Cheap Seats 2024 By Rich Trzupek

Twelve Years and Counting 01/24

By Rich Trzupek
  It is a self-evident truth that representative government cannot flourish unless its institutions not only permit, but encourage, the expression of opposing points of views. Western tradition values contrarianism, and has values it all the more when a particular contrarian is especially skilled. The continued existence of that proud, confident tradition is under attack today, and those of us who understand and value the First Amendment should be deeply concerned. Consider, by way of example, the judicial persecution of Mark Steyn.
  Steyn stands tall among the great contrarians of our age. Steyn’s body of work puts him in a stellar orbit occupied by the likes of Mencken, Parker and Royko. (Note to readers: If you had to use your search engine to understand any of those references, do yourself a favor and take deeper dives in each case. You won’t be disappointed.)
  Steyn is currently participating in a trial in Washington DC that is all about the First Amendment and freedom of speech. His crime? Allegedly, he wrote things about a fellow public figure so cruel that said public figure suffered grievous emotional and economic harm. The details hardly matter. An America so touchy and humorless that a pundit is prohibited from firing zingers at the rich, powerful and famous is not an America I care to live in.
  It’s hard to believe that persecuting Steyn is in any way about the kind of America anyone wants. The late, great Dorothy Parker famously wrote that “if all the girls attending [the Yale prom] were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.” Does anyone want to live in a country where a future Dot Parker is officially prohibited from uttering that kind of a gem?
  Members of the current uber-touchy class might argue that Parker unjustly attacked and unjustly undermined an important institution of higher learning. Was Yale harmed by the joke? Who knows. No doubt some clever data miner back then could have found statistics that “showed” how Yale was financially diminished by Parker’s wise-ass remark. Some other equally clever stat-master could have “proved” the opposite was true. If the First Amendment means anything, it means we don’t ever attempt to engage in an economic analysis that involves what Public Figure A says about Public Figure B, or vice versa.
  More than 12 years ago, Steyn published a piece in which he cited a scientist’s opinion that Penn State University might not always do a great job of quality control when investigating alleged misconduct among its employees. If you’ve read anything about the case to which I am alluding, forget it. What follows is the essence of the dispute.
  The idea that Penn State may not have exercised good quality control starts with Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky was, at that time, a long-time assistant football coach on the staff of Penn State’s legendary head coach, Joe Paterno. As allegations of sexual abuse centered on Sandusky continued to grow, the university eventually instituted an “investigation.” Yet, there are investigations and there are investigations.
  Investigating an assistant coach under the legendary “Joe Pa” was the equivalent of persecuting Joe himself. Understand the time frame we’re dealing with. College football fans were slowly realizing that college football was much more a business than a supposedly amateur sport. Division 1 football programs were, and mostly still are, about profit, not educational opportunity. Examples of graft and corruption abounded. But, at the time, in the midst of this culture of corruption, there is one shining figure who was incorruptible: Joe Paterno. His supporters adored him. To be sure, I admired him. He was above and beyond the moral norms that defined his times. Joe didn’t recruit with checkbook in hand. Joe wasn’t greasy. Joe was all that college football should be.
  Except for Jerry Sandusky.
  When Penn State finally decided to investigate the sexual misconduct claims leveled against Sandusky, what did that investigation actually look like? Was it an attempt to independently determine the truth, or was it designed to exonerate their beloved head coach, Paterno, who loyally stood with his assistant? Might not the answer be this: The investigating committee did not want to make a deep dive into Sandusky’s behavior. Why should they? The person in charge of the football program was Joe Pa. He was the most honorable and honest head coach in the nation. Why dive any deeper? Who knew more about college football than Joe?
  Steyn’s alleged sin was to allude to Penn State’s incompetence in the Sandusky matter when criticizing the university for – in his opinion – failing to properly investigate allegations leveled against another famous employee who was and is a hero to many. It appeared to be the same, lazy “we can’t question the expert” mentality that infects so many in the weird world of higher academia.
  Steyn, being Steyn, used the Sandusky analogy to biting and hilarious effect. No reasonable person could have read what he wrote and concluded that Steyn was accusing anybody of child molestation, other than Sandusky himself of course. His point was to highlight the incompetence of Penn State leadership, not to accuse a hyper-sensitive faculty member of improprieties with minors.
  The offending piece appeared in National Review more than a decade ago, at a time when the ghost of its founder, William F. Buckley still roamed the halls. It is a travesty that it has taken this much time and cost so much treasure to finally bring the case to trial. It is remarkable that Steyn has stubbornly refused to cave in, though it has clearly cost him dearly. What will the jury decide? In these strange times, it’s hard to guess. The Land of the Free grows less so each day.
  Email: richtrzupek@gmail.com