As I expected, many have made excellent points as to why Joe Paterno should have his memory completely tarnished. At this point, it seems no one is willing to state the rationale for why it shouldn't be. Since I have squarely dug myself in as the contrarian opinion in the conversation, I may as well continue. I'll try do so while clarifying my position.
Again, I am not in favor of the statue. And if we're talking about how Sandusky ought to be viewed in all of this, and what his punishment should entail, I'd venture to guess my stance is more harsh than the majority of others. However, Paterno did not commit the atrocious acts, so I look at him differently.
Given that a few things come to my mind. First, Paterno did know that something was going on, and he didn't act appropriately. For that, he deserves incredible criticism. I don't think he knew the extent of what he was covering up. I think he was in denial of the magnitude of what could be happening. I think he was growing senile. In fact, many people have argued over the last decade that he was more a figurehead than an actual coach, granted, he still weld much power. He was born in a generation that was not as up-front with these sorts of issues, where problems were dealt with in-house and in private. He came from a generation that less recognized the severity of abuse, whether it be mental, physical or sexual.
That said, none of this exonerates him. Any discussion of Joe Paterno's career ought to include his great omission. His legacy is deservedly tarnished. And anyone who wants to engage in a conversation about the good he did, has to also be willing to discuss that in the most important decision(s) of his life, involving the well-being of children, he acted in the worst possible way. I'm just not going to be up-in-arms about someone who wants to remember the long duration of his career where he had a positive impact on those around him.