Opinion

Opinion

Penn State finally did the right thing

November 16, 2011

Advertisement

So they did the right thing. Belatedly.

You might say that is better than failing to do the right thing period, but it comes as meager comfort to those who have watched the Penn State scandal unfold and wondered how a moral imperative as obvious as a gorilla in church could have been missed by so many. It is all well and good that the campus was reported to be chastened and numb at Saturday’s football game, that there were a moment of silence and expressions of remorse for victims of pedophilia. But none of that erases, nor even addresses, the most pressing question:

Why did it take so long?

There seems to be some confusion over what one should do if, as allegedly happened at Penn State, one becomes aware of a pedophile sexually assaulting a child, so let us clear that up. Here, step-by-step, is what you do:

(1) Make the pedophile stop, preferably by putting him — or her — forcibly against a wall.

(2) Resisting the urge to put said pedophile through said wall, make sure the victim is OK.

(3) Call the police.

If the rules require you to notify a superior first, allow said superior a reasonable amount of time to call police. Fifteen seconds is a reasonable amount of time.

None of this happened at Penn State. Not in 1998 when a young boy’s mother told officials her son had been inappropriately touched in a shower by assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Not in 2000 when a janitor says he saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy in the shower. Not in 2002 when a grad student alerted the school’s iconic football coach, Joe Paterno, that he had seen Sandusky rape a 10-year-old in the shower.

Sandusky denies these accusations. In a surreal interview with NBC’s Bob Costas, he admitted to “horseplay” and to showering with boys, but insisted he’s done nothing wrong.

Prosecutors say otherwise. Sandusky faces a 40-count indictment and new alleged victims are coming forward. Two school officials were also indicted. Last week, the school fired Paterno, the face of its football program for nearly 50 years, for not doing more to stop the abuse. Students reacted by rioting, tearing down lampposts, fighting with police, overturning a news van.

“Of course we’re going to riot,” Paul Howard, a 24-year-old student, told The New York Times. “What do they expect when they tell us at 10 o’clock that they fired our football coach?”

You wish such moral obtuseness was rare. It seems instead general.

And you wonder what it is that allows people to so easily forget what should be most important. Like Catholic Church officials who failed to stop pedophile priests, Penn State seems to consider its well-being the matter of pre-eminent concern.

But what matters here is not the school’s reputation.

It is not “JoePa’s” legacy.

It’s the children, stupid.

As a society we talk a great game about how important young people are to us. Yet how often do we confront moments of blinkered morality — from the child welfare agency that fails to protect the child’s welfare to the pedophile who gets a pass — that argue otherwise?

It is all our jobs to protect all our children — period. And yes, it was good that Penn State stood up for Sandusky’s alleged victims Saturday. But sometimes, doing the right thing belatedly is the same as not doing it all.

— Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His email is lpitts@miamiherald.com.

Comments

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

"'Of course we’re going to riot,' Paul Howard, a 24-year-old student, told The New York Times. 'What do they expect when they tell us at 10 o’clock that they fired our football coach?'"

You wish such moral obtuseness was rare. It seems instead general."

Well, Leonard, for once I agree with you. Your OWS pals fit your description perfectly.

grammaddy 3 years, 9 months ago

It takes a village to raise a child, not the village idiot. Too little too late.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 years, 9 months ago

And now the "graduate assistant" Mc Quiry is changing his story. He is making statements that are altered from his "testimony" to a grand jury. A grand jury that has indicted another Penn state coach (rival?). I said at the time this whole thing hit the floor that it had the distinct odor of dead fish. No one has been tried yet, no one has been convicted in a court of law and yet there have been careers destroyed, people destroyed and huge damage done to a great uinversity by the ravenous media pile-on to this story. It will be most interesting to see how this all plays out and what it tells us about hysterical and paniced responses to heresay, rumor, and false testimony,.

somebodynew 3 years, 9 months ago

Well, if I had any doubts first I go by the Grand Jury testimony. Then to erase all doubts, Sandusky gave that interview. I think he took notes from Michael Jackson's interview a few years back. No a good plan in my book, but then I am not his attorney.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

"I think he took notes from Michael Jackson's interview a few years back."

Maybe when Sandusky finds it hard to sleep, he'll hire Jackson's former personal physician to help out.

jaywalker 3 years, 9 months ago

Puhleeze. The grand jury testimony is not "heresay (sic)" nor rumor. Multiple parents going to authorities, multiple people catching Sandusky in despicable acts, multiple accounts of him acting like a jilted love when a kid cut ties with him, multiple people in positions of power turning a blind eye to repeated incidents........... cop a freakin' clue.
And the careers, people, and university were destroyed not because of the media, but because of their indifference and criminal behavior. Not a one of 'em has it one-tenth as bed as just ONE of the victims.

jaywalker 3 years, 9 months ago

"as bad".....not "bed". Freudian slip, I guess.

jaywalker 3 years, 9 months ago

Then he's referring to his own fiction and that of the new reports. The GA's story hasn't changed, his email to a friend contradicts what's being reported and the account read into the grand jury. The explanation of McQueary's accout in the grand jury was merely entered into evidence; it was not direct testimony from McQueary.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.