[Husker] What about McQuery?

[Tim Silvey]

What I cannot understand about McQuery is WHY HE DID NOT GO IN TO THE SHOWER AND STOP IT!!!!!  To me, he is a weak little person and should be held accountable more than anyone after Sandusky and should be in prison right now! He witnessed a rape of a young boy and tucked tail and ran away to call his daddy.  How could any man live with himself???  Fearful of losing his job?  You can have my job. Any man worth anything would gladly look for a new job or career, if it meant standing up for someone who cannot defend themselves.  He is of weak character and is just as culpable as anyone.

Character is not defined by who we are. It is defined by what we do when no one is watching. (I may have messed the quote up but you get what I mean)


"Not the victory but the action.
  Not the goal but the game.
   In the deed the glory."


--- On Thu, 7/12/12, Smith, William <wsmith at towson.edu> wrote:

> From: Smith, William <wsmith at towson.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Husker] What about McQuery?
> To: "Andrew Smith" <arossman at earthlink.net>
> Cc: "husker at tssi.com" <husker at tssi.com>
> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2012, 10:10 PM
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>