Without getting too sanctimonious, I have a
few questions and comments. It seems to
me, that for all the questioning and public rhetoric and outcries over Joe
Paterno’s firing, does it not seem a bit odd that he is now questioning whether
he should have done more, and in the absence of hindsight, he admits he did not
do enough. My question is about the
timing. If you are sorry only after the
results of a Grand Jury are admitted to the public, does that really mean a
great deal? Well, not to me, but what the
hey- he wasn’t apologizing to me. As for
the fans and zealous "friends" that show their support by turning over vans, well
with friends like that, I suppose you can believe that you are allowed to do
anything (in Sandusky’s case), or do a whole lot of nothing (in Paterno’s
case).
The public swarming, or murmuration-type
frenzy that occurs is disturbing to me.
With bits and pieces of information, the public, time and time again,
swarms to the aide of some seemingly “innocent” bystander. Are we that starved to be part of a group
that we can’t take a little bit of time to truly understand a situation? Do we not have enough meaning in our lives to
step back and determine, calmly, that there are some large gaping holes in the
information that we so readily react to?
There were no swarms to aide the
children that were victimized. This
seems to be the time that the public bows their heads, and determines they
don’t know all the facts, or there isn’t anything they can do to help or
stop. This is the time that victims get
victimized twice. First, during the
horrific acts of sexual violation, and next by the witnesses that look the other way or
worse, cast aspersions.
Penn State’s stance to actively decide
that Sandusky was not allowed to bring boys on campus any longer is
criminal. This stance however, is not
shocking or uncommon. It seems to be the
fabric of bureaucracy. A well-established
bylaw of the Good Old Boys Club. The
Catholic Church being notorious for moving known pedophile priests to different
locations, rather than taking a direct stance and enforcing policy for the
intolerance of pedophiles, rapists and criminals in their ranks, is not alone
in this practice. School districts
quietly relocate offenders, or require “resignations” rather than directly and
legally upholding policy for harassment and sexual misconduct. A variation on policy response seems also at play, "Not In My Backyard" or "Not on My Watch". Basically, the concepts appears to be: You can do it, just don't do it near me.
I wonder, if bureaucratic systems were
to denounce the criminals in their ranks, is it possible that the public would
feel comforted, and trusting of the leadership?
Are the bureaucracies so afraid of the public response that they feel it
better to continue to hide, and bury and partake in criminal activity to avoid possibly
losing public support? Sadly, the public
response seems to be “act first, think later” while the bureaucracies response
seems to be “think of all the loopholes and respond after, and only if, the
public reacts, by sacrificially throwing a few of their members under the bus or toward the rallying public in an attempt to, what, look as though they were caught with their pants down?
Of course there are other factors to
ponder here as well. Fortunately, I
don’t recall any large thrill-seeking mob supporting any of Warren Jeffs’
friends or colleagues. Jeffs, is the Mormon sect leader who
“married” twelve sixteen-year-old girls and twelve additional girls under the
age of fifteen. When we call Jeffs a husband, it is not quite as distressing as a rapist, or a pedophile. Minimal
public outcry here, but no one rallying to help the perpetrators. Why not? Because it didn’t interfere with football
season? It was related to someone’s
religious viewpoints that we don’t entirely understand or feel is our business
to weigh in on? Is it because they were
girls, and girls are expected to get married and have sex with their "husbands" any old way?
The policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
may have been lifted from the military ranks in regards to the sexual orientation
of gay service people, but it seems the nation has a long way to go regarding
viewpoints, beliefs and understanding of sexual behavior that encompasses
all. Don’t ask, don’t tell was alive and
thriving in the boardrooms and locker rooms of Penn State. This version of don’t ask, don’t tell is in
place to protect the boy’s club from having to be accountable. Don’t ask, because I don’t need to tell you. Don’t ask, because I can do whatever I
want. Don’t ask, because you might not
like what I am doing, but I don’t plan on stopping. It is
alive and prospering in many other sectors right now.
We need to take a hard, close look at the
sexual victimization of our youth, boys and girls equally. We need to have a
clear understanding of “consent” and how that may fluctuate based upon age,
role, and authority of the “consenting” participants. We need to speak up against violent,
abhorrent sexual crimes even when it interferes with game season. We need to close shop on the boy’s club
mentality that pervasively interferes with access to basic human rights for
all. We may even need to provide sexual education that is comprehensive and maybe we can throw in some course work on human rights and accountability.
