Paterno and the duty to report
What did Joe Paterno know and when did he know it?
And what was his duty based on what he knew, and did he shirk it?
I won’t mince words here: what is alleged to have taken place at the hands of Jerry Sandusky in the Penn State locker room in 2002, the anal rape of a child, is a terrible sexual crime of great magnitude. If Paterno knew that had happened and had any part in covering it up, he shirked his duty in a major way and his firing is a mild punishment.
Of course, even Sandusky himself is innocent until proven guilty. But the allegations in the grand jury indictment against him are compelling (and revolting), and seem to point very strongly towards guilt (a witness, many seemingly independent reports of other instances of Sandusky abusing children and using a similar m.o. in some of the cases). But even if Sandusky is innocent—which does not appear to be the case—that would not affect Paterno’s duty to report when he got word of the allegations of child rape.
And therein lies the conundrum: what word of child rape did Paterno get? He says he was told something much more vague—that something untoward and inappropriate but only possibly sexual happened in the shower at Penn State, involving Sandusky and a male child:
…[E]ven if the grad assistant [who reported the offense] in question, Mike McQueary, was too traumatized or intimidated to tell Paterno the unfathomable particulars of what he saw (and we’ll see how that story develops), Paterno knew a naked Sandusky didn’t belong anywhere near a naked grade schooler in the shower.
In his original statement on the case, after denying that McQueary informed him of “the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report,” Paterno went on to concede that “it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky.”
The former defensive coordinator stands accused of something that “inappropriate” couldn’t begin to describe. Sandusky was indicted on felony charges of sexually abusing eight boys, and experts believe the damage inflicted on child victims in these cases can be everlasting.
However, no one alleges that Paterno knew about the other victims. But it is indeed the case that, had a proper investigation been launched at Paterno’s request in 2002, at least some of those victims—the ones who came after the incident of which he had been informed—might have been spared their terrible experiences.
What did Paterno do when he was told whatever he was told by McQueary? He launched an internal investigation—within the athletic department—hardly worthy of the name. And that, I think, is where his major wrongdoing lies.
Why not tell the police? Why not tell Child Protective Services? And why such tepid findings resulting from the internal investigation, given the extreme nature of the allegations? One cannot help but think there was a coverup, at least on the part of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz:
Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, the school’s vice president for business and finance, were charged with perjury and failure to report the allegations. Curley and Schultz each face up to seven years in prison if convicted…
Pennsylvania law requires that anyone who comes into contact with children in the course of their employment to report evidence of abuse to “appropriate authorities.” Failure to do so is a third-degree misdemeanor.
The statute specifically lists teachers, nurses, doctors and child-care workers, among others, as those required to notify authorities when they suspect children in their care have been molested.
Paterno apparently followed the letter of the law by telling Curley about what McQueary had witnessed. But if Paterno had notified law-enforcement officials once it became clear university officials had not shared the allegation with police, Sandusky may have been arrested, sparing at least one of the boys whose abuse was detailed in the grand jury report.
Paterno does seem guilty of extremely poor judgment and excessive trust in the internal mechanism of the university, and a simple lack of common sense. He had no legal duty to report to the police, but he should have done so:
Penn State football icon Joe Paterno probably adhered to the letter of the law when he told the school’s athletic director – but not the police – that former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky allegedly sexually abused a boy in the Nittany Lions’ locker room in 2002.
But attorneys familiar with child abuse statutes say that while the venerable college coach may not face criminal charges, he is hardly an innocent bystander…
Paterno issued a statement late Sunday that said he “did what I was supposed to do with the one charge brought to my attention.”
But he also claimed that a graduate assistant who told him he witnessed Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in a locker room on the Penn State campus “at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report.”…
“After learning that school officials were not reporting the matter to police, Joe Paterno should have reported it himself,” [attorney] Garabedian said. “It is simply common – and ethical and moral – sense.
Agreed.
Perhaps Paterno wanted to protect his beloved Penn State and the athletic department there (although Sandusky had stopped working for the university in 1999 and was no longer an employee at the time of the offense). Perhaps Paterno was naive and didn’t believe Sandusky capable of anything so terrible. But there’s no “perhaps” to the fact that Paterno committed a terrible lapse of judgment in not reporting the allegations to the proper authorities—which were most definitely not the athletic department at Penn State.
I can see where he might have reported it to the university higher-ups – at first. But when they didn’t take action he should have called the police, or CPS, or at the very least the child’s parents. My son is also 10, and this one hits home.
“experts believe the damage inflicted on child victims in these cases can be everlasting.”
Wow. Good for the experts. dem are sum mart peeple.
Should have gone down there and checked… with a baseball bat. You just don’t let some things pass.
C’mon, people, nothing to get moralistic about, it’s just an alternative lifestyle, that’s all. (I trust a /sarc tag would be superfluous.)
As you say, a lot depends on what Paterno knew and when he knew it, but I will say this: why all the focus on Joe Paterno? Everyone from the eyewitnesse(s) on up bear responsibility. But as far as Paterno is concerned: if you heard–not witnessed yourself–that somebody you once worked with–and have no current authority over– committed a crime, would you move heaven and earth to have them prosecuted? It was probably difficult enough to pass the allegation on to the people who should have done more.
Just trying to make it understandable.
It’s not reasonable to expect the graduate student to pursue the case given the power differential between him and two coaching legends (Sandusky and Paterno). He did report it the next day and Paterno reported to his supervisor the day after that. Given his stature and clout, Paterno could have easily told the AD or president to report to the police when nothing happened after a few weeks.
This type of thing is quite prevalent in organizations of all kinds. Someone reports that an old friend is doing something unethical, maybe illegal. (This could be anything from sexual harrasment, sexual predation, cooking the books, selling company secrets, etc.) The first thought is, “Gosh, I know and like this person. It just doesn’t seem in character for him to do something like that. He’s got a career and this may not be what it seems. Do I want to sick the wolves on an innocent man? Well, it is bad enough that I need to report it and let higher ups decide what to do.” The report is passed along and when nothing happens, the reporter, Coach Paterno in this case, thinks to himself, “Hmm, nothing has happened so they must not have found anything.” And life goes on.
It appears that Curley and Schutz may have decided there was nothing there without doing a thorough investigation or they didn’t want to involve the police because it would soil the school’s reputation. Who knows at this point what their exact motivations were. Certainly very bad calls on their parts.
Like I say this goes on too often in all kinds of organizations where criminal/unethical conduct goes unpunished or is swept under the rug. That is why I’m pleased to see that heads are rolling and that even a legend is not immune to being held responsible for his conduct or bad judgment when it is injurious to others.
The athletic department at my old alma mater has been embroiled in a series of scandals (sex, money, gambling, etc.) going all the way back to the 60s. Often the result has been to contain the scandal and few in postions of responsibilty have had to own up to their part. So, scandals keep happening. That’s why this move by Penn State gives me hope. Maybe better, more responsible days are coming.
I’m shocked that the then grad student, now receivers’ coach, who actually witnessed exactly what was going on is still allowed to coach. Sure, Paterno deserves the boot and a tarnished legacy for not following up on whatever story he may have been told, sugar-coated or not, but this junior coach has lived with what he saw for 9 years and said nothing more…and is allowed to continue working at Penn State?
And from the “Things that would be funny if the crimes weren’t so heinous” Department, Sandusky’s autobiography from 2001 is actually titled, “Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story”.
http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320967229&sr=8-1
Some things are 100% worth losing your job for. Why didn’t the grad student scream, yell, physically interfere with what he saw?! Grab the kid and try to get him away?!
I think there is an instinctive response that ought to kick in, and I don’t know how that response is totally squelched in people except to attribute it to placing self above everything else, and that choice is evil.
tnxplant: I think shock might explain it.
What is the matter with you people?
You can’t let the fact that a boy was being anally raped by a coach get in the way of winning a football game.
Get your priorities straight, will you?
I would insert a sarcasm tag here, except that my take on the matter is exactly that: anything and everything that stands in the way of the common goal of a winning season can be subjected to moral relativism.
Even the sight of a boy being raped by a grown man.
Whatever punishment is meted out by our system of justice will pale in comparison to the judgement these monsters will receive from their Creator.
…from their Creator.
Who is doubtless embarrassed.
Barry Switzer quote:
“Having been in this profession a long time and knowing how close coaching staffs are, I knew that this was a secret that was kept secret,” Switzer said. “Everyone on that staff had to have known, the ones that had been around a long time.” “You think that a 13-year assistant … hasn’t told someone else?” Switzer said. “His wife? His father? People knew. The community knew.”
Taken from the Blue and White blog.
Tonight I watched a young lady from Penn State plead for the football team and all the good that Coach Paterno for the school.
I wonder if she would have been so passionate if she had been the victim of a rape.
I watched a video of some of the demonstrators. I saw one fellow in a white sweater screaming is head off. I wonder if he would be so positive if it had been him in that shower.
And they say that human life is more precious than money.
I think the whole thing says a lot about the worth of a modern college education.
I have so many questions after reading the indictment that I wish I had not read it.
What exactly did Sandusky’s wife think her husband was doing in the basement bedroom with the boys when the boys stayed overnight in her home?
Why did all the parents agree to let their sons stay overnight? Sure, Sandusky wanted to take the underprivileged kids to events early the next morning. But why didn’t the parents offer to drop their kids off early on the morning of the event? Why were the parents so passive in their kids activities? Why didn’t they ask the kids detailed questions about their activities while under Sandusky’s supervision which may have clued them in to what was going on?
I can understand how one, two, or even a few of the boys might be intimidated, embarrassed, or ashamed to come forward. But only the kid who came home with wet hair after having showered with Sandusky indicated anything inappropriate happened. And even with him, the indictment reads like his mother had to pry it out of him.
She reported it to authorities and an investigation ensued in 1998. During the investigation the police eavesdropped on a couple of phone conversations between Sandusky and the kid’s mother. Sandusky essentially admitted he had touched the boy in the shower (I think he said he gave the kid a “bear hug”). He practically admitted to molestation and told the mother that “he wished he were dead”. Yet no charges were filed? Did the police or the boy’s mother notify university officials their star assistant coach had been investigated for pedophilia? If so, why didn’t they fire him on the spot and let him sue for wrongful termination? How could this have gone on for so long under so many noses without anybody knowing or being strongly suspicious? It just doesn’t add up, IMO.
Finally, why have the father’s of those boys allowed Sandusky to continue to breath our fresh air?
So many questions remain unanswered with this sad tale. And I’m afraid there’s more sordid details yet to come out.
I just read the whole indictment. The grand jury stated that they believed Curley and Schultz were lying when they said the grad. asst. had not told them it was sodomy; and that, to my mind, indicates that we should believe Paterno either, when he claims the witness just said that the monster was just “horsing around” with the boy.
Liar.
AND the indictment says there was a lengthy investigation of Sandusky in 1998, when he was still coaching under Paterno, for child molestation. So yeah, the old man had to have known of his depravity.
Near the very end of the indictment, one of the 8 victims testified that Sandusky’s wife and one of Sandusky’s supporters tried to contact him about “something very important” right before all this came out. Sounds to me like the wife knew about it, too. And was trying to cover for the monster.
People are really unbelievable sometimes, you know?
And re Scott’s point: the “Second Mile” charity that Sandusky was involved with was to help underprivileged boys who didn’t have a father, or much of anyone else, to give a damn about them or protect them.
That he would prey on those defenseless little ones: ranging from age 7 to 13, for God’s sake — is all the more horrifying. But they would be perfect prey for such a monster.
And yes, Paterno did know about the 1998 investigation of his then-subordinate. He had to know.
Thing is, they all (except for the luckless graduate student, who was the only one who kept telling the truth) knew about the nature of this creep and covered for him, to cover the university’s butt. Stacked against the alma mater, the little boys who were raped didn’t matter a damn to them.
I would say further, that only someone living under a rock thinks that a pedophile, particularly one as old as this guy, is satisfied with one encounter. They had to have known that this was extremely likely to have occurred before.
Their response? simply to make sure that he didn’t do it again in the university locker room. Presumably he was free to prey on children elsewhere, as far as they were concerned.
Lastly, I don’t buy that Paterno had little or no contact with/awareness of this guy: he had been in the running to succeed the old man. You feel me? A protege, known to have been investigated in 1998, and now again in 2002, and no lights went on?
And there’s word on the street that a LOT more victims are out there, still to be heard from.
I can’t help thinking about Kevin Jenkins and NAMBLA as I read about this. On one hand you have hypocritical perverts and their enablers and on the other, perverts who openly campaign for their “rights.” How screwed up are we?
Neo, I agree that shock could explain that grad student’s initial failure to intervene to help that child — but it doesn’t excuse it. If what the grad student saw was as damning as I have heard, then the only acceptable response is the one tnxplant described.
This is reminding me painfully of the incident in China I commented about in a thread a few weeks ago (I’m sorry, I can’t remember which one.) This was the situation in which a two-year-old was run over by a truck and then ignored by some 15 or 20 passersby and run over again before someone finally helped. At the time, I thought such a thing couldn’t happen here. Well, guess what.
Paterno’s moral and ethical obligation was to get back involved if, in a short time, it was clear there was no investigation. And not to be passive. To be active in determining if there was an investigation.
Sandusky had baggage and should have been watched. Places which don’t watch people with baggage sometimes get sued because “they had to have known”. Insurance guy told me that a “beware of dog” sign means you know the dog is bad and that increases liability if the dog bites. Sort of an analogy. Should have known or couldn’t not have known.
When I played lax, I had an injury and went to the school’s jock doc. Told me I could play when I could climb stairs. I could, but with some pain. So you’re okay, then, he said. Nuts to him. I didn’t have a scholarship.
Ran into a guy played football for the same school twenty years before I was there, dealt with the same jock doc. All messed up orthopedically, stemming, his orthopedic guy said, from being made to play with novocain instead of taken out of the game. The military is less shy about using up their human material than big school programs. So the question, program vs. kid?, kid vs. program? isn’t going to be viewed as if it were you.
I’ve heard of, not seen, studies where combat sport jocks and soldiers, or the alumni of such, are far more likely to respond usefully in an emergency even of the kind for which they are not trained. So to suggest McQ was paralyzed by shock might be true, but less likely to be so than for a non-jock/soldier.
clarification: The military is more reluctant to use up its human material than are Division 1 programs. Combat is necessary and casualties are inevitable and the first goal is the mission and then the troops. But commanders are gradedin part on how few casualties their troops suffer. If you get a bunch of guys killed doing something that looks as if it could have been done better or doing something that looks as if it needn’t have been done at all, you have a problem in your efficiency report, presuming you aren’t relieved on the spot. Coaches….
Mrs Whatsit: shock was an explanation, not an excuse.
But it’s different from that China situation you mentioned, because McQueary was the only witness. I put the highest responsibility on McQueary, therefore, to report to the proper authorities, even though he was lower down on the hierarchy than Paterno. Only McQueary knew the absolute truth of what he saw with his own eyes; the rest could more effectively use denial.
Which, by the way, is also just an explanation I’m offering, not an excuse, for Paterno and the rest and their failure to do enough. And if McQueary’s explanation to Paterno of exactly and precisely what he saw was too vague for Paterno to understand, Paterno should have queried him more and gotten the full story, even if Paterno was embarrassed and upset to hear it.
Perhaps….Paterno was a pedophile also, these perverts run in packs. The whole atheletic department could very well have been anal/orally raping children for years each covering for the others.
While McQueary’s behavior was cowardly and inexcusable, I don’t believe the focus should be on him as much because what he witnessed was far from the first known incident. It is likely that this was going on for years and that a *lot* of people knew about it – that is why Sandusky “retired” prematurely in 1999. Ultimately the blame for letting this go on so long belongs to the school administration and especilly Paterno. Sandusky reportedly was using school facilities *THIS YEAR* for crying out loud.
Penn State alum here and also former prosecutor in Centre County. I am inclined to believe Paterno that he was not told the full extent of what the grad assistant witnessed. The eyewitness did not intervene and did not call the police. He went to his father that night, and they went to Paterno early the next day. It seems believable that someone who was so indecisive and in denial at that time would also be vague in his report to Paterno.
Paterno reported not only to the athletic director, who had the authority to change Sandusky’s access to facilities, but also to the vice-president, who had authority over the campus police.
By the time that the grad assistant was questioned by those authorities, it was an official investigation as far as he was concerned and so he told the full story. They are the ones who are most culpable for suppressing this horrible crime.
I wish the grad assitant and JoePa had done more, immediately. Paterno said that he terribly regrets not doing more, and I believe that too.
Rigel Dog–I believe that Paterno regrets only that he got caught. Notice, for instance, his statement of a few says ago that he and his wife would “start” praying for the victims.
To me this says that until it was a convenient, very public way to demonstrate his sorrow at what happened–something he thought it would be “good press” to say, he never gave these kids a second thought, they were banished from his mind, buried, but now disinterred to try to save his reputation and, perhaps, keep him out of the dock.