The central allegation in the Penn State case is that university officials, including head coach Joe Paterno and the university president, learned as early as 2002 that a well-regarded coach was sexually abusing young boys, sometimes on the Penn State campus.
Upon learning about a suspected 2002 assault by Sandusky of a young boy in the football building’s showers, Paterno redirected the graduate assistant who witnessed the incident to the athletic director, rather than notifying the police. Paterno said the graduate assistant who reported the assault, Mike McQueary, said only that something disturbing had happened that was perhaps sexual in nature. McQueary testified that he saw Sandusky having anal sex with the boy.
Excerpted from Paterno Is Finished at Penn State, and President Is Out (Mark Viera, The New York Times, November 9th, 2011)
Having learned of this conduct, and the obvious risk that it might recur, what were Paterno’s choices? He could have reported the incident to the athletic director himself, gone to campus police, the university president, the local police, local prosecutors, or local social services agency. He could have instructed the graduate assistant to do any or all of those things. He could have fired Sandusky.
Viewed against the range of possible choices, telling perhaps the lowest-ranking person (the graduate assistant) to report the incident to the athletic director, presumably one step above Paterno on the organizational chart, but in reality probably less influential than the sainted Paterno, may have been the smallest thing he could do in order to do something.
This is only one of several incidents. If Paterno believed the graduate assistant, wouldn’t he be surprised that no arrest followed? If he thought the graduate assistant had made a false allegation, wouldn’t firing be appropriate for such serious defamation?
Does this fact-pattern seem reminiscent of recent Catholic Church scandals?
