[Husker] What about McQuery?

[Andrew Smith]

I'd agree with your points if this was equivalent to exposing an 
employer who passes of sugar water as apple juice (i.e., whistle-blowing 
and a lesser crime), but it's neither.

We're not talking about passing off sugar water as apple juice - we're 
talking about rape of a child. And whistle blowing is when you report 
illegal or unethical conduct by and approved of within an organization 
you work for.  So though I understand the similarities, we are not 
really talking about whistle-blowing unless one believes child rape was 
approved of by the PSU organization - we are talking about an 
individual, not an organization, raping a child.  I don't see where 
thinking that the police would come in and "clean house" is relevant 
unless again, one believes child rape was part of the PSU organization.

I agree that in some cases (not this one) reporting a crime is not 
always easy.  One point of my "what have we learned?" letter is that how 
society discusses crimes, can negatively affect how people respond to them.

I do not believe the whistle-blower related fears you mention are the 
reasons McQuery did not contact the police.  As a graduate assistant 
informing on a defensive coordinator, he was already risking 
repercussions.  I believe McQuery did not contact the police because he 
viewed Sandusky as part of the football program, then the university, 
and then society. As a result, he treated a heinous crime against 
society as though it was merely a crime against the football program.

Andy


On 7/12/2012 10:10 PM, Smith, William wrote:
> Whistle-blowing, reporting illegal or unethical conduct to outside
> authorities, is one of the riskiest moves any employee can undertake.
> There are countless examples (my favorite is Jerome LiCari, the scientist
> at Beech-Nut who discovered his employer was passing off sugar water as
> apple juice) where someone has seen, could even prove, that criminal
> activity was taking place in an organization, yet when the cat is out of
> the bag, it is the whistleblower that quickly becomes the target of the
> investigation.  What exactly do you know?  How long did you know it?  What
> proof do you have?  Why didn't you report your suspicions earlier?  What
> are you personal motives in coming forward at this time?  What
> transgressions might you be hiding?  Even when the whistle-blower can
> prove his/her case, future employability in the industry will be seriously
> compromised.
>
> Further, even though it's tempting to think the police, the IRS, SEC, EPA,
> FDA, highway patrol, whoever will come in and "clean house", there's no
> guarantee of such.  Who's to say they are always on the side of right and
> good?  In some instances aren't they in bed with the accused, part of a
> sophisticated network of enablers?  (I'm going out on a huge limb here,
> but I'll wager the Central Pennsylvania police, especially with no
> corroborating evidence early on, are going to tread very very carefully
> when it comes to matters involving "allegations" against the Penn State
> athletic program.  That is, they will actually be inclined to be part of
> the "damage control" response.)
>
> I admit I know very little about this case (what the media wants to tell
> me, and that is always open to suspicion), but it makes a lot of sense why
> Michael McQuery did not go to the police.  It seems sickenly indifferent
> in retrospect, but there are very good reasons why modern organizations
> demand, and almost always get, loyalty from their employees.
>
> Bill Smith
> Towson, MD
>
> On 7/12/12 9:25 PM, "Andrew Smith" <arossman at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> ... 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 perpetrator¹s membership. If you suspect someone
>> of abusing children, you do not go to the coach, church, or anywhere
>> other than the police.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> husker site list
>> husker at tssi.com
>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>