While I’m not ready to write him off yet, nor do I think he will be unable to write a fantastic book about Paterno, I do think Poz screwed up. Mostly, I think he screwed up for not extending to Paterno’s former players the same consideration he’s extending to Paterno. So there’s an irony here in that I think Poz is ultimately moved by a deep sense of humanity on the one hand, with respect to his full engagement of Paterno the man. And yet this engagement may have caused him to lose sight of the complex and conflicting emotions that Paterno’s (and in many cases, Sandusky’s) past players are likely wrestling with as they try to sort this out. So his respect for the humanity of the one brings about the neglect of the humanity of others.
This irony is quite possibly—perhaps likely, to my mind—by the further irony that that is quite possibly what led to Paterno and others to neglect the experience of the victim out of their feelings about Sandusky.
And this is exactly what happens in these situations. And it is also why, while like many others I am appreciative of Alternate34’s thoughtful and incisive posting about this matter, I respectfully disagree with him in large measure.
And just because no one outside State College didn't know who his superiors were, evidence indicates that his superiors were far more culpable in this than Paterno. Paterno's lack of action was immoral, but he did take more action than those he reported this too.
First, it is difficult to really have this conversation until we know what "knowingly covered this up" really means. That Joe Paterno did report indicates something a little different than a cover-up. His lack of action was immoral, but he still took more action than others.
I cannot agree with this because this, itself, makes certain assumptions. Certainly, it is true that the evidence we have (bracketing legal process issues, day in court, etc. of which I am sure we are all aware) Paterno’s superiors bear a certain amount of culpability. But to claim that Paterno’s actions are superior is to make certain assumptions about the character and purposes of his actions. For example, in an extreme case, he could have been informing them that they had something they need to cover up. I do not think that’s what happened, but I mention it to illustrate that to claim Paterno did right to any extent is still interpretation, and assumptions that put his actions in a positive light are no more legitimate than the making of assumptions that cast them in a bad light which you rightly oppose.
So focusing on what we do know (or think we know), I keep coming back to two things:
- Bracketing his legal responsibility, it appears that Paterno utterly failed McQueary. I know the details are fuzzy, but it seems to me that the details at this point can only reveal more precisely the manner in which he failed McQueary. McQueary did not go to the police. But he consulted Paterno, and his failure to go to the police must be considered a consequence of that. From the large-frame “story of the man” point of view—which gets back to Pox’s book—this is a critical juncture for a man such as Paterno was supposed to be.
- Did Paterno ever have a conversation with Sandusky about any of this? He either did, or he didn’t. Once again, the answer to this question can only shed light on what sort of failing this constituted on the part of Paterno, and on what defect of character was involved which again bears on the Posnanski angle.
These two issues seem absolutely fundamental and critical to me, and yet I find their absence in the conversations and debates about this to be conspicuous? Is this a product of the media feeding frenzy? Perhaps. But on the other hand, as per above, I think if it is in fact the case, the problem isn’t over-moralizing per se as my problem would be that the emotionalism has caused them to miss some key points in favor of the broad brush—which is certainly a problem, but one method not kind. On the other, I haven’t seen the omission of the large swathes of the campus who are conflicted or concerned with the victims. I think that may be a bit of a strawman, albeit an unintentional one, as all the reporting I have seen has gone out of the way to point out precisely those angles. Granted, I’ve been at a conference so I haven’t been reading or watchging as deeply as some, but it may well be that in the era of media saturation, reading too deeply can drop a person into a self-selecting media bubble. But everything I’ve seen has contained many of the angles alleged to have been neglected.
The reason this matters to me is that while I agree that media coverage does not prevent scandal, I don’t really see the media as a causal factors in cover-ups either. I think the cover-ups happen for the most mundane of reasons, such as discomfort with the wrongs involved, anxiety, an inability to see friends as predators and a belief in an innate sense of a person divorced from their actions, and even, for want of a less dramatic word, basic cowardice. Certainly, there may be fear that the scent of a wrongful allegation will destroy an institution.
But this in particular jumped out at me:
What does this type of reporting do? It doesn't prevent these scandals and cover-ups from happening. It certainly doesn't stop a Sandusky. One would hope that the immense backlash would stop people from initiating cover-ups. However, there are ways this type of reporting encourages coverups. It makes friends of the pedophile overcautious about reporting these things because they know that even a whiff of this would set up a firestorm that ruins a person's life, which I think is one factor in why people did engage in the cover-up, considering that everyone involved knew Sandusky for decades and were friends with him. It creates a fear that if a pedophile is outed, it will destroy the institution no matter what because there will always be questions about whether he could have been discovered earlier and someone might have kept quiet at some point. These beliefs are certainly irrational, but with the way the media conducts itself, the irrationality critique runs both ways as the media is already behaving irrationally.
I do not understand why these beliefs would be irrational. Indeed, it seems to me this case underscores the very rationality of the belief. Sandusky could have been discovered earlier.
In fact, he was.
That, to me, is the cause for the emotionality—the intensity here does not stem from an abject conjecture or bs hypothetical, but from the abominable wrongs actually done and the fact that good men enabled the abomination made it possible for its perpetuation.
And, to me, that is how the problem of the evil man is raised. How can good men do evil? Does this mean they were not, in fact, good men, and we were all somehow deceived? Does this mean humans are irrevocably flawed, fallen creatures such that good is altogether illusory? Or is it that humans are neither good nor evil?
Cases such as this raise the fundamental questions regarding the nature of human being with which we have wrestled for the entire history of civilization; they are not a creation of the media.
I agree, of course, in the larger sense that much coverage and commenting will miss the nuance. But I hold further hope that as the dust settles, conversations about just such nuance and the failures in our nature cause us to make such a mess of things. But while I agree that the outrage may not be useful and agree further that attempts such as yours to rein it in are an important part of the process of getting there, I also see the outburst as perhaps a precondition to getting there, and must accept it as itself another part of the humanity that is part and parcel of this whole affair.
In that vein, I certainly agree with this:
There is a way to express moral outrage without ignoring the details and history of what has happened in the institution as a whole. Generally, people are not interested in that. I think Posnanski dropped the ball in explaining that this time. I think he has a better chance in the book, after he has had time to reflect.
But once upon a time, we might not have had the opportunity to understand what goes on in situations such as this. And this knowledge is critical—as you point out, there are huge differences already between generational understanding of these problems. Even today, how many people realize how high the recidivism rate is for sex offenders of all kinds, be it against children or adults, and that if you turn a blind eye to one you are most likely turning a blind eye to many, many more, both past and future.
A bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth may not be too high a price to pay for a potential transition to a greater understanding of such matters. But yes, the hope is that we move towards that moment of greater understanding, which requires the reflection you mention.
But I also agree with Seabass171 that Poz failed to extend the consideration he extended to Paterno to the former players that he excoriated in his post. In a sense, I find his extending of consideration to Paterno to be more defensible in that I believe it arises from his compassionate wrestling with the problems of humanity this affair raises. As such, his failure to see that same process going on in Paterno’s former players is unfair to them.
But it’s also a very human failure. And as Shelterdog points out, Poz has earned the benefit of the doubt from me, in large measure precisely because I think his wrestling with the complexity of these issues makes him precisely the person to write this book.
I rather think many great journalists may have had various and conflicting emotions, views, ideas and doubts in engaging their subject material, some of which may have appalled their audiences. But we never used to see them back when they didn’t have blogs.
This could be a book for the ages. And I don't mean just a sports book for the ages.
