"Loyalty" by Joe Drache
The ethical issues in the unfolding Penn State scandal are not complex. Unless the grand jury got things completely confused, high officials of the school as well as legendary football coach Joe Paterno had credible information indicating that former Paterno assistant coach Jerry Sandusky sexually molested young boys on the Penn State campus, and did nothing about it. Now, after a three-year investigation, Sandusky has been charged with forty counts of child abuse by Pennsylvania authorities, and Penn State’s athletic director and a university vice-president have been charged with perjury and failing to report the crime. [UPDATE 11/7/20011: the University officials both resigned late yesterday.]
Paterno is apparently not going to be charged, because he alerted university administrators, technically complying with Pennsylvania law. Ethically, it doesn’t matter. Paterno, like University athletic director Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Penn State’s senior vice president for finance and business, and apparently Penn State president Graham Spanier as well, did nothing for nine years after being alerted to Sandusky’s apparent proclivities, knowing that a probable child sexual predator was not only on the loose, but operated a foundation for at-risk kids that kept him supplied with ready victims.
There can be no excusing this. Calling the conduct of the Penn State officials irresponsible doesn’t begin to characterize it; I regard the conduct as the equivalent of aiding and abetting child abuse by willful silence. There is an ethical duty to report crimes; there is a duty to prevent cruelty and abuse of others; there is a duty to protect our children. It shouldn’t require an ethicist to identify the behavior of Paterno, Curley and Schultz as wrong. The question is why this happens, and more importantly, why this keeps happening in institutions across the country.
In 2002, the grand jury investigation reveals, Paterno was alerted by a graduate student assistant that he had witnessed Sandusky molesting (indeed, what he described was rape) a young boy in a shower at the Penn State athletic facilities. The coach then went to Curley, who along with Schultz met with the grad student. Their response to his story: they told Sandusky, who maintained an office on campus despite having retired as assistant coach a few years before, that he couldn’t bring children from his foundation into the athletic buildings any more. Translation: “Do your child molesting on your own turf, please.”
They didn’t even make an effort to identify the child or contact his parents.
As with the Catholic Church’s intentional protection of child molesters in the ranks of its priests, as in the Boy Scouts of America covering up the activities of abusers among its scout masters, as in the House of Representatives looking the other way while Rep. Mark Foley stalked under-age pages, and in too many other similar examples to mention, rational, supposedly ethical people chose loyalty to people and institutions—and a big time football program— over their duty to prevent harm to the weak and vulnerable.
Loyalty. It may be the most problematic of the ethical virtues. Loyalty is an essential component of trustworthiness, and is closely tied to the ethical values of fairness and reciprocity. Loyalty makes the existence of families, groups, joint enterprises and organizations possible; it means subjugating one’s selfish needs and goals, when necessary, to the needs and goals of people and institutions that have helped you in the past. These cases show the dark side of loyalty, however. Loyalty can be employed for wrongful objectives as well as good ones. The danger of loyalty arrives when we regard it as absolute, trumping all other values: “My country, right or wrong;” “My family right or wrong,” “My leader, right or wrong,” “My party, right or wrong,” “My employer, right or wrong;” “My lucrative athletic program right or wrong”…yes, attorneys, sometimes even “My client, right or wrong” must yield to higher and more urgent ethical concerns. These statements and others like them that blot out crucial duties to society and human rights in the pursuit of lock-step loyalty should act as ethics alarms: once you think them, step back and do some objective ethical analysis.
Paterno’s loyalty to a friend and assistant coach and the administrators’ loyalty to Penn State cannot and must not outweigh the duty to protect children from being sexually abused. That none of them were able to see this shows how loyalty in excess can cause ethics blindness. And ethics blindness can do terrible damage.
At Penn State, it may have led children into the clutches of a predator.
So the message is: your children (and at that age they are children) are not safe. Not from teachers, coaches, priests, or the scum on the streets.
The horrible thing is that institutions protect themselves, not the young people parents have entrusted to their care. Whether it is sexual abuse, teacher sadism, or rank ineffectualism, we are all prey to the institutions that would rather protect their reputation than the kids who are being abused –in whatever way seems most efficacious at the time.
When we will rise up and demand an end to this? I think we should begin with laws that affect, specifically, the Roman Catholic church — laws which would estop payoffs so that the particulars of long time sexual abuse cannot be divulged. How can parents make informed decisions without such knowledge? (I won’t even get into how the various Dioceses think they’re “serving GOD” by their actions…)
When did we get to the point where protecting an institution is more important than protecting the people who adhere to their (however phony) precepts and beliefs? Frankly, I think it started with the early Unions, and has been carried on from there. Any institution worth its salt should be willing to come forward with negative information, stress that the good they’ve done far outweighs the negative, and rest on the public to make a decision. Americans believe in forgiveness and redemption; apparently other high-level decision-makers don’t get it. Witness, e.g., the ‘transparency” of the Obama Administration, among a host of others.
I completely agree that protecting the institution’s reputation is the primary motivation. Personally I would love to see it become more socially unacceptable for an institution to try to cover matters up than to have had an incident like this in the first place. And, the same thing happens with sexual assault on campuses. The majority of American universities try to cover it up by silencing victims. Companies do the same thing with bullying, mobbing and sexual harassment in work places all the time.
Colluding to cover these matters up is morally abhorrent. But, it’s extremely common. Frequently anyone who speaks out against the collusion risks retaliation by the institution involved. Often they will lose their position and the intuition will do their best to ruin that person’s reputation. They are treated like whistle blowers. And, the general public doesn’t want to believe these things so it is a tough scenario.
Like Duke University?
Did they?
No, they punished the wrongfully accused.
I think you need a citation for this: “The majority of American universities try to cover it up by silencing victims.”
The Innocence Project proved that several individuals on death row were wrongfully accused. We don’t ignore crimes because someone might be wrongfully accused. In fact, sexual assault is the only crime in which that argument is commonly used.
There are several references. I’ll post them shortly.
Out of curiosity: would you say that a better definition of Loyalty is needed?
It seems to me that the dilemma can be partially resolved by claiming all Loyalty need be to “the good” rather than to a person/institution/nation (I put the term in quotations because I am conflicted as to its actual meaning). We choose people and institutions that we believe maximize the good and adhere to their policies and behaviors accordingly. When those people or institutions step away from the good, our “Loyalty” to them is revoked. In this case, nearly by definition, Loyalty will always be a virtue.
Of course, a very simple counter to this idea will be the varying interpretations of “good.” Muslim suicide-bombers are, in their ethical consideration, maximizing good in the universe by doing Allah’s will (according to their interpretation of that will). A bishop in the Catholic churhc may *feel* as if he is maximizing good by not condemning his pederast brethren, as he serves what he thinks is the ultimate good – a god. A coach at Penn State may think that he is loyal to the good, by determining that the university accomplishes enough good to be worth preserving from scandal. All of these are very apparently flawed, but this type of reasoning would abound with a new definition of loyalty, nonetheless.
I feel like a re-tuned definition of Loyalty *helps*, but certainly does not resolve the problem. Is there a way to define loyalty in which it is actually a virtue, and not just a description of a series of actions?
Great question, Steven. I’ll have to think about this. I’m posting it as the Comment of the Day! Great debut!
This case bears out a couple of major points of those who advocate for reform to the current sex offender laws and procedures.
One, those most likely to molest children or youth are those not on a sex offender registry but rather those who already have close relationships with the victims. Everyone knows this; every study verifies this. Yet as a nation we spend many millions monitoring those on the registries, many of whom never touched a child inappropriately, and we do this at the expense of programs that, if implemented in schools and communities, would at least have a chance of impacting the cycle of child sexual abuse, something the registry does not do.
Secondly, and I cannot say in truth to what degree this was an influencing factor in this case, but the “wrong” type of loyalty may not have been a factor so much as reluctance to take action which would result in a friend and colleague being placed on the very public sex offender registry and effectively destroying the rest of his life along with the lives of his family members. If, after the legal consequences and punishment were satisfied, the system was more geared toward therapy, healing, and for those, as most are, desirous of regaining a place in a law-abiding society rather than a lifetime of punishment, humiliation, and ostracism, I believe more individuals and their families and other involved persons would disclose and seek help.
Good points, though the phenomenon you describe is still based on the wrong type of loyalty.
There is another factor to consider.
Have you heard of Grant Snowden ? Or Gerald Amirault ? Or the Kern County child abuse cases ?
Given this historical background, would not the actions of Penn State be justified absent that the officials were presented with more than verbal testimony (such as physical or photographic evidence)?
Mr. Marshall–I think you might want to revisit your understanding and comprehension of grand Jury indictments before you presume too much. You are more-or-less insinuating that a grand Jury indictment operates by the same standard of proof as a trial jury. If our judicial systems are so woefully unreliable that a person’s guilt or innocence can be determined based upon little more than a grand jury’s response to the prosecution’s untried evidence, then we might as well stop holding trials.
Have you any idea, even, of what constitutes a grand jury in many jurisdictions?? It’s often made up of as few as 3 people…and it’s not uncommon for those individuals to be comprised of another prosecutor, a police officer, and someone from the magistrate’s office. Anyone who’s spent much time dealing with this most secretive process of indicting will tell you that it’s about as dependable and reliable as the predictions of a fortune teller.
Uh-huh. I’ve read the AG’s report. In many cases you are correct. In this case, the facts and timing of the various reports are pretty much uncontested. This an ethics blog. Even if it were determined, somehow, that the child molestation as reported has some non-criminal explanation, which I doubt, it would still be outrageous for Paterno et al. not to take steps to protect the children. And the over-all point about such examples of institutional cover-ups is accurate. You want to throw some “allegeds” in there, go ahead. It’s clear that there were reasons to strongly suspect that a child molester was hanging around the campus, and running a foundation full of children. There’s no reason that I can see to doubt that part of the grand jury findings.
I’m noticing a disconnect here between your indictment of this coach and Hermann Cain. I feel like you might be able to take your responses in this thread and apply them to others in Hermann Cain threads.
I mean,
>It’s clear that there were reasons to strongly suspect that a sexual offender was hanging around the White House, and running a foundation full of women
Clearly, there are some humongous differences, but do you see my point?
.
Care to assuage my misgivings?
Sure, I’ll assuage. Sexual harassment, as I thought I explained, is not always or even usually physical in nature, nor is the offense always objectively harmful. IF the actual complaint suggested a serial harasser (like, say, Bill Clinton), the Association’s board would be obligated to can Cain and pay a settlement. I am presuming, in the absence of any details or facts or descriptions of the conduct involved, that this was not the case. Sexual harassment and child abuse are very different animals—one is a civil violation and the other is criminal; one involves adult victims and the other involves children. In both situations due process and fairness to the accused is necessary (but often ignored.) In the case of child sexual abuse, the harm of negligent handling is much greater, so the accused cannot be given as much of the benefit of the doubt.
A few nitpicks:
>Sexual harassment, as I thought I explained, is not always or even usually physical in nature
No, I totally understand. I just don’t acknowledge that physical always means worse than not-physical. (For instance, I’d rather be punched in the arm once than be bullied every minute of my waking life for fifteen years, but a court would likely consider the first more severe or more “wrong.”)
>nor is the offense always objectively harmful.
Ooh.. That’s a hot-button for me. If sexual harrassment (by presumably non-physical means) is hard to demonstrate as “objectively harmful,” can you demonstrate the opposite for child abuse? What if the child’s mind is so aberrant and altered that they experience all “abuse” as intense pleasure – can you call that abuse objectively harmful, now? If not, it clearly isn’t objectively harmful. (Apologies. After reading this, I notice that it comes off as if I am teaching basic ethical principles to someone vastly more seasoned in ethics than I am. It sounds like I’m teaching the Kalam to William Lane Craig, for goodness’ sake. I will leave it for any interested reader, I suppose).
>one is a civil violation and the other is criminal;
Legal semantics should not really affect ethical consideration, don’t you agree? Both civil and criminal violations are “wrong.”
I will say – fairly and mostly assuaged, however:
>In the case of child sexual abuse, the harm of negligent handling is much greater, so the accused cannot be given as much of the benefit of the doubt.
I think that’s my issue. If we assume that we are all fallible and our intuitions are not enough to convict, shouldn’t we give just as much of the benefit of the doubt to a *child* sexual predator as a “normal” sexual “predator”?
Indeed we should.
Just google “Ed Jagels” Bakersfield to find out what happens when people do not .
Please stop spamming the same talking point. It makes me want to disregard it without considering validity.
1. I agree..non-physical SH can be devastating. It can also be nothing. The key distinction is that quid pro quo sexual harassment is perilously close to both extortion and rape, and it is ALWAYS physical. Not taking that off the table regarding Cain was despicable, given the public confusing on the topic.
2. You have an odd hot-button there. Child abuse is also assault and battery, which the law irrebuttably presumes to be harmful. and the victim is, of course, a child. You’re not going to get many takers in the “non-harmful child abuse” argument.
3.Criminal abuses are by weight of legal authority and and experience regarded as more serious and worse than civil abuses—you can’t be imprisoned for the latter. It’s more than semantics.
4. I think not. Adults, even weak and submissive adults, still have resources and abilities of self-preservation children do not.
5. ALSO…remember…with non-quid pro quo sexual harassment, the term “predator” is inapplicable. Predatory joking? Predatory flirting? Predatory leering? Predatory e-mails? Predatory suggestive comments? No.
1. We already agree that the media response to this was unacceptable (as it has been for the Tea Party, and the OWS stuff… though you try not to agree on that last one
)
2. My hot button is objective moral values, not this particular one. That was what my comments were pointed toward
3. I thought we were talking in ethics, not legal justice. There is a victim of wrong in each circumstance. An unethical action has taken place both when a child is assaulted and when an adult is harassed. It seems like you’re trying to draw a line for the sake of condemning this coach while allowing actual innocent-til-guilty thought for Cain. It’s disingenuous to me. Clearly, the child sexual assault is *worse*, but we can no more afford to assume guilt until innocence is proven in THIS case as we can in a case of sexual harassment, like Cain’s.
4. Of course they do, but that doesn’t allow you to say that all suspected child molesters should be locked up until proven innocent, and all “sexual harassers” should be given due process until proven guilty. It doesn’t work on principle to behave in this way.
5. Your point? Sexual harassment can involve the same sort of power play inherent in child molestation. You said this yourself when you were discussing President Clinton. Cain was a man of much power, and could have very easily used that power to harass these women. We don’t know if he did or not, and I think the onus should be on those who wish to condemn to provide evidence. In the same way, we don’t (at least hypothetically, given a less straightforward case) know that a coach is using his power to harm children, and the onus should be on those who wish to sack him to provide evidence.
I think it important to note here that, again, I am not trying to defend this man (in particular). I am trying to get at the thought processes beneath.
I don’t suspect you of anything dire, and these are good distinctions to challenge and think about, and I need to be clearer. Keeping me clear is your job.
In the Penn State scenario, a third party witnessed what he described as a child-rape. (There are also incidents before this, outlined in the AG report, that linked Sandusky to child abuse.) That’s not circumstantial, it’s not vague, it’s not ambiguous. A reaosnable person can conclude fairly from this that Sandusky is, in fact, a child molester. If I see him molest a child, I can call him that too: I can’t lock him up without a trial. Those are two different standards.
Cain’s alleged sexual harassment, at least until the accusation yesterday, did not have any of those features, An uncorroborated, undefined, anonymous accusation of a form of misconduct that ranges from the technical (it is sexual harassment to have a photo of your Miss Florida wife in a bikini from your last vacation on your desk, but not to have a photo of your hideous, 368 pound mother-in-law in a THONG on your desk) to the unforgivable (sexual assault) does not justify a characterization or an assumption of guilt.
Typical of football. It’s a stupid, retrograde violent sport, steeped in
repressed homosexuality and war-mongering idiocy. Look at how many
‘football widows’ have to deal with their secret homo husbands who’d rather watch me’s asses in spandex rather than be real men with their wives. Most football types are secret tortured queers. Ban the sport! It encourages molesters, illiteracy and rapists of both types.
Thanks; we were in need of some hard edged satire here. Unless, of course, you are insane…
Well, he is unique! It’s true that rape culture is pervasive in sports, particularly football. However, getting rid of rape culture rather than football is the more common action statement. But, this comment is clearly extremely homophobic. Candidly, I’ve never even seen someone speak out against rape culture and be overtly homophobic at the same time. No further comment.
I think people should start looking at the policies of institutions such as Penn State. At my institution, a tenured faculty member may be dismissed for any action that negatively affects the reputation of the institution. If I were to report someone like Sandusky to the police, could I be fired? You would think the answer would be no, but a request to survey the employees about sexual harassment in the workplace was recently denied, citing the policy.
Policies such a ours need to be rewritten to state that employees can’t be disciplined for revealing the misconduct of others. They aren’t currently written this way because they do want such things covered up and they do want to shoot the messenger.
People already are. You might want to check out the work of Safer.
Individuals who speak out against this type of collusion are treated like whistle blowers, as you said. Frequently they lose their positions. It’s common that their professional reputation is ruined and that they become unemployable. It sounds like you already know this. That makes it a complex ethical question rather than a simple one.
An individual runs the risk of being a martyr at best. And, what is more likely is that they are damaged, if not ruined, while having accomplished nothing. We need to look at the complexity of this ethical issue and create real solutions to it.
The solution is called “courage to do the right thing.”
I respectfully disagree! Even Warren Bennis fully acknowledges the precarious position and massive personal sacrifice of a whistle blower. You would know that whistle blowing is usually used in regard to embezzlement, fraud and other illegal behavior. And, some of this stuff does get quite questionable legally also. So, I’m torn between calling it whistle blowing or saying that it’s analogous to whistle blowing. But, either way it’s a complex ethical issue rather than a simple one.
There’s nothing complex about it, especially in this case. Child abuse is a hot button, and anyone who reported it to the police or media would be untouchable. Being afraid to do the right thing is understandable, but it’s not an excuse, only a reason.
Now, concerning Joe Paterno. Is there any evidence that he had ordered or advised the witness in this case to not go to the police?
This is an organization, and there is a chain of authority. The crime occurring on university grounds involves possible liability—proper procedure is to report it to the superior. The grad student is low man on the totem pole, and again, there was no reason to believe that Paterno wouldn’t do the right thing and report as well as see that matters were passed to proper authorities. Do you check up on the police when you report an incident? You trust them to do their job, Paterno is supposed to be Mr. Clean. The grad student trusted him. I won’t blame him for that.
Your argument fails. Paterno reported it to his superior as well.
Indeed, and this is undisputed.
It is apparent that Paterno knew the grad student fairly well. Could he have presumed that the grad student would report the incident to the police?
Up, guys UP. the responsibility rises up, it does not go down below management. It would have been admirable and exemplary if the original witness made sure that authorities were treating the matter properly, but why would he assume otherwise? The better question: if he saw a 10-year old being raped in the shower, why didn’t he stop it?
Wrong. My point, if you will check back, is that we cannot say that the grad student was “1000X” more culpable than Paterno. Each level of authority has a higher obligation, and as each fails, the obligation falls to the next level. But management always has the highest burden. The President of the University is more culpable than anyone, EXCEPT that only one individual in the chain has built his legacy on the presumption of exemplary ethics, and that is Coach Joe. I’ll hold him to a higher standard, because that’s what he held himself to.
Would they be untouchable or would they be called an insane liar? Why should someone risk their own lively hood and reputation to help a stranger? I’m sorry but I think that dismissing this as a simple people should know better is not a helpful or accurate call in this regard. That’s just my opinion.
Note to self. Report Jack Marshall as a child abuser. Tell the police I got the information from someone who witnessed it.
Back to Quotemeister mode again. What Carl Schurz actually said on the floor of the Senate, as recorded by the Congressional Register of February 29, 1872, was:
“The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American republic. My country, right or wrong: If right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”