[Husker] What about McQuery?

[Andrew Smith]

> ... this was a conspiracy among the president, vice-president, 
> athletic director, and head football coach to 1. cover up the crimes 
> of a child molester, and 2. allow the child molester to continue to 
> molest children for 14 years.

What I've never understood (actually, I understand why but disagree with 
it) is the treatment of Mike McQuery compared to Paterno, Curley, etc. 
McQuery is the one who actually witnessed a rape, yet it seems did not 
contact the police and then when no action was taken against Sandusky, 
did nothing for several years.


And below are my thoughts in response to an article which suggested this 
was a sports problem and asked "what have we learned?".

The problem is that society (including the media) sees college athletes 
and coaches as members of a team first, then the university, and only 
then as a member of society. When crimes are discovered, the first 
question raised is "what did the coach do?", followed by "what did the 
university do?", and much later if at all "what did the police do?". It 
should be no surprise then that people do not go to the police when they 
should.

For example, in the Sandusky case more blame for not calling the police 
is placed on those who were told of Sandusky's behavior (Joe Paterno and 
his bosses) than on the person who actually witnessed them (Mike 
McQuery) simply because they are higher in the athletic chain-of command.

This is not just a sports problem. We saw a similar tragedy in how 
abusive priests were handled. Society encourages people to decide whom 
to inform, not based on the nature of the crime, but on the group to 
which a perpetrator belongs.

The lesson we should learn is simple – let the nature of the crime guide 
who you inform, not the perpetrator’s membership. If you suspect someone 
of abusing children, you do not go to the coach, church, or anywhere 
other than the police.