"Give me a C! Give me an H! Give me an I! Give me an L! Give me a D! Give me an M! ...."
The good news: the “Occupy” demonstrations are no longer the most irresponsible and offensive in the country. The bad:#1 is a rally in support of child molesting.
All right, that’s unfair; I apologize, Penn State students. What today’s raucous, banner-waiving, cheering throng of hundreds outside embattled football coach Joe Paterno’s house really was supporting was Paterno himself…now squarely identified as a man who allowed a probable child abuser to continue preying on young boys for years, because, we can only assume, he was more focused on winning football games than being a human being. That’s better. Not much better, though, because cheering Paterno now, at this moment, communicates approval of his choices, priorities and values, which said, in essence, “Let the rapes continue. Go Penn State!”
At best, the pro-Paterno rally was terrible timing and in terrible taste. At worst, it confirmed the moral and ethical rot that big time college sports has fertilized on college campuses.
Oh, I get it: Paterno has been a great coach and a legend at Penn State for half a century, and he’s hurting. By this time tomorrow, he may be out of a job, the job that has been his whole life. Nevertheless, you can’t cheer a man being rightly condemned for failing to take action to protect innocent young children who he knew were in peril from a colleague without cheering all of the man, his horrible misconduct included. It looked like the students only care about football, whether this is true or not. It looked like the culture that caused Paterno and other university officials to abandon kids to a predator is breeding monsters on campus.
Penn State has more public relations disasters on its hands than it can possibly handle, and the students decided to give the school another one.
Ethics Alarms 
The thing is… Paterno DID report the allegations. Could he have done more, like call the cops? Yes, but at the same time, even an investigation into child molestation turns a person into an untouchable – as this blog has documented.
So, does Paterno call the cops on just the say-so of a graduate assistant, and risk turning his long-time assistant into an untouchable, or does he pass it on up to the higher authorities, and let them try to sort it out?
He passes it up, and makes sure there is an investigation; that Sandusky is questioned, that the child is identified, and that either the account is disproven, or authorities are called in. He cannot forget about a child molester whom he knows is involved with a kids foundation!
Inquiring Mind says “It’s not Joe’s department. ” Joe’s department is to protect children. The cheering students are guilty of loyalty to the wrong value. Sad.
I don’t give a damn about the cheering college students. At a graduating senior at a Pennsylvania public school, their actions just confirm what the smart kids realized years ago – that college is marketed as a joke and treated as a joke by entitled kids. We saw this reflected in the celebrations outside the White House when Osama was killed, we see this every time a D1 NCAA team wins a championship.
Not to take the focus away from Paterno, but come on – the underprivileged kids attending school on scholarship, the true students of knowledge, those raised with an ounce of common sense – they aren’t out there wasting their friggin time in front of Paterno’s house.
Sit down and read the DA’s report and the written testimonies, then tell me that Paterno’s actions are defensible. If I saw a random stranger on the street getting molested, sure as hell I’d report it. If I saw Barack Obama molesting someone, I’d sure as hell report it, even though I support him. If I think I saw a family member molesting someone, I’d report it. Not to sound cliche, but think of the children!
You overestimate smart people, and also manage to turn this into class warfare based on, well, nothing.
As I said in a previous thread, Joe Pa is GOD to a significant portion of Pennsylvania, and we all know that people do stupid things when their gods are shown to be wrong.
Your analogy fails for the fact that Paterno himself did not see Sandusky molest anyone
No, he had credible information that an adult in his facility was anally raping a ten-year old boy. Worse.
Here is a dissenting opinion from a longtime blogger whom I have followed for ten years and whose integrity I have observed.
Yes. Weak, rationalized and really absurd. He had a duty to report and investigate. McQueary wasn’t a blogger, he was an eye-witness reporting against self-interest. There was no reason not to believe him, and his description was graphic.
The author must be a big fan of Albert Speer.
Even assuming that Paterno had a duty to report second-hand information, he would not have a duty to investigate.
And, of course, McQueary himself had much more of an obligation to report the crime than Paterno, because his information was first-hand.
Michael, you are just plain wrong. He has an ethical duty to make ceratin that what McQueary said is true or not true, because his actions depend on it. There is no lesser ethical duty to report credible second hand information of a crime than first hand. Where would you get such an idea? My son says his best frind is buying guns to shoot up the school. You’re saying I have less of an obligation to report that than he does? Ridiculous.
Yes.
Note that I did not say you would have zero obligation, just a lesser one.
What Paterno should have done was to ask McQueary, a few days after the fact, if he had filed a police report. At that point, if McQueary had not done so, he would have revealed himself either as someone who failed to report a sex crime he himself witnessed, or committed a vicious slander against a colleague.
Pingback: Ethics Dunces: Penn State Students | Ethics Alarms « Ethics Find
As a current college student, prior victim of child molestation, and generally reasonable person, I feel inclined to give my two cents. Having read the grand jury report personally, I am shaken. Unless you are familiar with the shame and humiliation of a situation like this–even if you are familiar–the sheer quantity of these attacks… beyond words. Had any Penn State staff understood the thoughts running through this man’s mind, this comment would’ve started “As a current toddler…” Anyone who knows that the sexual abuse of children is occurring and acts so callously as to downplay it and sweep it under the rug has no place in modern society. That’s as nicely as I can put that.
With as much emotion and sympathy as I harbor for the young men who’ve endured through this, it pains me to read the bickering and finger pointing I’ve encountered in comment threads like this. And while it is normally in my nature to grab my trident for a healthy round of devil’s advocate with the popular and most often intelligent opinion, I cannot help but side with Joe Paterno in this matter. I’m about as far removed from sports as a sociable college male can get; I will not rally for a few chants of WE ARE… at the end of this post. If you’re going to scrutinize the choices he made in reference to the 2002 incident, be thorough enough to consider this: He wasn’t thinking about slandering Sandusky, he wasn’t concerned about his career or standing in the community. The decision of if/when/to whom this should be reported wasn’t calculated with pro’s and con’s.
When you’re told that your long time friend and ex-coworker was just seen sodomizing a defenseless 10 year old in the showers, you won’t believe it. To accept that statement at face value and accept it as truth, your psyche has to take the blow that you have been duped by this monster for the 28 years you’ve spent trusting and working with him. You could grow up on a diet of humble pie, and that’s still a mouthful you will choke on. It will surface in your conscience as confusion, disbelief, some anxiety. Without a precedent model of behavior, the default heuristic comes into play. Under stress, when forced to make a rapid and uninformed decision, you default. You turn around, find the man/woman in charge, and point the problem in the right direction. And once that person turns to you and confirms that he/she will handle the situation, you consider it done, because it’s easier and less stressful. You’re human, don’t forget it. This doesn’t automatically qualify you as a cold child-rapist empathizer.
To provide a small anecdote: I witnessed a man, shorter and lighter in build than myself, run out of a restaurant he had obviously just robbed. I will tell you, the thought of chasing him down and exacting justice… all sorts of macho satisfaction. That’s the American spirit right there. But the first real thought that came to mind was: When I do catch him, then what? Am I going to beat him, take the money back for the owner, tie his wrists with my shoelace and wait for back-up? You can say its the more morally correct choice, but in context, it’s absurd. I walked into the restaurant, asked the owner if they were alright, left my phone number if they needed a witness, and left. Should I be blamed for the robbery?
I don’t even blame Curly and Spanier. They’re motives were probably more aligned with self-preservation, and they did violate the law, but they obviously lacked the understanding of scope we have before us. They’ll pay whatever fees and sentences they receive, and continue on their merry way, Sandusky will die lonely and miserable in isolation wherever they decide to stick him. I can’t say everyone’s happy, but at least they’re accounted for.
Thanks…a terrific contribution to the discussion. I’ve posted it as a Comment of the Day, and have a response tthere.
Are you serious? That post made NO sense. Is this an ethics website? There is no equating a robbery with child molestation.
Nobody should be making up excuses to turn their backs on defenseless children. That is just as sick as everything else going on here. If you receive any information from someone seriously saying someone was molested, it is the least you can do to report it to the police. Anything less makes you a morally bankrupt coward. In light of the serious nature of these accusations, the person who should have been the top priority was the VICTIM! Not yourself or anyone else at that time. Do not play this brainwashed card or whatever. It is not always easy to do the right thing, but that is what makes it the right thing to do sometimes. This was an all too real situation that required action not debate.
1. I disagree with the post, as you ill read if you go to the Comment of the Day. It is still an interesting take.
2. Trying to see a situation from the other person’s perspective is an ethical analysis tool.
3. The post does not equate robbery with child molestation,. he is talking about intervening in ongoing crimes.
To tell you the honest truth, I wasn’t aware of the purpose of this site when I posted. Somehow linked here, I saw a topic I have a strong but ever-changing opinion of, and I gave “my two cents”, as stated. I’ll be modifying and making clear my standpoint in response to yours and Jack’s input later this evening. That said, it was not my original intention to provide an excuse for ignoring the sexual predator in their midst. I was attempting to propose a possible explanation through which the recognition of his behavior never came to fruition.
I think that was clear, Kevin. In ethics, we need to all have opinions capable of “ever changing.”
If U criticize Paterno then U should start criticizing the mother of the abused. From the stories I’ve read, the child’s mother knew what happend but didn’t report it to police. She has more of an obligation to report the incident to police then a football coach who never even meet the child. Lastly, no one rallied in support of child molesting. Paterno didn’t molest anyone – typical fraudelent reporting.
What kind of logic is that? I have to first criticize the mother for conduct before having license to flag Paterno’s breach of ethical duty? So what if she has “more” of an obligation—he still has an obligation. I’m tired of correcting commenters like you who willfully misundersatnd the obvious. Thepoint is that students can’t cheer an individual while he is being scored for serious misconduct without appearing to either dismiss the importance and significance of the misconduct, or advocating that there should be no consequences for it. If you cheer Charlie Rangel, for example, you cheer all of him, corruption included.
It’s not a hard concept.
And if I can take the time to respond to your comments, you can take the time to spell out “you.” This isn’t Twitter.
Penn State Rallies for Victims — at least some Penn State folks are doing the right thing. (Not that this excuses the ones doing the wrong thing.)
Pingback: Ethics Dunces: Penn State Students | Ethics Alarms | Michelle Tackabery