Abuses at Penn State
Jeffrey Guterman
It’s easy for some people to see that individuals who commit the heinous act of child sexual abuse are monsters. But human problems seldom, if ever, occur in isolation. Rather, they usually occur in context. And so is the case of the Penn State child sex abuse scandal. According to linguist and social activist Noam Chomsky, some people lose sight of important, sometimes critical issues as a result of mindless devotion to an organization. Irrational subservience often contributes to individuals becoming apathetic, distracted, and diverted.
Consider the role that spectator sports plays for so many people in our culture. Sports fans root, root, root for the home team—no matter what. In some cases a fan might hardly know some players on their team, yet their allegiance is unwavering.
On November 9, 2011, a throng of Penn State football fans rallied to support coach Joe Paterno when he announced, amidst the child sex abuse scandal, that he would retire at the end of this season. This occurred one day before Paterno would be fired by Penn State’s board of directors. Distracted by their fanatical devotion to Paterno and the Penn State football team, those fans failed to see how their reactions were inappropriate.
The next day, when news of Paterno’s firing was announced, some fans rioted. But their anger was misdirected; it should have been channeled toward the perpetrator of the child sex abuse as well as those involved in its cover-up. Again, some fans were confused and misguided as a result of their irrational devotion to the team.
But there was another, even more pernicious example of mindless devotion at Penn State.
The failure of multiple Penn State employees to report the child sex abuse to authorities was also an abuse, an abuse second in severity only to the child sex abuse, itself, that occurred at this institution.
How could this happen!?
With the investigation still underway, one can only speculate. Perhaps the employees’ irrational devotion to their organization played a significant role. It may have been a fear of retaliation. A fear of tarnishing the Penn State brand may also have contributed to the cover-up.
In the weeks that transpired since the scandal broke, it has been argued that current laws, such as state laws in Pennsylvania, are inadequate because they do not mandate all employees to report child sex abuse. Although much legislative work needs to be done in this area, I take the position that all citizens should be expected to immediately report any suspicions of child abuse to authorities—law or no law. I would think any reasonable person can see this.
The cover-up at Penn State was wrong. Also dangerous was that the cover-up seemed to develop within a cohesive organization. Dynamics similar to this play out all the time in all types of organizations (e.g., business, education, family, work), but usually of much less consequence.
The question at hand is when and how does one choose to participate in a world of covert operations, double standards, and secrets? Sometimes it’s difficult to decide. At other times, such as when child abuse occurs, the choice should be clear. As citizens of the world, all of us need to swiftly identify and eliminate threats to human dignity, freedom, and well-being.
I am afraid that unless our society makes significant changes now, we may look back at these times and tragically conclude that we failed to protect many of our children. But it’s not too late! Our profession could play a significant role in the solution by continuing to raise public awareness, provide education, and offer counseling services related to child sexual abuse, trauma, and healing. In addition, the counseling profession has a responsibility to continue taking a leadership role in developing social advocacy strategies aimed at improving legislation and public policy. We also need to work at the grassroots level to help individuals and organizations act against the type of abuses that occurred at Penn State.
Jeffrey T. Guterman is a counselor and an Associate Professor at Barry University, Adrian Dominican School of Education, Counseling Department. To find out more visit his Web site at http://JeffreyGuterman.com
.
Very well said Professor. You would think, that any ‘reasonable’ person would act accordingly. As a counselor, this is a opportunity to fill in the social service gaps that exist, with a reformative change…
I appreciate your thoughtful comment, John.
Great points. My sentiments exactly!
One of my favorite anonymous quotes is, “It is difficult to see the picture when you are inside the frame.” While I share your revulsion towards the incident described, I cannot help but wonder how vulnerable I might be to the very same effect in a different form. Our society has become indoctrinated to authority in a number of ways; the effects of spectator sports is only one example. People have aligned themselves to all sorts of institutional narratives: Fox News, CNN, ESPN, bloggers, and basic television programming are a few of many purveyors of institutional authority. I have to wonder, am I immune to this effect myself? How have I made myself vulnerable? Can I really look down on the Penn State mob, secure in the fact that I would make a different decision if my sacred cows were facing slaughter? What would I do to protect the institutions that I hold dear to my heart, and how would I know how to do the right thing?
Understand, I’m not in disagreement with you. I only wonder if I’m so fundamentally different from the folks who were overturning news trucks on live TV.
Clay:
Your points are well taken. As I suggested in my post:
“Dynamics similar to this play out all the time in all types of organizations (e.g., business, education, family, work), but usually of much less consequence.”
One of my favorite quotes, by anthropologist Clifford Geertz, fits with yours about trying to see the picture inside the frame: “[We are suspended in webs of significance that . . . [we ourselves have] spun.”
Best
- Jeff
I am wondering about the training of “mandated” reporters. I know as licensed mental health professionals we are required to take an ethics course which lays out the ethical and legal rules of conduct. We also must confirm ongoing knowledge of this issue each licensure renewal period.
I’m not in a school setting but am curious what kind of training coaches receive as mandated reporters particularly when it comes to college coaching where their jobs involve minimal contact with minors.
I also think that as long as we continue to label them as monsters rather than as people who for their sake and our children’s sake need effective treatment, we cannot help them to get the treatment they need to stop victimizing the most vulnerable among us.
We seem to be participating, albeit unwittingly, in perpetuating a never ending cycle. As long as we see them as monsters, they will continue to remain in hiding and continue to victimize the vulnerable and we will continue to hate them and so on…
Great points, Julie. I agree training is needed for mandated reporters in various settings.
I also agree that labeling them as monsters may unwittingly contribute to a cycle. I did not support this label in my post but suggested, “It’s easy for some people to see that individuals who commit the heinous act of child sexual abuse are monsters.” Your points is well taken, though, and I see it is easy for me to do this, too.
In my opinion, such treatment should be provided in prison. I am very concerned that our legal system does not make child sexual abuse a mandatory life sentence. The term “repeat child sex abuse offender,” to me, should be an oxymoron, but sadly, it isn’t. Jessica’s Law, designed to reduce repeat offenders, has been adopted in the great majority of the United States; it sets forth a mandatory minimum 25 years in prison, and lifetime electronic monitoring if the victim was under 12 years old. So, this is an improvement.
I agree that if such individuals get released, they should get treatment and labels such as “monster” will do no good but to contribute to the cycle. It is my personal belief, however, that like premeditated murder, such offenses should result in life without the possibility of parole.