Last week, the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal was back in the news, bringing Penn State and its late football coach Joe Paterno with it. The stories were ugly: four separate accusations that Paterno and/or assistant coaches/administrators allegedly knew of Sandusky’s acts as early as 1976. It all stemmed from a paragraph in a court order in a civil suit between Penn State and one of its insurers.

Four-and-a-half years after Sandusky was first arrested, Paterno was fired and Penn State was rocked, here was an another reverberation, proof that just as it is for victims of sexual abuse, this stuff doesn’t ever conveniently end.

Rather than focusing on the administration's role in not just the original events but in igniting this specific media frenzy, university president Eric Barron instead pathetically tried to shift the blame while lamenting that the poor, poor school and its old coach were being dragged though the mud.

“I am appalled by the rumor, innuendo and rush to judgment that have accompanied the media stories surrounding these allegations,” said Barron, who was hired in 2014, long after the dismissal of president Graham Spanier, who was around during the scandal and still faces criminal charges for his role in it. “All too often in our society, people are convicted in the court of public opinion, only to find a different outcome when all the facts are presented.”

View photos In this Aug. 6, 1999, file photo, Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno poses with his defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. (AP) More

There are understandable reasons for Penn State to be frustrated, especially with the lack of perspective offered by the news media. Some reports took allegations and turned them into full and unquestioned guilt.

The story wasn’t that simple. How it played out was predictable though. That’s how parts of traditional and social media have always worked. Context is a rarity.

It’s why, if merely from a public relations perspective, being accused of such heinous acts is best avoided, let alone when your defense boils down to “because details are scarce, you can’t completely prove it.” While the allegations mentioned in the court order lack the kind of detail that should result in an immediate conclusion of guilt, they also lack the kind of detail that should result in an immediate conclusion of innocence, too. It’s not a corner you want to fight from.

It stands to reason that Penn State once understood all of this.

The school initially chose to settle so many Sandusky abuse cases in part because the monetary loss of paying victims – nearly $100 million in cases dating back to 1971 – in sealed decisions was worth stopping the slow churn of horrific details affecting enrollment, endowment and reputation.

Some civil cases were rejected for lack of plausibility but for the most part Penn State settled, and not just with money. It settled knowing this precluded vehemently investigating and defending every point of every complaint. That was part of the deal also.

Penn State willingly and purposefully gave that right up.

Eric Barron is a university president so it stands to reason that he understands this. That’s what makes his comments Sunday so regrettable.

Rather than accept reality, he instead suggested that some of these victims might not actually be victims via broad and non-specific aspersions on their claims. It was a toss of red meat to those who view Penn State and Paterno as aggrieved parties here.

Story continues