Apologies for the intemperate tone of my earlier PSU rant ... [View All]

[markpkessinger]

... but I don't apologize for the content of it (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2282233&mesg_id=2282233 ). In my fit of pique, I apparently misconstrued the intent behind some things, and for that I also apologize.

Here's a little background, to hopefully give folks an idea of where I was coming from when I posted my tirade.

I grew up not 30 miles from Penn State. I am not an alumnus, and am not even particularly a football fan of any sort. But I have plenty of friends and family who live in the area, and who are major Nittany Lions fans. They are all, to a person, utterly devastated by these events. In various threads here today, I've seen some truly over the top characterizations of the Penn State community -- characterizations that do a gross injustice to the vast majority of students, alumni and fans. They are most certainly NOT a bunch of willing enablers of child abuse who value football above the safety and welfare of children.

I realize that, in the actions of some of students who rioted last night, such an impression would be easy to take away from it. I don't defend their rioting. But I do, at least, have an idea where they are coming from. I spent a considerable amount of time online last night, talking/corresponding with students at PSU, both Paterno defenders and non-defenders. I tried to explain to some of the hardcore defenders that the rest of the country was reading their actions very differently from what they themselves were trying to express, that they were sending the wrong message. I still believe that. But I have to say that some of them were remarkably articulate about why they were upset, and they made some very valid points that merit at least a bit of understanding, even if not agreement. Below are some of their arguments, as I understand them (and there are certainly counterarguments to be made as well). Among the points they raised:

• By far, the majority of the kids I spoke to were in full agreement that Paterno should have done more, and indeed was morally obligated to do more, either by advising the grad assistant to go straight to the police, by calling the police himself, or, after weeks went by and no action had been taken, demanding action himself. And they seemed to think this was the prevailing view among the students.
  
  
• Penn State has a policy in place regarding the protocol to be followed upon receiving this kind of complaint -- a policy that complies with state law, and which is likely virtually identical to similar policies at colleges and universities across the state. Whatever else may be said about what Paterno did and did not do, or about what he was morally obligated to do, the fact is he complied with the law. Many of the students feel that if there are going to be requirements over and above the policy -- requirements which, if not met, can result in dismissal -- then those requirements should be clearly delineated in the policy. They feel that it is rather unfair, when such a policy is in place, to impose additional requirements after the fact.
  
  
• Related to the point above, they point out that if failure to go above and beyond the stated policy is an offense worthy of dismissal, they are outraged that the same standard has not been applied to McQueary.
  
  
• They agree the administration as a whole dropped the ball on this. But some pointed out that by Paterno notifying the athletic director, and the athletic director in turn notifying VP Gary Schulz, who oversees the university police, that police were effectively notified, and responsibility for the fact that Schulz failed to instruct university police to investigate is a matter that properly falls on Schulz, not on Paterno.
  
  
• In light of these, what the students believe are mitigating, circumstances, they felt Paterno should have been permitted to finish out the season and then retire.
  

Not once, from anyone I spoke to or corresponded with, did I hear a suggestion that Paterno shouldn't have done more. There was not one who wasn't thoroughly disgusted by the events. As I said, there are counterarguments to each of the students' points -- and I made them to those I talked to -- but their points are worthy at least of some consideration. So that's why I reacted so strongly to suggestions by some here that these students were more interested in football than the safety of the children and other similar nonsense. Those kids were in tremendous pain last night. They acted out, unfortunately very inappropriately, in a manner that gave to those outside the institution a very distorted view of what the majority of students think about the whole affair. What I am pleading for is just a bit of restraint, a bit of understanding, before labeling them all "enablers of child abuse."

And again, I apologize to all for the intemperate tone of my earlier remarks.