Mike Kern: Only Joe Paterno is responsible for Paterno statue's downfall

The only person responsible for Joe Paterno's statue coming down was Joe Paterno.

It was his actions, or lack of them, that made the removal painfully necessary.

It was put up for all the right reasons, to honor and celebrate the contributions of a man to an institution and a community. Now it had to go because it symbolized something else.

It had become a constant reminder of an uprecedented tragedy, a stain that never will be forgotten.

Nor should it.

Penn State president Rodney Erickson, in a statement, said the statue had become a source of division...an obstacle in healing a university and beyond...a recurring wound to the multitude of victims of child abuse.

Is he wrong?

If you're going to try and begin the process of moving on, there's no other way to proceed.

Joe Paterno obviously did many more good things in his long public life. But what happened with the ongoing Jerry Sandusky scandal will ultimately outweigh all of that, regardless of how much you think the person who built Penn State football had to do with enabling his former assistant to continue a pattern of monsterous behavior. Given the many lives that were ruined, that's how it should be. There is never going to be another story written about Paterno that won't include, in the first sentence, a reference to what has become the worst thing to ever hit college athletics. And his part/role in that failure.

Whatever your allegiance, it's really that simple. He was a legendary figure. And there are those who want to obviously protect that.

But at this point that's just no longer possible.

He was Penn State. And everything it supposedly stood for. And if you'd asked 100 Penn State people on the day before Sandusky was arrested last November, how many would've told you the same thing. If you don't think Joe was the most influential figure on campus, then why couldn't the so-called powers that be get rid of him when they wanted to back in the early 2000s? Because Joe, and his supporters, wouldn't allow it. Fair enough. Maybe he'd earned that right. But then why, the day after the Sandusky news broke, did so many try to paint Joe as a guy who was only doing what any solider in the chain of command would, which was pass along what assistant Mike McQueary had witnessed in a locker-room shower back in 2001 to his "superiors." And then pretty much absolve himself of any additional responsibility.

How could Paterno have gone on for the next decade, seeing Sandusky on a fairly regular basis, often with youngsters from the Second Mile program, and not do or say anything else? Did he believe that the people higher up on the institutional food chain had done their due diligence and therefore everything was being handled in the proper manner? And is that any kind of reasonable explanation? It sure seems hard to digest, given the scope of who he was.

If McQueary had come to Joe and told him he'd seen Sandusky with Paterno's grandson, or the son of someone Joe knew, do you think his reaction would have been the same? And if not, then why was the welfare of the child who was with Sandusky any less important? Do you think Joe would have been content with merely reporting the incident to his "boss." I wouldn't think so, especially for someone in his position of authority. But the reasons don't matter any more. Children got abused. And it could have been prevented. But people chose to protect Penn State football instead. There's certainly more than enough blame to go around. He certainly has to share in it, to whatever degree. Emotions aside, there's no getting around that reality. And given Joe's status, and what he meant to so many, it's his name that will remain attached to this long after those of the other parties involved fade into historical footnotes.

When McQueary went to Paterno 11 years ago, couldn't Joe have at the very least met immediately with Sandusky to try and get some answers? That doesn't seem like a lot to ask. And at the most Joe could've contacted the police or child-welfare officials. Again, if that were his grandson who'd been involved, is there any denying he would've proceeded much differently, both at the time and throughout the aftermath? Why?

This isn't about anyone's legacy. Something terribly wrong was allowed to take place. And Paterno will forever be associated with that. So there's no reason for his statue to remain. Because nothing good can come of it, only more polarization. And that's the last thing Penn State, or anyone else that was touched by any of this, needs.

With everything that has come out in the last 9 months, it just doesn't make sense to leave such a symbol standing. Because what Paterno represented seems like another lifetime ago.

He built it up. And he took it down. Sadly, but appropriately, that's what history will remember most.

Contact Mike Kern at kernm@phillynews.com