We Are?

People are often inclined to jump to conclusions, and quick to condemn, especially when the target of the contumely is a figure or institution that has largely cultivated a pristine image. Perhaps the most recent example is the demise of Tiger Woods. His situation turned out to be worse than originally reported, but the amount of glee that was expressed at the notion that his wife had attacked him with a golf club was both typical and indicative of the dark side of popular opinion and mob mentality.

The situation at PSU is dark and ugly, and one component of the coverage has been driven by the despicable tendency of people to relish the unmasking of the hero - in this case, the institution and its most recognizable faces. I submit the notion that the same set of circumstances, transplanted to OSU or the University of Miami at the time of their other scandals, would have been treated somewhat differently. The crimes would have been just as heinous, but the temperature and the haste of the reaction would have been tempered by the public's ability to react as if they expected such bad behavior from places and people who were already sullied by past events. [I mean no disrespect to either of the two universities - I mention them only because they have most recently been scandalized.]

At this time, and with the current level of disclosure of information, I am comfortable in drawing a limited number of conclusions. Jerry Sandusky is most likely a monster. People who knew, suspected, or should have suspected this were derelict in fulfilling a human duty to protect children from a monster. I leave out the legal duty on purpose; some things are bigger than the law. A confluence of circumstances tempted some weak men into believing the unbelievable - that even though more than one person knew a 'secret,' their skill, their hard-earned reputation, and their fidelity in maintaining a lie through their silence and inaction would be enough to keep the secret hidden.

After that, I don't know what happened at Penn State. I don't believe Mike McQueary's version of events. If I suspend my disbelief long enough to accept that he saw Sandusky sodomizing a ten year old, ran away from the scene after making eye contact with the monster and his victim, waited an extended period of time before reporting the event ot someone, then provided a graphic account to the head football coach, a man identified by his efforts to run a clean program, and to act decisively when faced with behaviors that ran contrary to the motto, Success with Honor. To accept McQueary's account, I have also to believe that the head coach then provided a delibberately opaque or sanitized version of events to his bureaucratic superiors, who in turn further obscured or bleached the account, thereby providing themselves with a way to delude themselves into believing that they could camouflage/bury or purchase the squelching of the truth. I have further to believe that McQueary then proceeded to support the monster's various fundraising events in his official capacity of football coach at Penn State.

In case this begins to read as a defense of anyone, please review the things I think I do know in paragraph three. Quickly, there was a monster; people should have known about the monster; same people found an excuse for ignoring the existence of the monster.

I can't accept McQueary's account because it doesn't make sense. I initially read the McQueary was 23 years old at the time, and while youth doesn't excuse a decision to run, I know that psychological studies show that people faced unexpectedly with horrific situations often cower in fear and do not intervene. Finding out he was 28 at the time changed everything. Why would a 28 year old confronted with the scene need to seek his father's counsel at all. What advice would/did his father give? You mean to tell me that after running like a sissy, the 28 year old needed his father to convince him to go see the head coach? You mean that the coward consulted with his father, then suddenly transformed into the intrepid whistleblower and provided graphic, chillng testimony about a boyhood hero (the monster) whom he now had the courage to identify as a sadistic pedophile? The more likely behavior of such a mouse of a man is to talk with his father about how to expose the crime and ease whatever was left of his impotent conscience, while simultaneously assuring that

he, himself, would never have to face the monster.

You have probably deduced that I think McQueary is a different kind of monster than Sandusky, but I think that he is nonetheless a monster. I don't know what he told Joe, but I am fairly certain that his consultaiton with his father wasn't dedciated to determining how to tell the graphic truth. 28 year old men, even if the term 'man' is a misnomer, do not need coaching in how to tell the truth. If they are truly men, they don't need counsel with parents to decide whether to tell the truth. 28 year old pantywaists need to consult with mentors when they want to avoid responsibility or hide from difficult decisions.

Paterno in my mind is not protected. I confess that I cannot reconcile the image I have had of the man with the actions/behaviors that are embedded in this story. I don't believe that he was a doddering fool who ceased being abe to coach many years ago, and that he has been merely a figure head for years. Nor do I believe that he is a product of hubris who was brought down by his fatih that he, or the institution, or the football program are/were bigger than the human directive to prevent harm to children. I am sure that Joe has plenty of ego, and that he can be conned into believing that he is as important as the syncophants sometimes make him out to be. However, I cannot reconcile the current account of him as a co-conspirator with 60 years of benevolence, integrity, altruism, and success with honor. People want to limit this situation and his downfall to a selfish decision to protect himself and the program (and the university). Yet this wasn't a single decision made in the the heat of the moment. The lie had to be maintained for years. If the Paterno image has/had even one scintilla of validity, the man could not have facilitated the cover-up. Again, it does not make sense. Here I defer speculation and conclusion to the facts that will ultimately be disclosed.

Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are somewhat in the same boat as Paterno, in that their actions don't jibe with the carefully cultivated images that the public had of the leaders of PSU. A large difference though is that they were the people who had to have made a calculated decision to enable the monster. They did notify the Second Mile. They did ban the monster from campus in the most wimpy manner possible. They don't make those calls or those decsions without acknowledging that their concerns were serious enough to do so. Subsequently, if their concerns were serious enough to do those things, they are then serious enough to turn over to law enforcement. Even notification of the university police that Schultz administered would have led to an interview with weeny McQueary, who would have had another chance to handle himself properly. Paterno would also have completed a statement detailing exactly what McQueary said to him before 7 years had passed. Likewise, we would have written statements from Schultz, Curley, and Spanier.

Bigger than all of this, had Curley, Spanier, and Schultz been genuine leaders, we would probably have had the monster arrested and contained long before now.



.