Pros And Cons Of Paterno

In 2011, news broke of the horrible scandal that had been occurring for years within the faculty of the beloved Penn State football program. The football association found Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky guilty of serial child molesting, with many of the staff aware of these malicious acts. Among these stood Joe Paterno, legendary football coach “JoePa,” studded with too many wins to count. Upon learning that Paterno had any knowledge of the rape, the football association stripped him of his wins and tore his statue from the ground. This sparked controversy that people still hotly debate to this day. Katha Pollitt, in “Penn State’s Patriarchal Pastimes,” believes they did not do enough to punish Penn State, writing to ignite liberals like herself

Any solid argument needs cold, hard facts to back it up. Pollitt has no lacking of these facts in her piece. She throws out statistic after statistic, with comments like, “Recruited athletes’ scholarships soak up almost a fifth of places at most elite colleges, and athletic scholarships raise costs for everyone else” (Pollitt 3). Deford’s piece however, lacks the substance needed to win over an audience. He gives some reason as to why Paterno’s behavior was not unacceptable, writing, “Joe Paterno kept Jerry Sandusky eligible,” but he does not take it any further than eligibility. Pollitt knows better. A string of statements to support it follows every accusation she makes. She writes, “Should college students play sports? Sure for fun.” (Pollitt 5). Then she continues for an entire paragraph to explain why college sports should only be for fun, writing, “The graduation rate of Division 1 athletes, 65%, is nothing to cheer about (Pollitt 5). In contrast, Deford poses a question, “How will this affect Paterno’s legacy?” (Deford 3). He does a lot of asking and pondering, but not a lot of telling. Without substance, Deford’s article hides in the shadow of the beast Pollitt