it was on Sandusky alone, that it's way beyond time to move on.
Is it really possible Lord could win re-election?
Yes, the Sandusky nightmare still can get worse, a lot worse.
