greenbutton -I agree with you. After seeing how McQ has been vilified I fear others when confronted w/ a similar situation will quietly turn away.</p>
<p>I think there were others before and after McQ that witnessed Sandusky in inappropriate behavior w/ a young boy and turned a blinds eye to the situation. It is inconceivable that McQ and the janitor were the only 2 in the more than 10 years to witness Sandusky showering one on one w/ a boy. Honestly, why was it necessary for these young boys to be showering w/ Sandusky at PSU anyway? That alone should have raised suspicion. The boys should have been taken home to shower. They werent spending several hours in team practice, but one on one coaching w/ Sandusky. Which, required no more than washing their face and hands (clothes on) before going home.</p>
<p>That’s a nice little word game, and I think you’re smarter than that. But I will spell it out for you: </p>
<p>They needed to report to someone who wasn’t on the same payroll as the predator. They needed to report to someone who wasn’t on the same payroll as every employee of the football program. They needed to report to someone who wasn’t on the same payroll as the top execs. In other words, they needed to report to someone whose livelihood and career advancement wasn’t dependent on the university.</p>
<p>And yes, they did report it as they were legally required to do. That’s exactly what I said – they did the minimum that they had to do to keep themselves out of legal trouble, and NO MORE. Apparently you disagree, but for me, when the safety of children is at stake, staying out of legal trouble shouldn’t be the only goal.</p>
<p>I would be just as angry if the renowned Engineering program or Journalism program involved had enjoyed the same rabid, over-the-top devotion in the college community and among the alumni, and the same positive national publicity, that Penn State football did (and apparently still does). </p>
<p>I would be just as angry if they all worshiped and revered the Dean of the toxic department where the crimes continued for years with his knowledge that he had a Big Problem on his hands. </p>
<p>I would be just as angry if all sorts of school officials, including the sainted Dean, took minimal or no action to stop the problem and bring it to light, apparently to protect the reputation and attendant cash flow that the department enjoyed. Yeah, I’d be pretty angry.</p>
<p>But of course such a scenario sounds pretty silly, because everyone knows that devoted school fans and boosters just don’t get so worked up over a winning academic department that they would lose their good judgment and common sense the way they sometimes do over a winning sports program. In the vast majority of academic programs and settings, the first time Sandusky was caught molesting children he would have been arrested so fast he wouldn’t have had time to pull his pants up. </p>
<p>(PS: Side point - very few LACs have an Engineering dean or Engineering program That’s a university thing.)</p>
<p>myturnnow- You are correct he is being vilified for not doing more . but unlike others who probably witnessed Sandusky in a similar situation he at least reported what he saw. By vilifying McQ the take-home-message is loud and clear - in the future those faced w/ a similar situation will realize they have only 2 choices full-out-action or turning away and keeping quiet. Id like to think everyone would choose the former but realistically most folks will quietly turn a blinds eye. The middle option of justreporting as McQ did has been taken off the table.</p>
<p>I still maintain that the reason Sandusky was able to get away with the abuse was that for decades, many other crimes were being hidden by Paterno–with the full knowledge of his players, coaches, police, administration, and Penn. St. locals–were they as heinous?–no–mainly burglary, assaults, drinking, drugs-things that are seen on most campuses–and yet, time after time, whenever Penn State’ s name came up, it was always pointed out that it was one of the only campuses in the U.S. with no NCAA violations–they were held up as being the most virtuous, law-abiding, moral program in the country–resulting in the almost frantic attempts to keep everything under cover–because all of the “small” infractions and crimes were being swept under the rug, it was easy to continue doing so when something much more vile occurred. This is most certainly an example of “failure to monitor” --and even if Joe Pa was shown to do everything he was legally required to do, there has to be big time sanctions against the program. A healthy University is not afraid to report violations or incidents, and take the penalties,–it’s when they say they have no problems that you have to be careful.</p>
<p>In NY you report to Child Protective Services. If you report it to an administrator, I believe he or she can make the call on your behalf with you present. If he or she doesn’t call, you are still liable. Correct me if I’m wrong.</p>
<p>I really did not want to get caught up in this again. But, as many others I can’t get past the showering with an adult, alone, at 9:30 at night. Red flags all over that description andthen the actual incident. You can stop right there because IMO no reasonable response can ever follow that.</p>
<p>Let’s see: I observe a young girl being raped by a coach (or former coach) at my school in my school’s gym shower. I:
a. slam a locker door, go home, talk to my dad, and the next morning go report it up the line to the coach.
b. break it up right then and there, and then call 911
c. call 911 because I’m afraid to break it up myself</p>
<p>I’m trying to think of how many moms or dads would choose option a, even when the rapist involved is a highly respected coach and man in the community. Would McQ have behaved differently if it had been a young girl rather than a young boy? </p>
<p>Why would anyone think that the proper place to report a completely criminal, violent crime was to wait to talk to the boss? (Let me see, I just saw one of my co-workers rape another. I sure better talk to the boss in the morning.)</p>
If I have a cell phone I’d be trying to get pictures if at all possible. Then it’s no longer a “he said, she said” situation. Then probably make a lot of noise as if I’m just coming in and haven’t seen anything (calling out for someone who isn’t really there, for example). If possible, getting the victim out of the place and to a hospital asap, without confronting the perp directly. (“Oh there you are you little silly, your mom has been trying to find you for half an hour! Quick, grab your uniform!”)</p>
<pre><code>d. turn around and quietly leave the room. (hey there is no way the top honchos here at PSUathletics dont know about this pervert and havent stopped him yet. Im not getting involved)
</code></pre>
<p>It is naïve to think option d. doesnt exist.</p>
<p>
None, I hope but McQ wasnt a dad but a twenty-something grad assistant.</p>
<p>^^^^
Right and while we all think we know how we would respond, we will never really know. i don’t THINK I would do what McQueary did but I guess it’s possible that he was so shocked he needed to collect himself. For the sake of argument, let’s give him that out. The part I don’t understand is that he eventually reported it to Paterno and then…what? If I witnessed a rape and then saw that nothing had been done to protect children from the pedophile, I would be banging doors down trying to get to the bottom of it and if I couldn’t get answers I would go to the police. And by police I mean POLICE who are not on the PSU payroll.</p>
<p>If I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to rock the boat and jeopardize my career and standing, then shame on me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have always wondered about that issue. As a teacher, I get concerned that if I report a suspicion to a superior and they don’t follow-up, I might be held responsible for neglect of a suspected issue. Not to mention that the child’s needs won’t have been met.</p>
<p>^^You will be held responsible in New York State if you do report a suspicion to a superior and they don’t follow up. You need to make the phone call to the hot line yourself. An administrator who is telling you otherwise is asking for trouble (for you and him/herself).</p>
<p>That’s good to know re New York and Colorado. I wonder if those are new laws in response to the PSU episode? If so, some good has come of this tragedy.</p>
<p>My dad is a teacher in Illinois. They now have to go through a new background check and pass a course that is related to sexual abuse. Apparently the test is nearly unfailable and really is a joke. He said they’re calling it the “Sandusky Test.”</p>
<p>Are there any policemen/women here on this thread? I wonder what their take is on the difference between a bystander of a crime (McQ) vs an active ally. </p>
<p>One time I witnessed a crime in NYC: A van drove up to a courier’s truck while he was inside and they gang from the van stole the truck’s contents. The driver’s role was to fold over the license plate and direct everyone. I was so astonished seeing this, I went up to the van as the driver closed up the back and unfolded the license plate. At this point, the guy pushed me away (I was lucky he didn’t have a gun!) Since it was my lunch hour, I quickly wrote my name and phone number for the poor delivery guy and soon had to deal with detectives. They said that my actions were much more likely to lead to an arrest because I did something rather than just watched.</p>
<p>Now of course the issue isn’t that McQ didn’t know who he was dealing with, but why didn’t he act more boldly? He may have been stunned, but I think he was a wimp.</p>
<p>I think he was stunned and I would not judge him. This falls in the category of something we cannot fathom. We can’t know how we would react, however much we wish we could.</p>
<p>I agree with that and understand that for every person their might be a different reaction. What I don’t get is the reaction after the event. His willingness to turn it all over to his superiors would be fine if Sandusky had then been held accountable. But he wasn’t. So what was in McQueary’s head when he later saw Sandusky at a game or at the mall or whatever? I know that I would be thinking that my superiors had dropped the ball and I would want to know why. Here is a man that McQueary witnessed assaulting a child. He saw it with his own eyes. How could he be okay with the fact that the monster still walked the streets?</p>
<p>My sense is that by the time McQueary found Sandusky assaulting a young boy in the shower McQueary had already been indoctrinated in the “look the other way when you see Sandusky’s funny business” and that’s why he was so uncertain as to what he should do. It seems to me that McQueary observed an escalation of Sandusky’s previous behavior and wasn’t sure if that fit in the same category, of “look the other way behavior” or “uh oh, we actually need to report behavior” category, so he needed consultation. </p>
<p>While I certainly understand a shock reaction, it doesn’t really make sense to me that a big strong guy like McQueary, (even at 28) wouldn’t otherwise have had a protective, knee-jerk response to call out an adult harming a boy in the Penn State locker room. I think had it been a stranger to McQueary in that shower he would have known EXACTLY what to do. </p>
<p>I think he consulted with his father precisely because of the power politics in play which made what otherwise would have been a clear cut situation a complicated moral dilemma. And I think his father, John McQueary, a physician, would have also otherwise immediately advised calling the police, to at minimum locate the child and determine if he was safe. Unfortunately he too bought into the, we better take this to Paterno in the morning line of reasoning.</p>
<p>Under cross examination by Karl Rominger, McQueary said he didn’t call 911 after his son told him what he had seen because “he would have had to tell me he saw someone injured, crying, screaming for help,” John McQueary said. </p>
<p>Seriously, seeing a young boy of 10 being raped is not seeing someone injured? the fact that the child wasn’t crying meant he was not harmed? I realize that he personally did not see the act, but as a physician he is a required reporter, and I would think if his son reported this to him and he believed it he had a responsibility to report “suspected abuse” himself. </p>
<p>and I can’t stand reading them discuss that what was seen was Sandusky “having sex” with a ten year old boy. They should be corrected every time that is stated. It is this language and refusal to call it sexual assault that permitted them to not report it to the police.</p>