The legendary football coach Joe Paterno was laid to rest this past week, with his passing reigniting the recent debate over whether he could or should have done more to protect young boys from sexual abuse. Despite the fact that it's his former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, facing over 50 counts of child sexual abuse, the public's venomous wrath has focused on Paterno. The few comments he made about the situation, before succumbing to lung cancer January 22, have been ridiculed as seeming incredulous.
As a sexuality educator, I have not been surprised by Paterno's explanations about his reactions to Sandusky's alleged activities and how he fulfilled his legal obligations of reporting what he learned to his superiors. Like it or not, his statements are reflective of how most individuals, including his critics, would respond.
"He didn't want to get specific."
In an interview with the Washington Post, Paterno explained how assistant coach, Mike McQueary, had come to his home one Saturday evening in 2002 to inform him that he'd seen what looked like inappropriate touching or fondling between Sandusky and a young boy in the shower at Penn State's Lasch Football Building. Many have criticized Paterno and McQueary for not discussing the details of what McQueary saw.
Reality check: How easy would it be for you to talk about sex with your superior or employee, especially when there's a 50-year age difference and power dynamic involved? Despite rampant popular press discussions about sex, it's still hard for individuals of all ages to talk about sex. Whether it's two lovers, a parent and child, teacher and students... most people do not have the comfortability and language to effectively communicate about sexuality, especially when it involves a matter causing anxiety and distress, and accusations against people who you know and respect.
So it should come as no shocker that these grown men did not get into the nitty-gritty of what took place, especially since Paterno described McQueary as having been upset. Like it or not, their lack of discourse is the norm. Often starved of sexuality education, let alone any forum in which to learn about sex communication, most people don't have the lingo, confidence, or ability to have sex conversations. The end results: miscommunication and a failure to adequately address problems.
"To be frank with you I didn't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. "
It has only been recently that people, namely younger generations who are fortunate enough to get a taste of sexual assault prevention education, have become aware that males can be raped. Consider that it is only in the last month that the FBI changed its definition of rape, announcing that it will include the rapes of men and statutory rape in its official statistics (for its annual Uniform Crime Reports). Until now, it only counted the "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
Given the generation that Paterno is from, it's understandable that any rape awareness he might've been exposed to only focused on women. Regardless of age, both males and females have a hard time grasping how a male can be raped since he doesn't have a vagina. Add to this the fact that a successful child sexual predator is characterized as clever, secretive, charming, pleasant, engaging, skilled at reassuring that nothing is wrong, an expert at giving a convincing facade... and many end up getting duped on who can do what to whom.
"I didn't know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn't work out that way."
Ever hear of the PLISSIT model? Used by therapists and health care practitioners to assess and manage clients' sexuality, this assessment is grounded in professionals making referrals when they're out of their league in handling a situation. Failure to refer, let alone try to address a matter where one has no training, background, or expertise, would be considered unethical.
So why is Paterno being faulted for the fact that he didn't follow-up more aggressively with his superiors or the police about Sandusky's alleged activities? Like so many other professionals in so many other fields, he did the right thing, trusting that his superiors would be better able to handle the situation than he could. It's not his fault that they didn't.
"So I sat around. It was a Saturday. Waited till Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors... I had never had to deal with something like that. And I didn't feel adequate."
Many have thrown harsh criticism at Paterno for not acting right away. While a heroic, Superman response would've been ideal, it's just that -- a fantasy. And maybe it should stay so given that levying sexual abuse charges against somebody is a huge deal. Any misstep could end up ruining innocent lives if the accused isn't guilty.
Between processing the shock of the situation, the wave of emotions unleashed, and a plan of action, it was right of Paterno to "sleep on it." Isn't it Proverbs 19:2 that reads: "Enthusiasm without knowledge is no good; Haste makes mistakes"?
"In hindsight, I wish that I had done more."
This statement doesn't incriminate Paterno any more than it should anyone else. When it comes to sexual assault of any kind against anybody, almost everybody could say the same. Everyone should be saying they could've done more to prevent sexual abuse.
"I don't want to walk away from this thing bitter. I want to be helpful."
Despite the fact that Paterno was terminated via phone after over 60 years of service at Penn State, he and his wife, Sue, continued their generous philanthropy, donating another $100,000 to the school in December. In spite of people brutally questioning a life he'd defined with honor, academics, and sportsmanship, he chose to be positive. How many people could say that?
Follow Dr. Yvonne K. Fulbright on Twitter: www.twitter.com/YvonneFulbright
Furthermore, doesn't Penn State have mandatory human resource classes for all its managers/supervisors to educate, inform and reduce liability to its institution? Was Paterno given a pass from the class or did he skip it on his own? Sounds like Paterno took a "hot potato" approach, tossing it to some one else and washing his hands of it, without following up.
He wanted to be a manager and managers have greater responsibilities that come with the title, especially when it comes to expectations of your own staff, and protection and exposure of kids of your program, no matter your age or popularity. Paterno negated his own greatness by making excuses for lack of follow-up. The tell tale is his statement that he "might jeopardize what university procedure was". Sounds more like "jeopardize my university program."
Penn State officials made the right decision in firing Paterno.
Yes, he did meet the minimum by reporting the sexual abuse to his supervisor, however, he fell short of doing the most important responsibility of his life: protecting children. A higher standard of conduct is expected of great men and women, not just meeting minimum standards.
Paterno said he was all befuddled by "rape of a man" and didn't know what to do. That was the response of someone who probably was required annually to attend mandatory training on reporting abuse. Yes he reported the abuse, but was that an afterthought, or a default response to something he was afraid would jeopardize his program, with less concern for the children? Was he wearing blinders to the devastating effect to the victim, that he didn't follow-up?
A crime had been committed, reported to him as a supervisor and you say it was okay to do only the minimum required by policy? Where was his morale compass?
Everyone who could've but failed to help past victims and future ones is complicit in hiding the crime. Character make great men and women, not just narrow attention to a sport. Paterno didn't meet the standard defining great men and had to go.
Our children are truly in trouble if those in positions of authority are allowed the defenses offered in this piece.
In spite of rhetoric, the incident did not constitute an emergency. Calling 9-11 would need a location and victim for an emergency. There was no victim, ambulance or fire. Should they go to the showers or Paterno's house? Contrary to what some want, this was a crime, not an emergency. Therefore it required reporting up the chain of command to someone who could launch an investigation.
2 missing pieces - an anal rape was never reported to Paterno. McQueary has already testified that he was vague and watered down what he told Paterno "out of respect" (straight from the preliminary trial). And after the 2002 incident Sandusky was told to never bring Second Mile kids on campus again. McQueary has also testified that he never saw Sandusky with a child on PSU campus again (straight from the preliminary trial). Paterno did not see Sandusky often nor were they friends.
As far as offbeat is concerned, it really frustrates me that she is so not willing to put herself in Joe's shoes. You said it perfectly when you said,
'And maybe it should stay so given that levying sexual abuse charges against somebody is a huge deal. Any misstep could end up ruining innocent lives if the accused isn't guilty.'
Think about it, he really had to make sure everything in his head made sense before he took it any further. I mean, it wasn't like McQueary had JUST walked in on the alleged abuse and there was a chance the abuse was still going on in the shower, OR, Sandusky was holding a kid as a hostage in his basment and every second counted.
Again, I really wish people would think about it from Joe's perspective. Furthermore, We know joe followed up with Mike on at least 3 occasions. It would have been more, however, he stopped after Mike told him he was 'happy with how the investigation worked out and that he was happy with the outcome'. That would tell me (and Joe) that there must have been an misunderstanding.
Anyway, thank you for your common sense (as well as professional) article.
He only suspected that there was sexual contact.
The Grand Jury report also omitted the testimony of Dr.Dranov, who asked McQueary 3 times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no. At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution objected repeatedly to keep McQueary from answering questions about what he told Dr. Dranov.
I think the bigger scandal may turn out to be prosecutor misconduct by the Attorney General's office, which may even involve the current PA governor, who was the previous Attorney General.
McQueary said that he heard "slapping" before he saw Sandusky in the shower with the 10 year old boy. Everyone knows what that naked slapping sounds like, and you know what was happening. Stop bringing Dranov into it. McQueary wasn't under oath to Dranov, and McQueary didn't know Dranov's association with Paterno.
There are plenty of scandals here, and all the guilty should go to jail, but Paterno could have been a man, gotten the truth, and started an investigation, and he made a conscious decision to let everybody know to squelch it
McQueary wasn't under oath to anyone until he testified before the Grand Jury about 2010 so your comment makes no sense.
Dr. Dranov was a McQueary family friend and a physician, who should have been familiar with rules for reporting suspected child abuse.
I would like to see McQueary asked if he had ever heard male-on-male anal intercourse sounds before to justify his identification of the 2-3 slaps as that kind of sound. The slapping sounds may have come from someone else in the building, perhaps a janitor mopping the floor or a person listening to music with headphones and clapping their hands.
Or the sounds could have been from Sandusky and the boy horsing around.
Using his age as an excuse for not understanding male on male rape is absurd. This didn't happen in 1920. This happened in 2002. Mr. Paterno, a devout Catholic, had most certainly been aware of the Catholic church scandals.
McQueary never should have been faced with having a difficult conversation regarding rape with Paterno because he should have gone to the police immediately. However, when he chose to go to Paterno instead, it was up to the elder, more experienced, smarter man to call the police immediately. Again, Paterno had a choice to make and after pondering the situation, he made the decision to tell his superiors and wash his hands of the whole ordeal.
The conversation between the two made an impression on Paterno. He admitted in his interview that McQueary was "very distraught over what he had witnessed." How do you simply let that go? If this isn't normal behavior for McQueary, wouldn't you wonder why he was acting so distraught if the situation wasn't dire? But, hey, just report it and be done with it. You did everything required by law and you can rest in peace knowing you weren't obligated to do anything else. I'm glad I don't live by the moral compass of Joe Paterno or any of the Penn State administration, or sex educator Dr. Fulbright.
I'm truly sorry you took offense and feel I was "attacking" you. That wasn't my intent. I was giving my opinion of a situation and showing that there were other ways to look at it. My degree isn't in psychology so it seems by your standards I shouldn't have an opinion. You seem to be fine with all those that have supported your article that do not have the same "expertise" that you have. But I am called into question for my moral compass, convictions, and beliefs because I disagree with you?
My father is one year younger than Paterno and he was well aware of the fact that men could and did rape little boys in 2002. He was appalled by Paterno's inaction (and the inaction of ALL those involved) and wouldn't have rested until he followed up and felt everything was done that could possibly be done. Not all 80+ y/o people would react the same way as Paterno, thankfully.
I'm sorry you feel it is wrong to "hide behind an anonymous identity." Would providing you with my full name, address, and first born make my opinion more worthy in your eyes? I'm guessing not so what would be the point?
You probably missed some facts, because they didn't make the splashy headlines. Paterno didn't "simply let that go." He talked with McQueary, to see if he was ok with the follow-up. In addition, Curley cirlced back to Paterno. That is a matter of public record, in the testimony. Also remember, Paterno didn't have the knowledge of additional charges against Sandusky at that time.
Reasonable people can debate whether Penna. law and institutional policy (in schools throughout PA) should be changed, but going beyond this is not necessarily more moral. Paterno had no right to know the details or status of an investigation, as he was neither a witness nor a victim.
There were indeed people with both the moral and legal means to stop Sandusky (Raykovitz, Corbett). Look beyond the headlines . . . your moral compass may point in a different direction.