Here we go again. Protect the institution, not the kids

[iheartscience]

There's an article in the NY TImes about law enforcement at colleges protecting its athletes at the the expense of victims of sexual assault:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/u...-often-get-off-easy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

An excerpt:

"Ms. Kiss was not surprised by the news of Mr. Paterno’s failure to take further action in the Sandusky case, she said, because she has dealt for years with complaints of sexual assault against football players at big sports schools, where the disciplinary result is often a brief suspension or probation, not expulsion.

The Arizona State case illustrates the possible consequences. A student raped in her dorm room in 2004 learned that the accused football player had been expelled from a summer program for threatening, grabbing and sexually harassing several women on campus. He had been readmitted within weeks at the insistence of his coach. The student sued the university for violating her Title IX rights by creating a “hostile environment,” and in 2009, a court settlement forced university officials to pay the petitioner $850,000, appoint a student safety coordinator and overhaul its policies on sexual assault."

 

[ksinger]

There's an article in the NY TImes about law enforcement at colleges protecting its athletes at the the expense of victims of sexual assault:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/u...-often-get-off-easy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

An excerpt:

"Ms. Kiss was not surprised by the news of Mr. Paterno’s failure to take further action in the Sandusky case, she said, because she has dealt for years with complaints of sexual assault against football players at big sports schools, where the disciplinary result is often a brief suspension or probation, not expulsion.

The Arizona State case illustrates the possible consequences. A student raped in her dorm room in 2004 learned that the accused football player had been expelled from a summer program for threatening, grabbing and sexually harassing several women on campus. He had been readmitted within weeks at the insistence of his coach. The student sued the university for violating her Title IX rights by creating a “hostile environment,” and in 2009, a court settlement forced university officials to pay the petitioner $850,000, appoint a student safety coordinator and overhaul its policies on sexual assault."

Yep. And you know where that creation of entitlement and privilege for football players starts? In the highschools. The pressure on teachers to give special treatment to athletes is intense. Admins falsify records, the whole shebang. It starts EARLY...

 

[Tuckins1]

And for those like me, who like to get as close to the source as possible with these things (I read the Mass Attorney General Report on the Catholic Church scandal, and the entire report on the Dover ID case...nerdy I know), all 23 sordid pages of the grand jury report. It's a tough tough read. And yes, more than McQueary knew about Sandusky. An open secret for sure...

http://www.wltx.com/news/pdf/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

I just read this whole thing. Everybody who was on staff at that time, who heard things or knew directly about this and did NOT notify the police immediately should be fired. Forget about your job, what about the lives of all of those kids?!? They are scarred for life because of some sicko, and plenty of people knew about his "weirdness" and did nothing about it!!! I'm a teacher and I can't even fathom knowing that a co-worker, who has access to unlimited children, was doing things like this and no one would stop them! Un-freaking believable!!!

No, they should GO TO JAIL.

Agreed.

 

[phoenixgirl]

I can't deny that a sense of entitlement was given to kids at the school where I taught - there's no other way to explain that they got to retake freshmen classes that they'd already passed. But I do think the main issue is that those who knew did nothing. Any kind of organization where leaders are respected can breed this kind of abuse - I daresay abusers seek out these kinds of organizations because they give the abuser a cover, a reason to be trusted.

I think I've shared this before here. It's minor compared to what Sandusky did, but I was involved in a non-denominational Christian youth group in high school (not church-affiliated) where the leader was, it turns out, molesting boys. I say it was minor not to diminish what he did, but because he was convicted of "fourth degree" criminal sexual conduct and was only sentenced to probation. I daresay Sandusky's crimes will warrant serious jail time.

Anyway, he was I think 8 or 9 years older than we were, and took the job my sophomore year. He was the only paid staff member in charge of several high schools and leaders. My junior year, my boyfriend who attended a kind of far-away church told me that a boy at his church had made allegations of molestation but didn't want to press charges. The church withdrew its financial support of the organization, my boyfriend's parents quit the volunteer committee that was like the PTA, and my boyfriend wasn't allowed to attend anymore. I knew that the leader had been told not to be alone with students any more, and not to touch them. My boyfriend told me that at camp, this leader would go in the hot tub naked with boys, and long chains of guys would wash each others' backs in the showers. This seemed to be interpreted as some kind of funny horseplay by the guys.

And yet after the ban on being alone with students, I saw that he was still doing it. He would wrestle boys to the ground and give backrubs to both boys and girls while straddling them. And I knew he was still meeting alone with kids. So I wrote a letter detailing my concerns and presented it to my friend's parents, who were on the parent committee my boyfriend's parents had quit. The mother told me that because he was a faithful Christian, he couldn't walk in the light *and* have darkness in him, or something. So that was why she chose not to believe that he could be doing anything wrong. We were all kind of under the impression that he was simply failing to make good choices and be above reproach and was therefore "giving the wrong impression," rather than what is obvious in retrospect, which is that when there's smoke, there's fire.

So this mother had me meet with the leader to present my allegations in person (is that really wise? Again, there should have been a chain of command, a way of dealing with these things, rather than volunteers with minimal influence trying to oversee things). It was decided that he would be moved from my high school to another school, and we would get a new leader (as if MOVING THE PERSON MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE??? WHY IS THAT ALWAYS WHAT THEY DO???). I remember the leader being like, "Yeah, as for your letter, it's fine" in a really snotty way. Like, "I forgive you, but I think you're a stupid b----." So I finished high school and moved on. In college I remember thinking back on this experience and being even more bothered than I had as a teenager (because at the time he was this respected leader and I felt like I was just being a pain in everyone's butt). Finally 7 years after the letter, he was charged with molesting 10 boys over 8 years. I wish I had done more, but I do give myself a pass for being a minor - the adults are the ones who should have followed through. And I blame the organization for being so poorly organized and giving so much latitude to young adults who are not being overseen by anyone.

Oh, and his wife (and mother of his three children) chose to believe that the accusations from 10 different young men from different schools and different eras were just an evil conspiracy against her saintly husband.

Not to derail the conversation here. I just wanted to share my own small experience in the chain of reporting and witnessing how people convince themselves that a trusted person can't be doing something so awful. And how moving/shuffling/putting unenforceable bans on the person is always people's first reactions. I don't want innocent people going to prison because we have a culture of Salem-like accusing, but I would rather that innocent men be investigated and have their every little action examined than that we let the guilty walk around continuing to perpetrate.

 

[ksinger]

I can't deny that a sense of entitlement was given to kids at the school where I taught - there's no other way to explain that they got to retake freshmen classes that they'd already passed. But I do think the main issue is that those who knew did nothing. Any kind of organization where leaders are respected can breed this kind of abuse - I daresay abusers seek out these kinds of organizations because they give the abuser a cover, a reason to be trusted.

I think I've shared this before here. It's minor compared to what Sandusky did, but I was involved in a non-denominational Christian youth group in high school (not church-affiliated) where the leader was, it turns out, molesting boys. I say it was minor not to diminish what he did, but because he was convicted of "fourth degree" criminal sexual conduct and was only sentenced to probation. I daresay Sandusky's crimes will warrant serious jail time.

Anyway, he was I think 8 or 9 years older than we were, and took the job my sophomore year. He was the only paid staff member in charge of several high schools and leaders. My junior year, my boyfriend who attended a kind of far-away church told me that a boy at his church had made allegations of molestation but didn't want to press charges. The church withdrew its financial support of the organization, my boyfriend's parents quit the volunteer committee that was like the PTA, and my boyfriend wasn't allowed to attend anymore. I knew that the leader had been told not to be alone with students any more, and not to touch them. My boyfriend told me that at camp, this leader would go in the hot tub naked with boys, and long chains of guys would wash each others' backs in the showers. This seemed to be interpreted as some kind of funny horseplay by the guys.

And yet after the ban on being alone with students, I saw that he was still doing it. He would wrestle boys to the ground and give backrubs to both boys and girls while straddling them. And I knew he was still meeting alone with kids. So I wrote a letter detailing my concerns and presented it to my friend's parents, who were on the parent committee my boyfriend's parents had quit. The mother told me that because he was a faithful Christian, he couldn't walk in the light *and* have darkness in him, or something. So that was why she chose not to believe that he could be doing anything wrong. We were all kind of under the impression that he was simply failing to make good choices and be above reproach and was therefore "giving the wrong impression," rather than what is obvious in retrospect, which is that when there's smoke, there's fire.

So this mother had me meet with the leader to present my allegations in person (is that really wise? Again, there should have been a chain of command, a way of dealing with these things, rather than volunteers with minimal influence trying to oversee things). It was decided that he would be moved from my high school to another school, and we would get a new leader (as if MOVING THE PERSON MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE??? WHY IS THAT ALWAYS WHAT THEY DO???). I remember the leader being like, "Yeah, as for your letter, it's fine" in a really snotty way. Like, "I forgive you, but I think you're a stupid b----." So I finished high school and moved on. In college I remember thinking back on this experience and being even more bothered than I had as a teenager (because at the time he was this respected leader and I felt like I was just being a pain in everyone's butt). Finally 7 years after the letter, he was charged with molesting 10 boys over 8 years. I wish I had done more, but I do give myself a pass for being a minor - the adults are the ones who should have followed through. And I blame the organization for being so poorly organized and giving so much latitude to young adults who are not being overseen by anyone.

Oh, and his wife (and mother of his three children) chose to believe that the accusations from 10 different young men from different schools and different eras were just an evil conspiracy against her saintly husband.

Not to derail the conversation here. I just wanted to share my own small experience in the chain of reporting and witnessing how people convince themselves that a trusted person can't be doing something so awful. And how moving/shuffling/putting unenforceable bans on the person is always people's first reactions. I don't want innocent people going to prison because we have a culture of Salem-like accusing, but I would rather that innocent men be investigated and have their every little action examined than that we let the guilty walk around continuing to perpetrate.

Fascinating. Thanks for writing all that. Whew! What a tale. But much more common than you think. Churches are particularly bad.

Yeah, I know I've been a dragon about McQeary's part in all this, but initial reaction aside, I'm thinking, that poor guy was DONE the moment he witnessed that. Even if he'd reported it, his career would have be O.V.E.R. He'd have been radioactive in college football. Much like whistleblowers who do the right thing in other industries. And reporting something as incendiary and taboo as raping children?? He wouldn't have made any friends, that's for sure. People just DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THAT STUFF, as you can attest. Like the wife: LALALALALALA! I mean, look at what happened when Paterno was canned JUST with the student body. With your firsthand knowledge of the incredible power of denial - for any NUMBER of reasons, not all of them just monetary, do you think the powers would have THANKED the guy for being more forceful and calling the police? He'd have been out the door in about a nano. I can almost feel his anguish, honestly. Although by not speaking, hey! his career is O.V.E.R. too. But McQeary, like the wife above or anyone close to it, had a BUNCH to lose - like a marriage, or a career. Those are not inconsequential sacrifices for a person to make for another. I'm not defending his choice as correct, but damn, what a tough spot to be in.

And there really IS no telling yet, what pressures were brought to bear on him to shut up and turn his head. Maybe by Sandusky himself, maybe threats of a physical nature? We don't know yet, but I bet we're going to be finding out soon.

As for the infernal shuffling of molesters inside any any organziation, I see it as just another manifestation of denial - If I kick that can down the road, I won't have to deal with it or think about it. Just more of the same. Deny, deny, deny.

 

[phoenixgirl]

I know. La la la indeed. I know a family where the mother had a daughter and then got divorced. Several years later she remarried and they had a second daughter. Then she found out her husband was molesting her older daughter. She divorced him, pressed charges, and sent him to prison. He has no contact with his biological daughter. I think most people are frozen in disbelief and don't know what to do, and never having been in that situation, I can't just say rah rah rah, I would totally see it through to the end no matter what. I just don't know how I would react. I admire her for her courage, for how decisively she acted once she found out. She couldn't protect her daughter while it was happening, but once she knew she could say, that was not OK. YOU are the most important thing to me, and I will see this through to the end.

 

[kenny]

Yeah, I know I've been a dragon about McQeary's part in all this, but initial reaction aside, I'm thinking, that poor guy was DONE the moment he witnessed that. Even if he'd reported it, his career would have be O.V.E.R.

Excellent point.
That 10-year old boy wasn't the only one who got screwed that day.

It's easy and simplistic to just say, "All that matters is the kids so just call the cops", when your own future can be ruined by doing the right thing.

Tragically, our current system gives future witnesses good reason to just look away.

I think the solution is a FEDERAL whistle blower law on child abuse that REQUIRES immediate reporting FIRST to police instead of the org's superiors, and protects the witness from repercussions from the org.

Yes, a few scumbags will falsely report someone they don't like, but IMHO the cost of resolving those cases with investigations is the lesser of two evils.

 

[indecisive]

Yeah, I know I've been a dragon about McQeary's part in all this, but initial reaction aside, I'm thinking, that poor guy was DONE the moment he witnessed that. Even if he'd reported it, his career would have be O.V.E.R.

Excellent point.
That 10-year old boy wasn't the only one who got screwed that day.

It's easy and simplistic to just say, "All that matters is the kids so just call the cops", when your own future can be ruined by doing the right thing.

I think you are right that it is too simplistic. I would think that if I walked in on something like that my first response would be to call the police but how can someone know what they would do? I was listening to the radio about this and they were saying that due to the psychology of the situation the abusers are almost never confronted and/or immediately reported by a witness. Just a terrible situation all around.

 

[phoenixgirl]

I just thought of another example from my life. I'll stop soon, I promise! My first year of teaching, there was another first year teacher. He was mid 40s, socially awkward. He made me uncomfortable because he didn't seem to know how to interact with a 22 year old female and treated me like he was the one in 7th grade. Anyway, we both went to different schools the next year, and then there he was in December plastered all over the local news for allegedly molesting a student. A couple of years later the local newsmagazine did a really interesting piece on teachers falsely accused of abuse. This guy was acquitted of all charges, but this was after ~ the school district gave him the option to resign with a neutral rec or be fired (he resigned); he was on the CPS offenders list for a year; the prosecutor tried to get him to take a plea deal, etc. But even he says at the end of the article that the system has to be in place to protect kids, and the system *did* work. It just took over a year for him to get everything cleared, and he lost his job. He admits that he should have gotten legal counsel immediately instead of waiting until he was charged, but he really thought his innocence would make everything OK. He wryly admits he would never return to that school district, but that he'd like to teach again (though never put himself in the situation to be alone with a student). Assuming he really was innocent (he was allowing a troubled girl to retake a test after school because she said she couldn't study because of home problems - he says their only contact was a high-five, and that the door was open the whole time), I appreciated his perspective that a child's allegations *must* be taken seriously. Why are we so afraid to the let the appropriate entities do their work? Better an innocent person learn to be cynical and cautious the hard way than an abuser walk free.

ETA: He also the media hounded him when he was charged, but no one reported when he was found not guilty.

 

[Imdanny]

A violent crime is a violent crime. There is no way that the academy should be involved in covering one up. Shame on each and every person who knew about it and did not do the right thing.

And football- don't get me started. We have college football coaches being paid (with money that was skimmed off the top of all of us, no doubt, one way or another) millions while we are letting people die in the cold because they don't have heating oil. And don't those people know it's all a feeder system for the professionals? Do they like being used?

Where I'm from we taxpayers built the professional football team a stadium. And then we built them a new one because the one we built them wasn't "good enough" for them. All the while the football players would arrive in the city on their chartered jet carrying tons of Louis Vuitton luggage.

Oh, and while I'm at it- not everything in life is a "team," a sports team, or the "workplace" at a corporation. There are some who can't tell the difference between their "team" metaphor and life.

The whole thing makes me angry.

 

[kenny]

The chronology is getting filled in with more details.

From ESPN:

A chronological look at the case against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, based on a grand jury report in Pennsylvania state court. Some key dates in Penn State football history are included. Sandusky has been charged with 40 criminal counts, accusing him of serial sex abuse of minors:

1969
Jerry Sandusky starts his coaching career at Penn State University as a defensive line coach.

1977
Jerry Sandusky founds The Second Mile. It begins as a group foster home dedicated to helping troubled boys and grows to become a charity dedicated to helping children with absent or dysfunctional families.

January 1983
Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football's national champion for the 1982 season.

January 1987
Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football's national champion for the 1986 season.

1994
Boy known as Victim 7 in the report meets Sandusky through The Second Mile program at about the age of 10.

1994-95
Boy known as Victim 6 meets Sandusky at a Second Mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he is 7 or 8 years old.

1995-96
Boy known as Victim 5, meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is 7 or 8, in second or third grade.

1996-97
Boy known as Victim 4, at the age of 12 or 13, meets Sandusky while he is in his second year participating in The Second Mile program.

1996-98
Victim 5 is taken to the locker rooms and showers at Penn State by Sandusky when he is 8 to 10 years old.

Jan. 1, 1998
Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1998 Outback Bowl.

1998
Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.

Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.

The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.

June 1999
Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status.

Dec. 28, 1999
Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1999 Alamo Bowl.

Summer 2000
Boy known as Victim 3 meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is between seventh and eighth grade.

Fall 2000
A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy, known as Victim 8, pinned up against the wall, performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13.

Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8's identity is unknown.

March 1, 2002
A Penn State graduate assistant enters the locker room at the Lasch Football Building. In the showers, he sees a naked boy, known as Victim 2, whose age he estimates to be 10 years old, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant tells his father immediately.

March 2, 2002
In the morning, the graduate assistant calls coach Joe Paterno and goes to Paterno's home, where he reports what he has seen.

March 3, 2002
Paterno calls Tim Curley, Penn State athletic director to his home the next day and reports a version of what the grad assistant had said.

March 2002
Later in the month the graduate assistant is called to a meeting with Curley and senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz. The grad assistant reports what he has seen and Curley and Schultz say they will look into it.

March 27, 2002 (approximate)
The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky's locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in grand jury in December 2010.

2005-2006
Boy known as Victim 1 says that he meets Sandusky through The Second Mile at age 11 or 12.

Spring 2007
During the 2007 track season, Sandusky begins spending time with Victim 1 weekly, having him stay overnight at his residence in College Township, Pa.

Spring 2008
Termination of contact with Victim 1 occurs when he is a freshman in a Clinton County high school. After the boy's mother calls the school to report sexual assault, Sandusky is barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter is reported to authorities as mandated by law.

Early 2009
An investigation by the Pennsylvania attorney general begins when a Clinton County, Pa., teen boy tells authorities that Sandusky has inappropriately touched him several times over a four-year period.

September 2010
Sandusky retires from day-to-day involvement with The Second Mile, saying he wants to spend more time with family and handle personal matters.

March 2011
Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot-News reports that grand jury is investigating Sandusky on allegations of indecent assault against a teenage boy. The Patriot-News reports that five people with knowledge of the case said the grand jury has been meeting for 18 months and has called witnesses, including Paterno and Curley. Penn State declines comment.

Nov. 5, 2011
Sandusky is arrested and released on $100,000 bail after being arraigned on 40 criminal counts.

Nov. 7, 2011
Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the investigation into how the school handled the accusations. But she refuses to say the same for university president Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz, who have stepped down from their positions, surrender on charges that they failed to alert police to complaints against Sandusky.

Nov. 8, 2011
Possible ninth victim of Sandusky contacts state police as calls for ouster of Paterno and Spanier grow in state and beyond. Penn State abruptly cancels Paterno's regular weekly news conference.

Nov. 9, 2011
Paterno announces in the morning he'll retire at the end of the season, but the university's board of trustees rules later that Paterno and Spanier are out effective immediately. Defensive coordinator Tom Bradley is named interim coach and provost Rodney Erickson is named interim university president.

Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

 

[ksinger]

Interesting-er and interesting-er.

You know, McQeary has been strangely silent through all this. Now an email to a friend, released by that friend on the condition of anonymity, indicates that he DID speak with campus police. However, Penn State, being at the right hand of The Almighty, is exempt from PA's "Right To Know" law, and so it's been hard getting information about who knew what when.

This little development has the potential to blow Penn State completely out of the water. If it can be verified that McQeary DID report to police, and that this issue died on the vine at the police level along with the failures at the administrative level, well, it will mean that the machine closed ranks at every level to protect the school. Who knows what pressures were brought to bear on McQeary by higher-ups or the campus police department itself. If you reported to the police and they did NOTHING and implied that you should really just sit down and shut up, what would you do?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/16/us/pennsylvania-sandusky-case/index.html

 

[kenny]

Interesting-er and interesting-er.

Interesting-er indeed, this story is really unfolding and Penn State is not looking good.

This is a long piece in the NY Times but worth the read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html?_r=2&hp

 

[iheartscience]

Stage College police chief says there's no record of McQueary making a police report, but I suppose that could just mean that they didn't take down any official statements: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45321...ollege-police-mcqueary-didnt-report-abuse-us/

 

[Matata]

If you reported to the police and they did NOTHING and implied that you should really just sit down and shut up, what would you do?

I squawked so loud I nearly woke the dead. And in the end, the right thing was done, the people involved in trying to cover up the situation were fired.

I cannot support the notion that a career is more important than doing the right thing when a heinous situation occurs.

 

[ksinger]

If you reported to the police and they did NOTHING and implied that you should really just sit down and shut up, what would you do?

I squawked so loud I nearly woke the dead. And in the end, the right thing was done, the people involved in trying to cover up the situation were fired.

I cannot support the notion that a career is more important than doing the right thing when a heinous situation occurs.

Not defending it. Musing aloud. Merely pointing out that being a whistleblower is very often VERY consequential to the one blowing. A fact which is acknowledged by the endless whistleblower laws, and conspicuous corporate policies assuring employees that reporting ethics violations or crimes will not be met with retaliation. Those are only necessary in the face of the fact that retaliation is as common as dirt. Pointing out the crimes of superiors or powerful people has gotten people blackballed out of industries, and depending on who you piss off, resulted in some nasty things like physical harm or death.

Yes, it seems that McQueary didn't do as much as he should have, but that hardly makes him unique. I doubt very seriously, that every single person on this board, when faced with that situation, and in the culture he was in, would have be SOOOO much more moral. We like to preen and make ourselves feel better that WE would have done the RIGHT thing, but too many studies, and too much history, tells us a different tale. Statistically speaking, whether male or female, most of us are the 70% in Milgram's experiment who bowed to perceived authority and shocked the person in the other room, to the point of death. Sobering if you think about it for a few.

I have, in the past, (like most people who've been around for more than 15 minutes) witnessed ethics violations. One was the open secret of a number one boss having a flaming affair with number two boss. I saw the two of them out and kissing in a restaurant. It was strictly verboten for this to happen according to company policy (not to mention they were both married. To OTHER people). Did I report it? No. Was if found out eventually? Yes. Are both of them still working for the company? Yes. Enough said.

I realize the Penn State situation is different, far different. But the calculus is done every time one of these things is witnessed. It isn't always a simple thing to decide how far or hard to pursue these things.

 

[Matata]

If you reported to the police and they did NOTHING and implied that you should really just sit down and shut up, what would you do?

I squawked so loud I nearly woke the dead. And in the end, the right thing was done, the people involved in trying to cover up the situation were fired.

I cannot support the notion that a career is more important than doing the right thing when a heinous situation occurs.

Not defending it. Musing aloud. Merely pointing out that being a whistleblower is very often VERY consequential to the one blowing. A fact which is acknowledged by the endless whistleblower laws, and conspicuous corporate policies assuring employees that reporting ethics violations or crimes will not be met with retaliation. Statistically speaking, whether male or female, most of us are the 70% in Milgram's experiment who bowed to perceived authority and shocked the person in the other room, to the point of death. Sobering if you think about it for a few.

I have, in the past, (like most people who've been around for more than 15 minutes) witnessed ethics violations. One was the open secret of a number one boss having a flaming affair with number two boss. I saw the two of them out and kissing in a restaurant. It was strictly verboten for this to happen according to company policy (not to mention they were both married. To OTHER people). Did I report it? No. Was if found out eventually? Yes. Are both of them still working for the company? Yes. Enough said.

I realize the Penn State situation is different, far different. But the calculus is done every time one of these things is witnessed. It isn't always a simple thing to decide how far or hard to pursue these things.

Not arguing, simply musing aloud with you. I'm not in Milgram's 70%. Personal experience forged me into a hardass about this stuff. I know first-hand the consequences of doing what's right rather than doing what's easy. Probably why I ended up working in HR where I took sumptuous delight making sure we towed ethical, moral, legal lines.

 

[vintagelover229]

If anyone has an hour to kill here is a youtube video on the conspiracy of silence that exposes a huge pedophile ring.
It was ban by the discovery channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weSzkIB8184

 

[ksinger]

And the revelations move apace. Is anyone surprised by this development? I'm certainly not. But people have mused about whether reactions might have been different if more women were involved. Perhaps it was more that she was just an outsider. But whichever, it clearly it didn't matter in the end, but you gotta give her points for trying to buck the steamroller. Make of this what you will...it's food for thought at least.

And saved emails. Gotta love 'em....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577052073672561402.html

Dr. Triponey sent an email to Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Puzycki summarizing the meeting and sharing her thoughts and concerns. In the email, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, she said that football players were getting in trouble at a "disproportionate rate" from other students, often for serious acts. She said her staff had tried to work with the athletic department, sometimes sharing information, but that whenever her department initiated an investigation into a football player, the phones lit up. "The calls and pleas from coaches, Board members, and others when we are considering a case are, indeed, putting us in a position that does treat football players differently and with greater privilege."

Dr. Triponey also wrote that Mr. Paterno believed that the school's code of conduct should not apply to any incidents that take place off campus—that those should be handled by police—and they shouldn't be allowed to affect anyone's status as a student.

"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code," she wrote, "despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."

Dr. Triponey ended her note by asking Mr. Curley and Mr. Spanier if these were accurate impressions of Mr. Paterno's views—and whether they shared them.

Mr. Curley's response, also reviewed by the Journal, was sent three days later and was copied to Mr. Spanier. "I think your summary is accurate," it said.

.
.
.

That same fall, Dr. Triponey's office suspended Dan Connor, a Penn State linebacker, who had been accused of making harassing calls to a retired assistant coach. Shortly after the suspension was handed down, Mr. Paterno ordered the player to suit up, according to a person familiar with the matter. Dr. Triponey informed the player that if he suited up for practice, he would be in violation of his suspension and could face expulsion. Mr. Connor says he recalled being suspended only for games, not practice.

The incident prompted Mr. Spanier to visit Dr. Triponey at her home. Dr. Triponey confirms he told her that Mr. Paterno had given him an ultimatum: Fire her, or Mr. Paterno would stop fund-raising for the school. She says Mr. Spanier told her that if forced to choose, he would choose her over the coach—but that he did not want to have to make that choice.