No justice, no peace

So Joe Posnanski, the well-known sportswriter, happens to be living in State College, PA this year, as part of a book he's writing about Joe Paterno. Good timing, I know. He's of the opinion that JoePa is being treated unfairly on some level: at the very least, that he's serving as a sacrificial lamb (Posnanski says scapegoat, but I don't think that's quite what he means) for the collective public outrage. I think that's incorrect, and incorrect in a way that's of greater moral import, so I will break my promise not to talk about the situation anymore for at least this one extra post.

The problem with Posnanski's argument is that he's confusing judgments in the moment with considered judgments. Nobody's position on these will be the same: given enough time, people will come to think about Joe Paterno, and this whole situation, in a more rational and reflective manner. I suspect that it will end up having the same effect on Paterno's legacy that Woody Hayes punching Charlie Bauman has on Hayes': it magnifies or qualifies your judgment of him, but it doesn't change it. People who think Hayes was a jerk have their confirmation in this; people who like him will not exactly defend it, but note that it's one dumb and ill-considered action at the end of a long career of doing good.

Now, the Paterno case is different because what he did was worse, and it lasted for a longer period of time, and I think people will factor that in. It's also certainly the case that he did a lot of good for Penn State, and in the nature of the things he did, those goods will last (that library's not going anywhere). And now is certainly the beginning of time to reflect on the proper balance.

But, as Posnanski himself will admit, what Paterno did was wrong, and wrong enough that he had to be fired for it. So when Posnanski cautions us to wait, I have to wonder--wait for what? If what Paterno did is worthy of being fired, then he needed to be fired. No extra information is going to mitigate that. Is it true that some people were overdoing their level of moral outrage? Certainly. But Paterno needed to be fired for what he did. Was firing him before the end of the season necessary? Almost certainly--given what did happen after he was fired, having the same thing happen at a game would've embarrassed the university in a significantly worse way. Should it have been done by phone? Maybe not, but he had to be fired. The vengeance needs to stop now, but it was fair and reasonable up until what needed to happen happened.

This puts me in mind of one of those Margaret Thatcher quotes I picked up in college, either from the paper I wrote on the downfall of her government or else from reading her admirers at National Review. Either way, the quote is: "In war there is much to be said for magnanimity in victory. But not before victory." In this case, there is much to be said for a calm, reasoned approach to what happened that apportions moral responsibility where it deserves to go, including accepting the possibility that our snap judgments might be wrong. But the time for that approach is after the relevant parties have been dismissed. Not before.