<p>And again, Hanna, I am in no way excusing McQueary. My thoughts on human frailty and how it pertains to McQueary were referring to that moment in which he observed the assault and did nothing to intervene. I am not excusing it and am certainly not excusing his failure to follow up after the fact.</p>
<p>My comment “we all do things that have repercussions” was not suggesting that all sin is equal. I don’t subscribe to that belief and I don’t see how my comments suggested that. There is a continuum of wrongfulness, whether that wrong was done by action or inaction. </p>
<p>For the record, I think that all of the people who turned away, failed to follow up, and in any way ignored their responsibility to intervene, should be criminally charged.</p>
<p>Again, trying to understand an action or inaction is not the same as condoning it.</p>
<p>I bet right now McQueary is wishing he would have never reported what he had seen. A lot of people would still have their jobs had he not come forward. That is the real tragedy of this. The message being sent is “keep your mouth shut”! If you want to get guys like Sandusky, then don’t kill the messenger.</p>
<p>Fly- I disagree with that. I think the message is do the right thing immediately because sooner or later it will come out. You should always be willing to stand up and say this is what I did and this is why I did it. We all know how what we say will make us look.</p>
<p>Oh, I hope that’s not true. I hope he’s wishing hard that he had handled it in a completely different way. I am a teacher and, as such, a mandated reporter. I was discussing this case with my husband and talking about the way it works in school systems. I know that when I have brought concerns forward about a student, I have always followed up to find out what has been done. I do that because a. I want to make sure we are doing what is right for the child. b. I want to make sure that my part in it has resulted in action so that I am never complicit in the victimization of a child. School systems, I think, at least from my experience are not very squeamish about reporting abuse. Unfortunately, it is pretty commonplace.</p>
<p>We shouldn’t be under any illusions about what this is going to do to Mr. McQueary’s life. I won’t say his life is ruined, but it will be profoundly affected in a negative way for years. The trial alone will probably drag out for a couple of years. This is going to be a long nightmare for Mr. McQueary.</p>
<p>And yes, there are often negative consequences for people who try to do the right thing, including report abuse. The farther down the food chain you are (like the janitors) the more likely the reporter will have negative outcomes.</p>
<p>In a way, I feel sorry for McQueary because he had one of those life defining moments, a clear fork in the road, and he took the cowardly way out and he will know this about himself for the rest of his life. He failed what was probably the most important test of his life. I bet he has trouble sleeping. </p>
<p>Of course I don’t condone what he did, or didn’t do in this case. It’s just that I’ve often wondered whether I would have the moral character to do the right thing, and at what cost would I be willing to do it? Would I have risked my life, or my children’s, to save a Jewish neighbor during Nazi Germany? I really don’t know. I’d like to think that this situation (Penn State) would be a no-brainer and I’d act completely on instinct. But I’ve never faced anything like this.</p>
<p>I think with McQready there are two people out to get him, the majority who are disgusted at the way he handled this i.e not intervening, not calling the cops, then there are those who are ****ed that he spilled the beans in the first place and got Paterno and their precious football program into the state it is in now. The first one I can understand, among other things, McQready is 6’ 5" tall, built like a defensive lineman, and I doubt a 60 year old coach is going to pose much threat to him, whatever else he didn’t do, that one looks terrible, because he didn’t have much to fear. Quite honestly, as a father, I also wonder about his father, if my son called me up to tell me something like that, I would tell him to call 911 on speed dial and also would tell him if the school tried retaliating for blowing the whistle, I would do everything I could, including getting every victims rights organization, family members who were lawyers, to make the university look like frankly the scum they would be if they retaliated…I realize McQready’s position and the often dark nature of college football programs when it comes to ethics, but in that case, nothing is worth it. </p>
<p>As far as Paterno goes, I have a lot less sympathy from him then I had originally. From the grand jury testimony, McQready tried to tell Paterno the details, and he stopped him from saying anything specific, which frankly smells of someone trying to keep themselves out of the picture. Think about this, paterno testified in the grand jury that McQready was ‘vague’, but he was the one if the testimony is correct who kept it vague…basically, Paterno was looking for a way to get this off his shoulders, which is quite human, but quite flawed, especially for someone who set such a high moral standard for things. It was like he was irritated to be bothered by this and passed it on,because as defenders of him keep saying ‘he was a busy man’…doing what? Figuring out recruiting classes or defensive strategy? Sorry, but there is no defense of this. If Paterno really wants to try and come out of this looking better, if he has any decency he will come out and basically say that what he did was the wrong thing, no matter how good his motives were, that he allowed his judgment to be clouded, and that he accepts the fact that the board did the right thing by removing him, that it both represented the right thing to do based on what he did and for the sake of the university…but I don’t expect that, I expect what we have seen in the other big similar scandal with the church, excuses and dodges and ‘explanations’…</p>
<p>I read that as the information was passed up the chain, it became more and more vague, until it was reduced to “horseplay in the showers.” I’m trying to imagine myself as a college president, hearing something like this. The showers reference would raise a red flag, as it carries the clear implication that both the man and the boy were naked. The first thing I would do is to call in the eyewitness and get all the details. Apparently no one talked to the grad student to find out exactly what happened. No one wanted to know.</p>
<p>I also saw a press conference given by Paterno before he was fired, in which he magnanimously lightened the trustees’ burden by offering to retire at the end of the year. It was shocking that he believed that he was still in the catbird seat at that point. He has just hired a lawyer - is it only dawning on him now that he may be in some legal jeopardy? These people have known for several years that a grand jury was investigating.</p>
<p>NYMomof2, I thought the same thing. It was like a perverted game of telephone, where the horrible crime that was witnessed at the start because horseplay in the shower.</p>
<p>I just read the Grand Jury report and am disgusted beyond belief. My heart literally broke when I read about the little boy who loved going on the field at Penn state and hanging with the players. When I think of that animal exploiting that childish hero worship, I am sick with disgust and loathing.</p>
<p>Mousegray,
I feel that way, too. That we really don’t know how we would react in the shock of the moment but after reading the description of the event, I have a hard tome imagining anyone walking away from that scene. The custodian, as well, walked away from a little boy who was having oral sex forced upon him. </p>
<p>We don’t know how we’d react in that terrible moment of shock. But I think after the shock wore off, in a day or a week or a month, we would have woken up to our moral obligation. McQueary was silent for 9 years.</p>
<p>Vitrac,
I don’t think the gender of the child would matter but, who knows. Are you thinking that if it was a female victim it would have been seen more readily a crime? I think if a 60 year old man was bringing little girls into a locker room for showers, the suspicions would have begun at an earlier stage and it would be harder for those around the situation to pretend ignorance.</p>
<p>EPTR-I think possibly these guys might see themselves as rescuers of females. Just a thought and wondering if any factors might have made a difference. ie-if the boy was crying.</p>
<p>Oh… I see what you are saying. Well, I guess we will never know. My gut tells me that the response would be the same because the other factors would be the same. ie: the football machine and all of its ramifications for McQueary.</p>