And I agree. It is a shame.
It's even more a shame that the most respected, the most revered, and the most powerful man at Penn State -- a legend who had built up more good will than any living figure in all of Pennsylvania -- did the bare minimum when someone who had no motive to lie reported that a ten-year-old boy had been sodomized by an ex-coach permitted to use the PSU football facility.
Paterno admitted yesterday he could have done more: "This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
It wasn't necessary for multiple PSU officials to call the police, but somebody needed to do it, and Joe Paterno, of all people, needed to make sure it got done. Joe Paterno could have added even more accolades to his massive reputation if he had "done more."
But it didn't get done. No one called the police. And this morning, Joe Paterno -- not the PSU Board of Trustees -- is the author of his own discontent. What JoePa did wasn't illegal, but he was given a chance to help a little boy, and perhaps many other little boys, and he did the bare minimum.
So what did some PSU students do last night after Joe was fired? They did what too many college students have done since time immemorial: they failed to think rationally, and they reacted out of misplaced anger by rioting. See the photo above -- that's from last night. They were very upset that Joe had been fired. Did JoePa attempt to quell the rioting? Or was Joe flattered by it?
Let's make one thing clear: this is False Rape Society. We do not engage in rushes to judgments. Jerry Sandusky, the ex-coach accused of sexual improprieties with boys, deserves the presumption of innocence and the full panoply of due process rights granted by the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
But we also preach that allegations of sexual misconduct need to be taken seriously. That means reporting allegations to police and letting them investigate.
We can't plausibly insist that the purported rape epidemic is exaggerated, and then in the next breath, condone situations where a serious allegation is not reported. We can't insist that "rape culture" is a fantastic construct of the sexual grievance industry, and then condone a very high profile incident where a serious allegation of rape is tolerated and swept under the rug for years. We can't plausibly insist that women who are raped have a duty to promptly report -- as difficult as that often is -- if we excuse powerful university officials from that obligation.
Joe Paterno was the trustee of little boys' dreams. He dishonored that trust, and now he has to pay for it.
ADDENDUM: I am adding a screen capture from the Grand Jury report to show that the police WERE NOT involved in this matter.
Posts
24 comments:
"But we also preach that allegations of sexual misconduct need to be taken seriously. That means reporting allegations to police and letting them investigate."
Actually, no. In a world where it's so easy to be convicted, as a man, of sex crimes even when innocent, you do NOT have a moral obligation to report every accusation to the police.
All you're doing here is feeding into the politically correct bullshit, the same bullshit that says women cannot rape men.
Joe Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation by reporting it to his superior which is all that was required.
From Wikipedia: On November 7, Pennsylvania state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said that Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation to report suspected abuse, although "somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child,"
See? They're assuming that because there was an accusation, it actually happened. And that's exactly what you are supporting by publishing these articles.
Why don't you do what this site is supposed to do and point out that it's not okay for Noonan to assume the guy is guilty based on one accusation?
Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation to report an ALLEGED ALLEGED ALLEGED sex crime in a world where to the police an ALLEGED ALLEGED ALLEGED sex crime against a man equals a REAL REAL REAL sex crime against a man. Therefore if he had doubts about it, he fulfilled his moral obligation as well.
Get your focus back.
Bad, because Joe didn't go to the police (which would have blown it wide open), we are instead left with yet another high profile cover-up of an alleged sex act that only gives credence to people who claim we live in a "rape culture," where rape is swept under the rug and tolerated; indeed, encouraged.
You are condoning actions that are akin to the very thing that feminists claim occur all the time. I call this an aberration, because it is. But it is an aberration I can't ignore it, because I lose all credibility if I do.
If the men's movement wants to claim there is no "rape culture," we need to condemn those aberrational instances where alleged rape is tolerated and swept under the rug.
"In a world where it's so easy to be convicted, as a man, of sex crimes even when innocent, you do NOT have a moral obligation to report every accusation to the police."
Well, I don't think I can have a rational discussion about that, now can I?
But I do agree it was just an allegation. But a serious allegation -- coming from someone allied with the football program who had no reason to lie.
That's where you an I differ: I don't want false rape claims, and I don't want to see our 10-year-old sons and daughters fucked by middle-aged men.
I'll copy paste what I said at Reddit. Do realize I feel a little sick that we're arguing over this and I may be being a dick, but I don't think I'm wrong. So I hope we can still remain on good terms.
What I'm saying is it isn't an example of "rape culture". The media certainly is painting it that way, and the public at large would certainly like to get all up in arms about it, but that's not what it is. There is no "rape culture". This is not an example of "rape culture". If there was a cover-up - and though you cannot call what Joe did a coverup, perhaps his superiors did, I don't know enough about the case to say - if there was a cover-up, it was not "rape culture", it was for other reasons. People don't do things because they *just love rape*. So if Joe's superiors actually did cover things up, rather than just find the accusations flimsy, which I suspect, then it's because 1) they didn't want a scandal, 2) they didn't want the school to be harmed by such a scandal. That's it.
And unless they found conclusive evidence that he did something, then the REAL reason they didn't look into it further is that they know that any child sex abuse scandal, whether true or not, would harm the school. If we lived in a world where you could hand over such a case to the police and expect them to actually treat the case fairly, and expect the public not to over-react and call for a lynching of the accused and a boycotting of the school, then I'd say it would make a lot of sense for Joe and other to report it right to the police. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where men are considered guilty and the public will demonize even the innocent. So why should Joe and his superiors contribute to that?
You're claiming to be against the false rape culture we have today, but at the same time you're throwing victims of that false rape culture (Joe) under the bus. In a perfect world, Joe's choice would have been easy. All he would have had to do was weigh the loss of Sandusky vs the possible rape of a child. But that wasn't his choice. He had to weigh in the possible destruction of a man, probably a friend, who even if innocent, would be destroyed. If he *knew* the guy was guilty, do you really think he would have kept his mouth shut? Come on.
Joe didn't know whether the accusations were true. He allowed his superiors to do their job. He knows that accusations of sexual assault do not equal sexual assault, which is why it isn't relevant if "the prez told him Sandusky was banned from the facility". Do you think Joe is gone because he thinks he did something wrong? I don't. I think he's gone for the same reason Sandusky was banned from the facility - public relations.
Hey I feel like Johnny Cochran. *Joe didn't know! Joe didn't know!*
And yes, I believe Joe when he says he wishes he had done more back then. But hindsight is 20/20, and that's still under the assumption that Sandusky is actually guilty. Perhaps Joe now believes he is guilty because of all the accusations. If Joe thought Sandusky was guilty back then, I'm sure he would have "done more".
>FRS's title?
The heading. "For the men and women falsely accused of rape." I'm Jay.
P.S. Steve, get ready to take over the blog. I think I've had enough. What I just witnessed on Reddit--I, and this blog, were strongly attacked for having the audacity to take a stand against a rare instance where serious rape charges were pushed under the rug for years -- is likely the tipping point. Don't bother looking for it, I removed it.
I have had feminists call for me to be brutally raped; men's righters pissed because I had the temerity to actually welcome women to the community of wrongly accused; and now this.
I say this with all due respect: I don't need the aggravation. I don't make a penny from doing this blog. I estimate I've sacrificed more money than most people make in a year in lost billings. And I have plenty of other things I'd rather do.
I am wrong sometimes -- Futrelle has even caught me once or twice -- and when I am, I retract it. I am not wrong about this. And if this movement wants to be taken seriously, it had better learn to insist that the delicate balance I always reference -- between punishing rapists and making sure innocent men aren't punished with the guilty -- is respected. If we don't, we are no better than our screeching adversaries who see no need to proect the presumptively innocent.
Good luck to all.
Archivist:
For what my opinion is worth, I sincerely hope you find it within yourself to continue this work. It is obviously difficult and extremely nuanced at times, yet utterly necessary.
I applaud your stance here.
To Bad:
I don't know the laws in PA, but they are essentially the same nationwide. Educators have the same mandate to report suspected child abuse as those in my field. It isn't up to us to know/not know, merely suspect or have someone report it to us. You may disagree that it's a moral obligation, but it is a legal one.
Jay, you should have told me it was you at the outset. I understand where you are coming from, and I do respect you, you know that. Both of us can get pretty heated. Let's agree to disagree about this one.
Andrew, thanks for the kind words.
If you could publish this comment, I believe it adds to the discussion:
http://thatlawyerdude.blogspot.com/2011/11/strong-defense-of-joe-paterno-why.html
(comments by the author Anthony Colleluori are also interesting)
Yeah, but he's full of shit if he equates the civilian college administrator who "heads" the police with the police. Trust me, I have first hand experience on that issue. Besides, this wasn't a university employee -- campus police shouldn't be involved. Bottom line: somebody needed to call police, and nobody made sure it happened.
A message from Interim Penn State President Rodney Erickson
This is one of the saddest weeks in the history of Penn State. It has been difficult to comprehend the horrific nature of the allegations that were revealed in the Attorney General's presentment last week. As a member of the Penn State community for 34 years, as a parent, and as a grandfather, I find the charges as they have been described to be devastating, and my heart goes out to those who have been victimized and their families. This is a terrible tragedy for everyone involved, and it will take some time to bring a measure of understanding and resolution to the community.
In addition to the legal process under way, Penn State's Board of Trustees has authorized a full investigation "...to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible, and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable." As those involved pursue their cases, I also urge you, as Penn Staters, to be patient, to avoid speculation, and to refrain from passing judgment until the facts are known.
As you are now aware, the Board of Trustees has asked me to serve as the interim president of Penn State effective immediately. I undertake these duties with a firm sense of resolve, and I ask for your support as we move forward. And move forward, we must and we will.
Penn State has a long and storied tradition that has endured for more than 150 years. Our roots are deep, our constitution is resilient, and the importance of our work is as vital today as it was last week - perhaps even more so in the face of such adversity. We are 96,000 students, 46,000 employees, and more than a half a million alumni. We are 24 campuses across the Commonwealth and a World Campus. We are a university that is committed to its core values of honesty, integrity, and community. We are a university that will rebuild the trust and confidence that so many people have had in us for so many years.
Through your conduct every day, you can play a role in restoring the integrity, honor, and pride that have always characterized Penn State. I share your anger and sadness in this time, but always remember that your actions reflect on the entire Penn State community. Please set an example that will make us all proud. Moving forward is the only responsible course to take in the coming months. I ask for the full support of our faculty, students, staff, and alumni, and in return I will do my best to lead this institution through the challenges ahead.
Thank you for being a part of Penn State.
Read the full story on Live: http://live.psu.edu/story/56307#nw44
Is it really a person's moral duty to report second-hand an accusation to the police? It may be pretty convincing, but if I didn't know for sure that an accusation were true (basically, if I were a witness to the crime), I don't think I'd feel comfortable reporting it to the police. At most I would probably drive the original accuser to the police station if they needed someone with them for moral support or something.
Maybe if you're just the average Joe (bad choice of words) -- average Jim off the street, there is no duty. But when an alleged rape occurs on your company's property, and one of your subordinates comes to you with no reason to lie, there's really not a choice.
I wish we could all separate the fact that too many women lie about rape from the fact that some people are raped. We shouldn't let our anger over the former interfere with our duty as human beings with respect to the latter.
Why did he only ban jerry from taking boys into the locker room?-If you think someone is in danger enough that you won't allow them to be with children then you really need to call the police,-I'm with you Archivist.
If you admit you could have done more then you probably could have done something more.If you admit that you did do something wrong like Joe has,You probably DID do something wrong.Archivist,You've got it right!-Please continue this blog,We love you!
My only problem with this is that a graduate student walked in on the rape happening. He didn't pull the man off, he didn't call the police, he called Daddy. Surely, I think the most blame should be placed on that man...Not the coach who heard the second hand story and reported it to the admins. Where's the outrage at the witness and the admin?
Archivist is spot on in his assessment. From my perspective, the Penn State scandal represents the opposite end of the sex abuse allegation spectrum.
On one end, you have what is for a lack of better words on my part, witch-hunts that are routinely reported on in the False Rape Society.
On the other end, you have Penn State. Where school officials allowed a man in Sandusky to hang around despite previous allegations of inappropriate conduct with young males as far back as the mid-90's. This guy was a problem and no one lifted a finger to do anything about it.
This ranks just ahead of actually seeing sexual abuse and doing nothing about it. Oh wait, that applies here too. Assistant coach Mike McQueary said he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a young male yet did not attempt to intervene or call the police.
Contrary to popular belief, he did not inform Paterno. McQueary called his father who told Paterno (and McQueary still has his job).
JoePa deserved to be canned. He did not do enough to protect these young boys. While he fulfilled the legal requirement of notifying his supervisor, he did not meet the moral obligation putting an immediate halt to Sandusky's behavior on the Penn State campus.
In the realm of education, whether one is a teacher, coach, or administrator legal and moral requirements/obligations are not mutually exclusive. Failure to meet both or one contradicts every lesson taught.
What disturbs me most about this scandal is that the young victims have been virtually lost in the media finger pointing and scapegoating.
Criticizing one extreme while condoning another is hypocritical. Advocating for victims of false rape allegations is no more important than advocating for true victims of rape regardless of gender.
Brandon, beautifully stated.
It is astounding to me that we constantly preach the necessity for that delicate balance (punishing rapists and insuring the innocent aren't punished with them) and nobody complains, but when we actually do a post touting the necessity to maintain that balance, we are attacked. And then we become as bad as the rad feminists.
P.S. I've added an excerpt at the end of the post from the Grand Jury report that belies the nonsense that the 2002 incident was ever brought to the attention of the police, even though it was reported to the civilian at the university who "oversaw" the police. As someone very familiar with the way universities are run, that means nothing.
Nonsense. I don't know where you people are getting your misinformation, but McQueary (what's in a name?) informed Paterno himself, which was later backed up by McQueary's father. JoePa informed *his* superiors. That is the absolute end of his moral and legal obligations. It was the duty of the superiors to involve the police. Everyone wants to beat on JoePa because he didn't run around with his hair on fire screaming that there were heinous acts of buggery and bum-drilling of little boys going on. In fact, this was all second-hand news and rumor to JoePa. He could have been spreading rumor and been liable for slander. You gits just can't get over that. If anyone had a moral obligation to inform the police, it was McQueary, and yet, that joker is now the coach! Nice attempt at getting the righteous indignation and moral righteousness points, blogger. Stick to what you know, not what you surmise.
Just try to imagine if that were your son in the shower with good old Jerry, and JoePa--the most powerful college football coach in America--chose to do the bare minimum instead of helping your son.
Yep. Great guy, that Joe.
Keep up the good work!
And you are spot on with this : It's even more a shame that the most respected, the most revered, and the most powerful man at Penn State ...did the bare minimum when someone...reported that a ten-year-old boy had been sodomized"
That exhibits some clear headed thinking on your part.
False rape accusers suck, and should be prosecuted--as rigorously as rapists.
When you said " somebody needed to call police, and nobody made sure it happened."
I think you meant : "the people who should have said something, didn't."
There are no activists to protect boys from rape--and even fewer to protect them from maternal incest or other female perpetrated sexual abuse. This creates a climate where ALL men and boys are clueless about sexual boundaries--even Paterno.
I bet he has a personal story behind his decision to keep it 'low'....
I agree with Archivist (Pierce?) and Brandon on this one.
Yes McQueary should have intervened, and he should have gone to the police besides just reporting to his superiors.
Besides this one event, there were numerous other event's surrounding Sandusky, that JoePa had to know something was up. Afterall they did ban Sandusky from bringing children into the campus like he was doing. So they knew something wasn't right.
I just think there were too many instances going on with Sandusky, and too many people noticing things, like McQuery, janitors, perhaps other coaches, and all the other victims, that Paterno had to know something was going on.
Everyone one in that heirchy of command is culpable to some degree, and therefore every single one of them needs to go, including Joe.
After hearing all the horror-stories of men being falsely accused thru the years, my eyes have been opened to problem with false accusations in the West. However, that does not mean that I wish for rapists who do in- fact rape are to be able to get a free-pass. At this point these are still allegations against Sandusky, but if memory serves right from the initial report he has already admitted some guilt (like the 'horseplay' nude in the showers with boys) which leads one to believe he is guilty of more. It doesn't look to convincing that this guy is not what they say he is.
Please keep running the False Rape Society blog, it is a much needed voice for freedom.
Thanks
Very complex topic. Men's righters getting at each other's throats.
If Joe Paterno gets punished or sacked, why not the superior he informed, and the witness of the sex abuse? And whoever else knew something about this.
Looks like they found a scape goat. One famous man.
I am also ill informed: were there more suspicious events, was the identity of the alleged victim found, etc?
The problem why we have disagreement is caused by this fact: in our legal system, everything about sex abuse is wrong
a) as Bad says, anyone accused of abuse and rape is automatically considered guilty. This is wrong.
So there is another famous men's rights activist who says he would acquit any accused rapist.
Reason: there is no fair trial. Evidence is tainted, witnesses are influenced, exculpatory evidence is hidden.
A shocking attitude. Yes. Understandable. Yes.
But of course, the lawyers at False Rape Society can not condone such an attitude. Their goal is to work within the system, to improve on the system.
But right now the system is sick and corrupted and dysfunctional.
And yes, the lawyers on this site have to work within the system and cannot condone total radicalism.
In an ideal world, with due process rights for the accused, everyone would agree that real abusers should be prosecuted.
But, again, Joe Paterno did not commit sex abuse.
He did not even witness sex abuse.
He did not even fail to report the alleged sex abuse.
He only did not pursue it with total vigor. He did not over-fulfill his duty. He did not dedicate himself to oversee the prosecution.
This is enough of a crime to dismiss a highly reputable coach?
From what I know, with all other crimes, failure to report, being a bystander who fails to even intervene, is not such a terrible crime.
Yes, I understand he was not the average bystander, he was some higher-up who should have looked after the children.
But, if he had not forcefully pursued report of some alleged bullying, dunking heads into the toilet, mobbing and beatings and other illegal violent dangerous activities, it would not cause such an enormous scandal.
It is a complex situation, but what makes it more complex is the entire sex hysteria. The sex hysteria makes things worse, not better.
I think a lot of women that were somewhat mistreated don't report, because they would like their boyfriend/ husband to get a slap on the wrist but not years of jail. Here too, exaggerated hysteria prevents sensibly solving a problem.
Bad, because Joe didn't go to the police (which would have blown it wide open), we are instead left with yet another high profile cover-up of an alleged sex act that only gives credence to people who claim we live in a "rape culture," where rape is swept under the rug and tolerated; indeed, encouraged.
right, BUT
we certainly do have a bully culture.
Any act of a boy, or a group of boys threatening another one with violence, or worse, backing it up with pushing, choking, holding, pummeling, is legally a crime.
But these are crimes mainly committed against men. Or sometimes by women against women.
Anyone cares? Anyone makes a scandal out of one single case of serious bullying with "waterboarding" in the toilet, dangerous choke-holds, group slapping, etc?
By these measures we sure have a bully culture. And it is quite likely that one in 4 was threatened or physically shoved by a single bully or a group of bullies.
So if there was hearsay of the same boy getting choked, toilet dunked, pushed and shoved for half an hour, there would be no scandal.
This shows that we have a rape and sex hysteria, but a bully culture.
Post a Comment