While Penn State students are reeling from the recent firing of Joe Paterno, the decision by Penn State’s Board of Trustees to fire Joe Paterno, however, was a just one. Paterno was fired amid allegations of taking the wrong steps to report cases of sexual child abuse.

In 2002, Paterno notified school officials that a graduate assistant of his had reported seeing retired defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually assulting a boy in a shower. Sandusky is accused of sexual offense, child endangerement and corruption of a minor involving eight boys. He faces 40 counts of sex crimes. He met most or all of them through his charity called The Second Mile that helps troubled youth. The youth were visiting Penn State to learn more about football from the infamous Joe Paterno, Sandusky’s boss at the time.

The fact that these boys were coming from difficult backgrounds is an important factor in why Paterno was so wrong not to follow up on the case. These boys were probably suffering already from distressing experiences, this situation pushes them back in their progression rather than help them move forward. If Paterno had told police like he should have, Sandusky may have been stopped and several boys may have been saved from this scarring incident. Sexual abuse is a serious issue that can cause many psychological issues for someone, especially when they are a child and in a developing stage. Not only are these boys affected, but their families and friends are also hurt by this crisis.

First, in the instance of any criminal investigation at a university, it is appropriate to remove the officials that are implicated in the investigation. This is because those officials would not be able to serve successfully in their full, respective capacities.

While Paterno originally reported the incident of abuse to the proper superiors, he must answer for his lack of action after none was taken by those he reported the incident to. While in terms of legality, he met the requirements expected of him, Paterno should have demonstrated, by further action, his invested interest in championing the voice of those abused. In fact, Paterno is still being investigated by officials on the situation. He was not fired simply for the negative ambiance surrounding the Penn State case.

If he really possessed an interest in the welfare of those who were abused, he would have gone the “extra mile.”

This is confirmed if we were to put this in hypothetical terms. Imagine if this boy was not a boy, but a girl. Both the courts of public opinion and the courts of law would be in agreement that all of those implicated in the case, both the perpetrator, and Joe Paterno, would need to be removed.

So why should we pause and argue over a case involving boys? Does it not reveal our societal convictions that we still admire Joe Paterno, where a case involving girls might have cast him as covering up such a case?

This case also highlights an issue with our culture in how we judge situations. Students and Penn State and people that protest the firing of Paterno are basing these opinions off their bias because to them, Paterno was a legendary football coach that was known for his kind nature. These people need to examine the facts in this case and realize that no matter how nice and successful Paterno was, he made a huge mistake in not ensuring that Sandusky was reported to police.

Hypothetically, it seems shameful that by doing the “right thing,” Paterno ended up losing his position. If this case were to occur at every university, however, it seems that someone must answer for an ultimate lack of action.

Legally, he may not be guilty. But morally, he is guilty of not championing the voice of the poor children who were abused by Jerry Sandusky.

By Colleen Adenan and Noah Fitzgerel