[Husker] What about McQuery?

[Andrew Smith]

I wasn't talking about the legality of anyone's behavior (other than 
Sandusky's, obviously), but I understand that may not have been clear.

I disagree that morally there is any significant debate about what 
McQuery should have done.  If you believe you see a child being raped, 
you should do what you can to stop it and call the police!

Yes, I'm well aware of studies showing that we don't always behave as 
nobly as we believe we would (e.g., Milgram's "Obedience to Authority") 
and perhaps instead of saying "what I would have done", we should say " 
what I hope I would do in a similar situation".

Andy

On 7/13/2012 9:33 AM, Scott Stewart wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I think you and many others are merging issues about what is moral 
> behavior and what is illegal behavior.
>
> In my occupation, I am a "mandatory" reporter of child abuse. That 
> means if I am aware of child abuse I must by law report it. There are 
> a few people in that realm (teachers, healthcare workers, counselors). 
> All other people are voluntary reporters. They can report it, but are 
> not obligated by law. There are advantages of being a mandatory 
> reporter, ie "whistleblower" in that you are protected from any legal 
> repercussions. Voluntary reporters are not necessarily covered from 
> lawsuits though they are given a lot of room.
>
> The only mandatory reporter by Pennsylvania Law was the President of 
> the University. There policy as I read it was employees were to inform 
> their supervisor up the chain to the President and he was the 
> reporter. I have worked at institutions before with similar rules and 
> they are not there to obstruct reporting. Instead they are there to 
> avoid having multiple investigations being opened on the same case and 
> therefore slowing down the process.
>
> By law the only individual who did something illegal by not reporting 
> was the President of the University.
>
> The President, AD, and others have also been charged with perjury 
> because they misrepresented what they knew about the abuse to the 
> Grand Jury. That is another issue. The AD was not obligated to report, 
> but is obligated to tell the truth to the Grand Jury.
>
> I would suspect the conspiracy charges could involve both the 
> reporting and the Grand Jury if they can show that the President 
> instructed other employees not to report the incident.
>
> Now morally, there can be a lot of debate about what McQuery should or 
> shouldn't have done. But legally, he did not violate the law if he 
> told the truth to the Grand Jury.
>
> While we all think that we would behave differently, the social 
> psychology research (Zimbardo) demonstrates our behavior is more often 
> influenced by the behavior and expectations of those around us. The 
> person who stands up against the group is the exception, not the norm.
>
> Scott
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Smith, William <wsmith at towson.edu 
> <mailto:wsmith at towson.edu>> 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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:husker at tssi.com>
>     >http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     husker site list
>     husker at tssi.com <mailto:husker at tssi.com>
>     http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
>