Ugly truth

A scathing report on Penn State’s decision to cover up reports of child sexual abuse should be a cautionary tale for other universities and athletic department officials.

A report issued last week concluded that some of Pennsylvania State University’s “most powerful leaders” failed to properly respond to reports of child sexual abuse by a member of the football coaching staff “in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity.”

It turned out not to be a winning strategy.

The recent conviction of former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky on 45 criminal counts of child sexual abuse has severely damaged Penn State’s image and the legacy of several top officials, including the late Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. The cost to the university’s reputation, however, pales in comparison to the price paid by Sandusky’s victims. If university officials had responded properly to the first reports of improper behavior by the coach in 1998, they could have saved who knows how many boys from Sandusky’s abuse. Eight victims came forward to testify at the coach’s trial, but how many others were involved?

Former FBI director and federal judge Louis Freeh was hired by Penn State trustees after Sandusky was arrested to investigate the university’s handling of the scandal. In his report, Freeh concluded that senior Penn State leaders showed a “total disregard” for the safety and welfare of the children victimized by Sandusky. The report singled out Coach Joe Paterno, former president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and former senior vice president Gary Schultz, who, it said, “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse.”

It also focused on the revered Penn State football program and long-time coach Paterno for allowing Sandusky to retire in 1999 as “a valuable member of the Penn State football legacy,” providing him with the honored status that allowed him to continue to manipulate and victimize children.

It’s hard, even in hindsight, to imagine what was going through the minds of Penn State leaders who chose to sweep this scandal under the rug. It’s hard to fathom their lack of concern for both past and future victims of Sandusky’s abuse. How could they justify not reporting him to the police? Was the university’s football program such a sacred cash cow for the university that it became more important than the boys being abused by Sandusky? If officials had fired Sandusky and filed a police report in 1998 or 1999, the abuse might have ended and university leaders would have gained credibility for dealing with the situation. It would have been a dark chapter in Penn State’s history but nothing like the fallout the university is suffering now that the ignorant and callous behavior of some of its top officials has been documented.

The only positive aspect of the Penn State case is that it may serve as a cautionary tale to other universities and athletic programs that may be tempted to hide something that might reflect poorly on their reputations. It acts as a reminder that hiding the truth only makes it more ugly in the end.