I was working out at the gym the other week and happened to see a conversation on ESPN that fascinated me. Three sports' journalists were discussing the recent (very recent at that moment) death of longtime Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. One theme dominated their spirited and lengthy conversation - How should Joe Paterno be remembered? What should his legacy be? The debate was mildly interesting. But what really grabbed my attention was the simple fact that they, and so many others around the country, were having that discussion and had framed the question this way. By now most of us have heard of, and may have even forgotten already, the child sexual abuse scandal at Penn State. If you are unclear on the details here is a summary: link. Joe Paterno, the beloved coach and mentor, icon of football and grand vizier of Penn State was fired in the fall. He was fired for doing the bare minimum in reporting the horrific allegations brought forth against Jerry Sandusky. 

The journalists were wrestling with difficult issues - what were the ethical demands of the situation? Did Joe Paterno do what was legally necessary?  But the deeper question they were touching on was this:  How do we measure and judge the legacy of a human being? Now you can see why I found this topic so important. It is a question we all ask, should ask and must ask at various times in our lives as we evaluate people's actions - and not just other people's, but our own.

The problem set before them was, should Joe Paterno's legacy be defined by decades of quality coaching or by one possibly weak response to an issue of justice? One of the reporters seemed reluctant to tear down all of Paterno's accomplishments because of his failure to take more definitive action. One of them was adamant that this proved that the man was not the lord of Happy Valley that many made him out to be. My goal is actually not to claim to have the definitive view on this, though my opinions will be fairly clear. I am not going to try to be comprehensive or to present sympathies with all sides of the arguments. My primary goal is to point out several things about legacy and ethics that we should learn from this discussion. Specifically, I have observed 3 related instincts that surfaced during the societal discussion, instincts that I am glad we still show as human beings.

Instinct for ethics:  The fact that we would have this discussion at all as a society demonstrates that deep down we have strong priorities. We worship sports in our culture and the people in them. But something deeper surfaces when a story like this occurs. Suddenly the life work of a man and his sport can seem very insignificant when placed next to something of true consequence. I love Sport and think there is a great deal of value to it. But isn't it striking that decades of being good at a game do not amount to much if you have possibly failed at the most important things? We do this all the time on a much smaller scale - we risk the legacy of truly meaningful things in order to chase after things that may or may not have significance. This is as true for a pastor or stock broker as it is for a football coach. This does not diminish the importance of work and even play in human life, but it does tell us that human nature does not evaluate all decisions equally. Whether you were good at calling blitzes, in the end, pales when compared to such an issue of justice, to that one moment when faced with a decision of dire consequence.

Enough isn't enough:  When it comes the the weighty significance of those moral decisions we face, enough is not enough. I have heard a few people say that Paterno was unfairly treated because he did what was necessary, but these folks are in the vast minority. Again, our instincts about legacy tell us that men and women are not remembered well for the times when they did just enough to get by. The great men and women (in Christianity - the servants) are remembered well for going above and beyond the circumstances that threatened them. It bothers us that Paterno did 'just enough' or 'only what was required.' Laws are, of course, related to morality. But deep, robust ethical actions always go above and beyond the mere laws of the land. Occasionally they even break the laws of the land in order to pursue a higher law. Enough isn't enough. We yearn for a higher morality in our heroes.

Speaking of Heroes...:  Our truest heroes are still the ones whom we want to admire. We may sympathize with the moral decision of Paterno - we cannot easily judge that we would have done better in his shoes. But we wish we would have. And this says a lot about our natural sense of ethics. We may admire him for many things and we may sympathize with his decision in this case. But most do not admire his decision. We don't strive to emulate him in that moment. Admiration is another level all together. Even in our hollywood and sports idol culture we still yearn for and demand 'real' heroes to follow, people who demonstate courage and boldness in the face of life's biggest questions and opportunities. In this sense, I hope we continue to look beyond Joe Paterno for other people who can give us a legacy of courage to live up to.