OK, I think I've got the jist of this. This is a dark topic, so, no ray of sunlight here.
First, full disclosure: I'm an alumnus of Penn State. I've been to close to 100 games, travelled all over the country. I also spent the grand majority of four years at University Park doing many things completely unrelated to football- beyond sharing a university affiliation. That said...
I'm not defending the university. The university will and must suffer for the events that transpired. I'm a hypocrite and a coward... but then so are you.
The first issue here is always- and always should be- the alleged victims. No university charter in the U.S., and I'll project in the world, allows for the sexual assault of children by former employees, or for that matter current employees. When something was known, it should have been treated with seriousness. From the accounts that we have in the public domain, several public institutions including the university failed to take appropriate action. This is bad enough, but then when confronted with information the lead representatives of the university went silent, fired some people, then went silent again, before they started begging. In today's day and age, that's just suicidal. They may have been private citizens, but they work for a public institution that receives a (small) portion of operating revenue from the state. They failed to represent themselves to the taxpayers, and those taxpayers have a right to demand accountability.
But was the first priority the victims? For all parties, the answer is no. ALL parties.
The State's Attorney did not put the children first. The State's Attorney had this grand jury testimony for 10 months and could have easily gone public then. She could have made the grand jury a spectacle, and honestly there is no media outlet that wouldn't have seized on this story the moment it broke. Instead, the facts remain that they waited until a pivotal football moment had passed and then, on a Saturday when the football team wasn't playing, they broke the story. It is difficult to conjure a reason for that precise set of events beyond posturing, aligning the cameras just right so that they look serious about crime. "Pay attention to me, I'm an attention whore that needs to shine for my next political office." If it was so serious, why not slap the warrant on Sandusky the day the indictment was received? No, we waited, because closure for the children comes second to a goddamn photo-op.
The media did not put the children first. Arguably, the media are second only to Sandusky in being creepy and disgusting. Saying that they failed to do their job is an understatement, because they willfully neglected to do their jobs and have potentially committed libel and slander en masse. The media reported the basic news, added inappropriate and biased adjectives intended to enflame the readership, then proceeded- and continue to even today- take a sanctimonius high horse about how it's all about the football team, and not about the students. Stuart Scott's now (in)famous for the "Don't you get it?" line for the post-Paterno firing riot. Well, considering the media is in fact the media, they had every ounce of power to make the story about the victims. They still do. And they do not- they abdicate the position because they can't. The victims have to remain anonymous by law. Even still, the media could have run story after story about child abuse, brought prominent sociologists to explain the phenomenon of child abuse and why it's so hard to find. The media didn't do that. No, they willfully and purposefully focused on the alleged criminal and the system for which he was previously employed, then tut-tutted about the affiliation and made members of the university guilty by association, potentially committing libel and slander. To Mr. Scott- yeah, I get it. Completely. You want to be Keith Olbermann, but you don't have the chops and you're old news. Come back and tell me how you and your leaders in sports entertainment handle the Syracuse affair when that's all clear- haven't heard about that in a while.
The non-affiliated public did not put the victims first. No, actually, many of them that were vocal parroted the spoon fed drivel of the media, then sat at home and barked about how big a badass they are on the internet and how they would have kicked Sandusky's ass, and about how "everyone knew." Since you obese mouthbreathing morons know everything, you certainly know that the reason many high-profile sex offenders have so many victims is because they are masters at keeping their offenses secret. Obviously you know that, because the number of people picked off the street for child molestation is really, really low. On top of that, a very high proportion of child sex abuse victims are related to the abuser. You just choose to ignore all these facts, and the fact that you may very well have had a sex abuse victim in your family, because you totally would do something about that. No, you chose the path of least resistance to express your anger- and where did it go? At the alleged criminal! Where were your donations to child abuse charities? What did you do to help the victims? Speak on their behalf? Please! If you actually got off your ass and went to the university to protest, you didn't even protest for the kids- you protested against the coach, the assistant, the football team, and the university. I was there, I read the signs. But the real icing to this was "how everyone knew." If this were politics you'd be fitted with a tinfoil hat and given a free corkboard to tack all the articles to outline your conspiracy. And if everyone did know? They need to go down, which I've not disagreed with from the beginning. But spare me the armchair social conscious drivel. Your faux chest pounding likely supports a culture that allows child sex abuse to flourish.
The affiliated public did not put the victims first. No, it's very clear that the affiliated public can't seem to let go. It's all about Joe. They had to be shocked into giving to the charities- after the firings, the riot, and the news- and even then (and to this day) it's about how it was wrong to fire Joe. Even if I agree that it was wrong it won't bring him back, nor will it change the fact that there were children vicitmized and that there's a giant festering maw of filth where your university leadership claims to be because the leadership chose to protect themselves. The default position was to rally around the team and the Great Experiment, and treat the victims as if it were another THON this year. At least the affiliated public stepped up, tried to make things right- but the victim's weren't first and still aren't.
Joe didn't put the victims first. His mind was always about the university and the team. I have to wonder why no one has taken the plausable angle that Joe didn't take action because the charge, the statements were so incredible that they defied belief. What would you do if a high school student said to you "I don't know, but I think I just saw your best friend molesting a neighbor's kid. Just saying..." That's pretty much how the grand jury testimony read. Don't kid yourself that you would have stood up and gorilla raged and beaten the crap out of Sandusky, or called the police, or anything like that. You would have had the same shock and disbelief he did, and then you would have defaulted to your most programmed behavior. But to ask an 80+ year old man to drop everything and rage against a lifelong friend on behalf of kids he may only have met in passing? Kiss my ass. You wouldn't do it now, why would he?
The team didn't put the victims first. But of all the people here, they had the hardest choice of all. Do they stand up for a moral justice and quit a team, lose a scholarship, and leave the program and ultimately the university because someone that they may have met once or twice molested children before they arrived at the university? Or do they stay, endure the endless stream of media feces, finish the job they committed to like goddamn men, and then assess their options? I know for damn sure none of the spineless cowards that talk trash, whether in the media or regurgitating the media, would have taken the principled stand. Talk about the kids? After the way the media treated the students and the university, do you blame them for keeping their mouths shut? I will not venerate the team, but I will respect them.
The university most definitely didn't put the children first, or second, or third. No, what became evident after bowing to public opinion was that they used the opportunity to bolster their own careers. One Board of Trustee member was made Athletic Director, another acting University President. They took action without consulting the faculty senate, and may have broken equal opportunity and labor laws by placing themselves in positions of power. Then they threw anyone affiliated with the scandal under the bus. Politically, it was the right thing to do- but none of the people involved save two were accused of crimes. The university then comes out with the Board's puppet and goes to tell alumni that "it's ok, we're serious about helping kids, we're gonna do all this stuff with the university for kids." Reality check? No one believes you, and your credibility is shot until your role is this scandal is investigated and vetted in the public circle. Might have believed this was about the kids... if you hadn't laywered up and gone silent before acting like a corporation.
And the Judicial System didn't put the children first. They didn't because they can't. They received enough evidence to convince a grand jury to go to trial. But in our hyperventilating, we seem to have forgotten some key elements about law and court. For instance, the evidence in a grand jury trial is not challenged by defense. It may be incomplete, out of context, or outright wrong... or worse, it may have been obtained illegally or denied a citizen his constitutional rights. But the grand jury wouldn't ever know that. The grand jury hearing is conducted by at State's Attorney in order to get maximum bang for the buck- so it's scripted to sound as bad as possible. But somewhere in this system, an accused person still has the right to due process. They still have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers, and they still have the right to challenge the evidence. And I still believe in that heavily flawed system, and it would not be outside of the realm of possibility that the police or the AG made a basic blunder so big that Sandusky would walk. "If the glove don't fit..."
It is so easy to watch the gullible in our society be pulled around by the nose, told by the media with the barking dog AG that "he is bad" and how anyone that was remotely affiliated with them "doesn't get it," and there's a great nodding of heads around the country. You really, really want to help the victims? Destigmatize sex. Seriously, foster open discussions about sex, make it so that you understand that sex is not just for the young and beautiful. All humans have the potential for a sex drive, and if that is abused, insulted, and repressed, it can manifest in ways that are damaging to society. Allow kids to hear open, honest discussions about why people want to have sex- not to be pornographic, but to understand that it's one aspect of humanity. Stop writing laws that parse sexuality into age groups and approach statutory rape with common sense. Accept the fact that sexuality turns on biologically at puberty, not at 18 like a light switch. Most importantly, shine a giant light into every corner of the world where a sexual predator of children would prey.
Make sure the victims are taken care of, then rip out the culture of secrecy at the university. You don't need to kill the football team to do it, either. Just start with those responsible... those at the top. But spare me the 'holier than thou' routine, because you're likely a hypocrite and a coward... just like the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment