<p>In general, I agree with this. However, it has become clear, in our society, that this kind of coverage is needed in order to draw ANY attention to the victimization of children. Even with this kind of attention and rabid reporting of details, we see very little in the way of significant change. Just look at the Catholic church and ask yourself why Cardinal Law, architect of sexual abuse coverups in the Boston area, is still living the high life at the Vatican.</p>
<p>I say, bring on the horrifying details, as long as we are not violating the rights of the victims. The world needs to hear and the outrage needs to build to the point that it will no longer be tolerated and nobody would EVER walk away from a child being raped again.</p>
<p>I haven’t read it but I’m sure you’re right. I hope that I’m not coming off as insensitive but I feel that our society will find any excuse to gloss over issues that it doesn’t want to deal with.
I remember a few years ago, there was an 80 year old woman from New Hampshire who was the victim of a rape. I saw her on TV when she was testifying (she had requested tv coverage in the courtroom, I think). She went into graphic detail about the crime. She did not mince words nor did she use euphemisms to describe the assault. I remember my discomfort hearing it and then I realized what she already knew. That the shame was on the perpetrator and by describing it in detail, it made it impossible for anyone to accept that act as anything other than a violent rape of an 80 year old woman.</p>
<p>Of course, that was HER choice to be on tv and be identified and I am not advocating for the “outing” of victims against their will. But I do think that we need to hear the horror in order to feel the outrage.
Just think about all of the jokes and quips we hear about priests and altar boys. People joke about it because they are uncomfortable with it. IMO, that discomfort leads to avoidance of the issue and lack of meaningful action to right the wrong.<br>
Outrage is good if it leads to change for the better.</p>
<p>I read that the abuser was around 60 when the locker room crime took place. I’m wondering how long he had been abusing children before that? I am hoping that he did not have access to young boys for most of his life. The charity was perfect for his evil purposed.</p>
<p>I also read that the grand jury investigation began in response to a complaint from one of the victims, several years after he had been abused - no one from the university ever notified authorities!</p>
<p>Imagine if it had been a potential murder in progress – if Sandusky had had his hands around the child’s throat, or if he were beating the child with a bat.</p>
<p>Would there be any debate about whether notifying university officials the following day came close to being an appropriate response?</p>
<p>Rape is less severe than attempted murder, true, but it’s not such a drastic difference.</p>
<p>Excellent article. Thank you for sharing it.</p>
<p>Well said, Hanna. I’ll add to that, would the person who failed to save the child while the act was taking place still be employed by Penn State?</p>
<p>It probably would have been fairly easy to stop the rape. I imagine that even a 90-lb woman could have yelled, “Stop!,” and Sandusky would have slunk away.</p>
<p>My guess is that he had plenty of access. Predatory pedophiles don’t wait around for the opportunity to abuse. They create the opportunity. I’m sure that the victims we know about now are only the beginning.</p>
<p>Before anyone jumps all over me, I am not excusing Mike McQueary. I can imagine, however, his cowardice when he walked in probably had more to do with his own long term association with Sandusky than anything else. He went to high school with his son Jon, so he knew the family. Who knows how well? I am just trying to imagine what it would have been like to walk in on someone you would have known for at least ten years, first as a parent of a classmate and then as a coach. I was thinking of people I trust implicitly and I can’t imagine how I would react if I saw them engage in such a horrific act. Mike had a great reputation on campus as being a good person and while I wish with all of my heart he had bashed in Sandusky’s head I am going to hope that people will come to forgive him. </p>
<p>It is my understanding that he came forward to the grand jury. If that is true, he had to know that the incident he reported was going to create a firestorm and he would be in the center of it. </p>
<p>On a positive note, the students of Penn State have started an alliance with RAINN.org the largest anti-violence organization. Last I checked, they have pledged over $100,000. This is a campus known for raising millions each year for charity thru their dance marathon ($78 million for pediatric cancer research) so I am proud to say they are finding ways to show their concern for the victims. I would expect nothing less. In fact, if everyone who is outraged would kick in - well it would be a concrete way to show their support of the victims. </p>
<p>^^^
I think that it is important, in any discussion after the fact, to remember that none of us know for absolute sure how we would respond in any situation. We would all like to think that we would have handled it in the proper way but we can never be sure unless it happens to us.</p>
<p>Honestly, it is all too easy for me to imagine myself at 28 making a bad move. I have a much harder time understanding how the administration, once the crime was reported to them, failed to call in law enforcement. THEY had the benefit of level headed and thoughtful deliberation and yet, they didn’t act. Who knows how many children were abused after that boy in the shower. Every incident of abuse after that one is the fault of those that failed them when they could have saved them.</p>
<p>I have also been pondering what my twenty-something self would have done. Then I remembered something that happened decades ago. I was 21 years old and in my first teaching job. I guy with whom I worked - probably in his late 30s - was having an affair with a young high school student (not one of his students) - young, as in 14 or 15 - and liked to talk about it. He also tried to hit on me. The relationship with his “little girl” as he called her, was consensual, but when I think about it now, it floors me that I listened to him and told no one. I assume that what he was doing was illegal but I don’t think I knew that. His describing his escapades to me would certainly now be considered sexual harrassment. But I just tried to steer clear of him and said nothing. Was it because times were different back then, or was it because I was 21?</p>
<p>One other thing that concerns me is the families of the victims. I am not blaming them but just curious about their acceptance of obviously expensive gifts to the victims–golf set, bowl games, and other obviously costly gifts. In our family and neck of the woods, streams of expensive gifts and special attention being paid to our kiddo would trigger a lot of alarms and questions. The kids might not know this is not “normal” but I feel the adults in the kids’ lives should wonder and inquire. </p>
<p>Am glad that at least two moms did try to do SOMETHING about this.</p>
<p>These were “at risk” kids. In many cases, the did not have much of a home life at all. I’m sure many parents were just grateful that someone cared about their kid. Predators LOVE “at risk” kids.</p>
<p>Yes. We do know that. We all do things in life that have repercussions. I hope that if I were in a situation like McQueary, I would have stopped the incident and I think I would have but, lucky for me, I will never have to tested that way at that age. It’s easy to take the moral high ground when it is all theoretical.</p>
<p>I understand that, but still am curious why no one else in the other 6 ID’d victim’s lives OR in the organizations involved wondered about these lavish gifts and the alleged perpetrator singling out these victims and having physical contact with them in the presence of others. Lots of blind eyes helped enable Sandusky–those publicized are just the tip of the problem.</p>
<p>HiMom, you make a great point. The whole timeline reads like a roadmap for pedophiles. Everything we’re taught to look out for actually happened and everyone ignored it.</p>
<p>I may end up having a problem with Paterno and Curly but I need more information. Not so with the GA since he admitted what he saw. I also have serious reservations about Schultz if he was acting as the head of the campus police. Did he even have the accusation investigated or did he decide for himself to bury it? If Curly, Paterno and Schultz conspired to bury it I would hope they could be charged. It does seem the President of the school was informed and so I think there must have been a milder story being told than what we are hearing now.</p>