Everyone agrees with themselves. That’s obvious. But if someone says “I know more about X than Y so I trust my judgment more about X than Y”, the basis for this being rational and consistent is not “this is rational because the guy agrees with himself about both issues”. It’s “this is rational because it makes sense to trust one’s judgment more about issues that one knows about, so given the assessment that he knows more about X than Y it would follow that he should treat them differently in this regard”. What I’m saying is the second formulation, and you mischaracterized it as the first.
[FWIW, I think it’s beyond obvious that a guy with decades of experience coaching football teams and none investigating sex abuse cases would have a lot more expertise in disciplining football players than in directing the investigation of sex abuse cases. But even if you disagreed with this for some reason, it’s hard to see how a person could deny that this is at least a reasonable position.]
You’re making it sound like some sort of terrible thing, but everyone makes these types of judgments all the time. I’m an actuary and not a doctor and I trust my judgment more about actuarial matters than about medical matters. I suspect the same thing applies to you, WRT your own areas of expertise.
That’s kind of a bizarre thing to post given that my position this entire thread has been: “call police”
Your emotions have clearly gotten the better of you and I accept your apology in advance.
Why do you keep wording it like that? “…directing the investigation of sex abuse cases.”
He didn’t have to do any such thing. No one expected him to (or says that he should have). He is not a cop or investigator (and neither was Curley or Shultz, no matter what the administration tree of the school was).
He should have called the cops. He didn’t.
What training, experience or expertise does it take to call the cops when you think a crime might have just occurred? Toddlers are taught how to dial 9-1-1.
Because he figured Curley and Schultz would call the police if in fact this was appropriate and would not call them if it wasn’t. And if he called them (C & S) up and asked if they had called the police then he would be effectively pressuring them to take a particular approach.
For all you know, he figured Curley and Schultz would completely sweep it under the rug and keep his name out of it so he could go on coaching Penn State until he was 112.
What’s appropriate is for any individual in the country to call the police when a crime is reported, Paterno included.
The Clery act is about making double sure that Universities don’t withhold this type of information from the public due to the case of Jeanne Clery.
Ok… I suppose that’s a logical if not moral or intelligent answer (with regards to Paterno’s morality and intelligence). Thanks.
I still don’t understand how a guy can see a visibly upset colleague talk about someone else fondling a little boy and think, at any point, that calling the police wasn’t the right thing to do. I feel that no matter what Paterno’s reasoning, he still did the wrong thing - morally - by not calling the police or ensuring that the police did get called.
I feel that any justifications are just excuses…worried about his or someone else’s career, worried about the school’s reputation, worried about being involved, not wanting to think too hard about what was happening… but never once worried that there just might actually be a real little boy who has just been molested and/or raped. No one cared enough about that little boy to find out whether he was OK.
This is a discussion of what Paterno’s claim is, and whether that claim is undercut by his action in other player-misdeed situations.
What Paterno’s true motivation was is anyone’s guess.
I disagree that this is true in all circumstances, as we’ve discussed at some length earlier in this thread. But regardless, at this point the discussion is about Paterno’s claimed rationale, as above.
No. Curly or Schultz were legally mandated to call the police. Had Paterno asked them whether they had done so, and they told him no, he should have called the police on THEM for failure to report the alleged abuse.
He acted in a consistent manner with his own beliefs and did not act with malicious intent. Unfortunately for him and the victims, his beliefs do not align with society’s. That’s why we are jumping all over him.
Imagine I’m driving by a lake where a boat is overturned and people are flailing about in the water. What would you think of me in these different scenarios:
I rationalize it as just someone playing and keep on driving.
I recognize there may be trouble. I decide that I’m not qualified to help, so I call the police and keep on driving.
I stop, call the police, and render whatever aid I feel I’m qualified to render until the situation is under control.
As far as I know, all three scenarios are legal. But from a moral standpoint, I need to stop and involve myself in the situation as much as my ability allows. If I’m a lifeguard, I should get in the water and attempt to save people. If I’m not comfortable with getting in the water, I need to try and help out in whatever way I’m qualified. Perhaps that’s by directing rescue personnel or helping the victims as they get to shore.
The problem with Paterno is that it’s shocking to find someone who doesn’t view child sexual abuse as an extremely serious matter. Maybe you can blame that on his upbringing or whatever, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shocking. It also brings into question how qualified he is to act as a role model to young adults. What would he do if his star players were involved with rape, drunk driving, abuse, etc. I get the feeling he would just tell his players not to do it anymore, and if they did, don’t do it on campus during the football season.
Don’t have much time today so this may be my only post, but it appears you haven’t been keeping up with the thread…or your own posts for that matter. Number one, this thread is full of people who’ve said that Paterno should have questioned Sandusky and followed up to make sure the administration found and took action on the child abuse that McQueary thought he saw (whether they actually did or not, apparently); and number two, you denied having said that you believed Paterno told McQueary he didn’t want to know the details of what he saw when you clearly (and just few posts above) said exactly that. In my opinion you are simply too het up emotionally to think straight on this subject, though you certainly have plenty of company.
I will give Paterno this much slack – if it turns out he never again saw Sandusky on the Penn State athletic grounds or facilities again, then I will grant that he might have assumed that the situation was dealt with.
Does anyone know if this is the case? I know Sandusky WAS on campus again, but I don’t know if he ever again encountered Paterno on those occasions.
For example, suppose hypothetically C & S interviewed McQueary, Sandusky and the kid himself and all agreed that the whole thing was a misunderstanding/overreaction by McQueary. Are they still required to call the police? Hard to imagine that this is true - it would imply that any mandated reporter who knows that any other person has at some point suspected someone else of child abuse is required to call police.
I would have to think that even a mandated reporter is only required to call police if there still exists reasonable suspicion.
But even if this is wrong, it’s possible that Paterno was not aware of this.
It is true… it’s linked to earlier in this thread but here it is againand the law says that mandated reporters are required to report or cause to report such crimes to the police - there’s even a phone number written right into the law, as well was what details need to be reported.
Do you not feel that McQueary - someone who knows all these men, the college, and locker room culture - was a credible witness at the time that he saw Paterno?
It disturbs me to think that a mandated reporter might not know they are a mandated reporter and not know what it means. I suppose it’s plausible. The law wasn’t hard to google, though.
That has all been linked before, as you say. But the law specifies “suspected child abuse” and I’m questioning what falls under that category.
The hypothetical again is that Sandusky, backed by the kid, provided some innocuous explanation for what he was doing, such that McQueary realized that the whole thing was an overreaction and misunderstanding on his part. I would guess that in such case there is no longer “suspected child abuse” and no obligation to report.
Even if Sandusky was seen on campus again that would prove nothing one way or the other to Paterno. For all he would have known the school’s administration might have looked into it and found nothing there, or they may have found something that turned out to be relatively minor and disciplined Sandusky in a way that didn’t include banishment from the campus.
But all of that is beside the point really. The main thing was to get Paterno’s head. If he had questioned the administration and been told either that nothing was found or that more minor offences had been found, the anti-Paterno would be screaming that this was a coverup that Paterno went along with knowingly, or that Paterno should have called the cops to rrport that child abuse had occurred and he wasn’t going to rest until somebody found it. There is simply no way short of Paterno personally making sure that Sandusky was arrested, tried and jailed, that Paterno would be considered blameless in this incident, and probably not even then, as the nattering nabobs would simply switch from this incident to whatever allegedly or imaginedly occurred before or after it, and then blame Paterno for having allowed it to go on and only taking action when as mandatory reorter he had to. In short, to that crowd it is always Paterno’s fault no matter what actually happened.
Context? You clearly said you thought Paterno told McQueary he didn’t want to know the details of what McQueary thought he saw and then you denied a few posts later that you ever thought that. Context has nothing to do with it. You are simply so riled up and full of self-righteous indignation that you can’t think straight, and given that I both can and am thinking straight and am more aware of what you’re saying than you are, it’s little wonder you don’t want to discuss it further with me.
I say that McQueary, visibly upset, someone who Paterno trusted at the time and continued to trust for a decade coming to him upset about suspected child abuse that he witnessed definitely falls under that category.
In that moment, Paterno had, I believe, an obligation to call the police. He passed it up to Shultz and Curley, which was legally something he should do, but I feel that they should have called the police at that time too, and Paterno should have ensured that it happened, because that’s the law.
Your hypothetical assumes that Paterno would have chosen to investigate on his own. Perhaps, in this case, a satisfactory answer would have been obtained and the police would not have been needed.
But the only way to do that is to investigate - which we already know he didn’t do. He might have thought that they’d find out it was all a misunderstanding…except no one tried to find out whether or not it was a misunderstanding.
It is that moment…that choice…when McQueary came to Paterno that boggles my mind. That’s the moment where he morally failed.
ETA: I’m on my way out to dinner…don’t know when I’ll post back, so don’t keep hitting refresh
