Penn State University has been embroiled in a major reputational crisis since November, when allegations emerged that former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky had engaged in numerous acts of child rape.

The past few days have seen the scandal return to the headlines for two reasons:

1. Joe Paterno sits for his first post-scandal interview.

Paterno gave the interview to The Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins, his first since being dismissed by the university. Lung cancer, Jenkins wrote, “has robbed [Paterno] of the breath to say all that he wants to about the scandal he still struggles to comprehend.”

In the interview, the former coach claims ignorance, saying this about the moment when assistant coach Mike McQueary reported the incident involving Jerry Sandusky to him:

“You know, he didn’t want to get specific,” Paterno said. “And to be frank with you I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.”

Which leads to a question: Is Paterno intentionally trying to appear ignorant as a deliberate reputation management strategy? Jenkins admitted that she “certainly didn’t walk away from the interview satisfied,” and she questioned whether he was telling her the whole truth.

At best, Paterno comes off as an aloof manager from a different generation who wasn’t aware of things he should have been aware of and who failed to establish a culture in which people could tell him the blunt truths he needed to hear.

In fairness to Penn State, Paterno didn’t coordinate his interview with the university, so the administration shouldn’t be blamed for his interview—but the school holds full responsibility for the next example.

2. Penn State President Rodney Erickson makes a stunningly tone-deaf statement.

Last Thursday, Penn State’s new president told alumni during a town hall meeting that:

"It grieves me very much when I hear people say ‘the Penn State scandal.’ This is not Penn State. This is ‘the Sandusky scandal.’ We’re not going to let what one individual did destroy the reputation of this university.”

Erickson seems to believe he can recast the Penn State scandal as one restricted to the actions of one man. But he seems to be willfully ignoring the findings of Pennsylvania’s attorney general, who said that two top university officials had committed perjury and had failed to report suspected child sexual abuse. By trying to minimize the scope of the scandal, Mr. Erickson violated one of the seven key rules of crisis management.

His statement also undercut a November pledge by Penn State’s trustees, which promised that a:

“Special Committee will be commissioned to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable.”

So much for “those who are responsible.” If this is a “Sandusky” scandal in which “one individual” destroyed “the reputation of this university,” why would the trustees need to investigate any other people or institutional failures?

The school can’t have it both ways. Either it will investigate this scandal with a wide net that may implicate numerous university staffers, or it’s going to try to minimize the scandal by pinning it solely on one person. Erickson’s statement makes it appear they’re leaning toward the latter.

If the university is leaning toward a full investigation, Erickson should forever banish that tone-deaf statement from his lexicon.

Visit the Mr. Media Training Blog to see the 21 Most Essential Media Training Links. Brad Phillips is the author of the Mr. Media Training Blog and president of Phillips Media Relations, which specializes in media and presentation training.

(Image via)