Penn State's fate
To Colin McNickle:
Wow! What a mouthful! I, as a retired public-school teacher of 40 years' service, was greatly surprised and impressed by your strong to-the-point commentary “Penn State must die” (July 15 and TribLIVE.com) on what is needed as a follow-up to the Penn State debacle.
I am displeased with many of the ridiculous, wishy-washy statements being made in defense of unaccountable, unprofessional, inappropriate Penn State actions, such as “Joe Paterno was not a god” and “men are expectedly fallible.” Not on million-dollar salaries, I say.
It is such reasoning that ensures that pedophiles will continue having their “success” within American society.
Whereas if strong action taken in dealing with Penn State prevails, there will occur a strong ripple effect that will haunt all public institutions from this day forward. Certainly such action will have a long-term positive effect, which is what this society wants and needs.
When I was in junior high, a teacher explained to my class why public buildings were not named after people until at least 10 years after such a dignitary had passed away.
But in the culture of Penn State there exist a mural from which a Paterno halo has been removed and a large statue devoted to one person. Coach Bobby Bowden made a statement concerning why the Paterno statue should be removed. It will become the focus of bad publicity every time PSU is viewed on national television.
This and several other newsworthy events involving men in high positions with million-dollar salaries prove that no man is worth several million dollars in annual salary.
A man paid several hundred thousand dollars can make decisions just as well.
To all who have said,”You can't take it with you”: All the accomplished fame of Penn State University's football program, JoePa has taken it with him.
Arnold Burchianti Sr.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.