→2011→11→12→Comic Strip of the Day→CSotD: Keefe cuts through the fog of blame
Comic Strip of the Day

CSotD: Keefe cuts through the fog of blame

Published: November 12, 2011 1 minute 5 comments

KeefeM20111111C

The Penn State controversy is so loaded with rich targets that it would be much easier to compile the cartoons it has inspired than to pick one that stands out. But I think Mike Keefe cut through a lot of chaff and got to the base with this panel.

This is a situation where the overriding topic is such a hot button that you really, really need to slow down and, for instance, read the grand jury report (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Presentment.pdf) before opining.

Not everyone has done that, clearly. And if this had happened 15 or 20 years ago, there would have been a gap of a few days between the initial news reports and the time the letters to the editor began to show up.

As it is, the reaction has greatly overtaken the information, and editorialists of all stripes — both those who work in words and those who work with images — need to make sure they know what actually happened, not just how everyone is reacting to it, though both are part of the story.

Besides the victims, who I hope will pursue civil actions, my sympathy has begun to center on Mike McQueary, the graduate assistant who stumbled over the worst of the two witnessed events, and who now has one lynch mob wanting to hang him for not stepping in at the moment and another wanting to hang him for reporting it at all.

I'd like to hear the point of view of those who apparently hate him for having blown the whistle, because I don't see how his reporting of the crime had an impact on the Board's decision to fire Joe Paterno, and I assume that is at the core of their grievance.

They may hate him for his grand jury testimony, in which he made it clear that he had indeed communicated the seriousness of what he witnessed, while two other witnesses claimed that Paterno was never aware that something more serious than "horsing around" had occurred. (Exposed genitals and wet towels, for instance, being a relatively non-sexual but irresistable combination for 14-year-olds and older adolescents.)

In order to take that position, however, they must ignore the grand jury's clearly stated conclusion that the other two witnesses were lying, or be so deep into JoePa worship that they assume the grand jury was wrong. And I suspect the latter is the case.

But, as much as I wish the JoePa loyalists would read the grand jury report, then take off their blinders and read it again, there is a very strong element here that makes me appreciate the cartoons by those artists who have conflated this case with the coverups in the Catholic Church.

There is a type, and not a rare type, whose loyalty makes it impossible for them to get their brain around a grand disillusionment like this. They may be as deluded as the "Elvis Lives!" crowd, but we still have to be prepared to share the planet with them while minimizing the damage their blind loyalty does to us all.

I find myself more annoyed, however, with the barroom heroes who know exactly what they'd have done in McQueary's place. These are the people who read about Sgt. York or Audie Murphy and are sure that they'd do the same thing, and that they would run into the burning building and that they would leap forward to subdue the armed robber.

And I'm less annoyed by their own Walter Mitty fantasies than I am by their dismissal of his disillusioned, shocked, horrified paralysis as cowardice. They not only feel that they would become Audie Murphy, but that anybody who doesn't become Audie Murphy is a coward.

There's a reason they hand out medals, and there is a difference between the Congressional Medal of Honor and the trophy you get for being on a recreational soccer team.

I'm currently working on a fictional story based on the second Battle of Sackett's Harbor in the War of 1812. At the start of the battle, Jacob Brown's militia was in place to stop the British coming across a narrow ford onto the mainland, and their initial volley was effective. Then, inexplicably, these hundreds of men rose as one and bolted into the woods like rabbits. Cowards? Apparently not — Brown was able to gather them up later and lead them back into the battle where they performed well.

Sometimes these things happen, and I'm sure those men looked back on that moment with regret. And I'm sure McQueary wishes that he had responded differently to seeing a man he had admired, emulated and followed since he was in junior high doing something so horrific.

However, here's something for the Walter Mitty experts to chew on, and I offer it not as an "excuse" but merely as an "explanation": The players at Penn State have said that, if they beat Nebraska today, they will award a game ball to Joe Paterno. McQueary was only a couple of years removed from that level of unswerving, unquestioning, blind dumbass loyalty when he saw what he saw.

But, when his horror subsided, when he recovered from his panic, he did what he ought to do: He notified the authorities. He told Coach Paterno, then later he met with the athletic director and one of the university's vice-presidents.

And those authorities did nothing.

If McQueary had been older, if he had been farther up that chain of command, I would blame him for not following up, for not making sure that the police were aware of what had gone on.

But I don't blame the Crow scouts for what happened to Custer, and I don't blame McQueary for what his superiors did with the information he provided.

I do blame Paterno, who was not 28 years old, and who knew about the incident and washed his hands rather than following up. He was too close to the top of the chain, and too close to Sandusky, to claim he did his duty.

Anyway, we can bat this around forever. He should have called the police himself instead of following the chain of command. He should have lept in and stopped what was happening on the spot. Panic and paralysis is for cowards. And he should have not simply reported it to his superiors, but checked back regularly with them to see what was happening, and he should not have believed them if they said, "Don't worry. We're taking care of it."

Couldawouldashoulda.

Here's why I like Keefe's focus:

"Although (Senior Vice President) Schultz oversaw the University Police as part of his position, he never reported the 2002 incident to the University Police or any other police agency, never sought or reviewed a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the 2002 incident. No one from the University did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate student for specifics. No one ever did. … Schultz said there was never any discussion between himself and (Athletic Director) Curley about turning the 2002 incident over to any police agency."

That paragraph from the grand jury, and Keefe's cartoon, get to the actual point. The rest is sound and fury.

StatePenn
UPDATE: As in most of these sorts of situations, there are decent people who don't necessarily get the most notice. Last night, Penn State students held a rally in which decency did come to the fore.

Previous Post
Cartoonist veterans and their work during military service
Next Post
CSotD: This is no room for old rompers

Comments 5

  2. This cartoon says it all. Heartbreaking.

  3. Thank you, Mike. None of us knows what we would have done in his place – and we do not know his own personal history that might have further confounded things.
    I have been remembering a time over 30 years ago when I worked in a nursing home with lots of good people and a bully of a nursing aide. She talked tough, made threatening remarks ABOUT residents and staff alike, was physically imposing and, when disciplined by supervisors, bragged about her invulnerability, due to her personal relationship with the administrator. I think everyone had at least some fear of her, and I suspect everyone believed she abused folks (at least emotionally). Some may well have seen actions but stayed quiet. Those of us who discussed it knew we would need way more than her break room talk and our suspicions (as well we should).
    I have a vivid, vivid memory of the day I heard her say angrily to a resident, “You hold those fingers still or I’ll break ’em!” It was loud enough for me to hear from my office next door. I looked up and saw the Activities Director walking past – and saw by the look on her face that she had heard it, too. We both knew this was something concrete – especially with a resident who was quiet and docile – and we both felt sick to our stomachs with the anxiety of being the ones to have heard. We reported – but not without tremendous fear of the repercussions. Even with the backup of another reporter I knew there was a likelihood nothing would be done, her ‘invincibility’ would only increase, no one would ever take the chance of reporting again, and I and my family (yes, she seemed that scary) would be vulnerable.
    Would I have reported had I been the only one to hear? Would I have reported if everyone else thought her incapable of abuse? Would I have reported had she been more powerful than an aide with an ‘in’ with a nursing home administrator? I sure hope that had she been raping the woman I would have – but this memory keeps me humble.
    McQueary would now be better off (publicly) had he never reported – is that really what we want?

  4. McQueary was a mandated reporter. When he told Paterno but did not tell the police, he broke the law. We might have sympathy (I do not, but I can see how someone might) but we cannot make excuses for him.
    He put his own career – not his personal safety, but his career – ahead of the well-being of a traumatized child.
    Mandated reporters are required BY LAW to report a suspicion of abuse.
    Victim 1’s mother called the high school principal when her son told her what was happening, and the principal immediately banned Sandusky from the school and called the police. That’s the right thing to do. Period.

  5. You are incorrect about the mandated reporter law, which, first of all, applies to people who work with children in their official capacity. As a college coach, McQueary does not work with children and is therefore not a mandated reporter.
    Note that the principal of the school, as someone who works with kids, is a mandated reporter. Note also that, as the ranking official in his school, his obligation is likely to go to the police, but could also be to go to someone in the district office, depending on how the school has set up procedure.
    Getting back to McQueary, even if you read it that, because he was acting as a coach when he became aware of the situation, he is therefore obligated to report (a tortuous reading of the law, IMHO), he is NOT obligated to go to the police.
    He is obligated to report it internally, and the university is then obligated to report it to the state authorities.
    McQueary might technically have been obligated to go directly to the athletic director, who is in charge of the facility (the sports complex), but I suspect going to Coach Paterno, and later discussing the matter with the Athletic Director and a VP of the college is certainly well within the spirit of the law.
    Here’s the relevant section of Pennsylvania law:
    (b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).
    McQueary was not, under any conceivable reading of the law, required to go to the police. He may not have even been, under the law, a mandated reporter, given that he doesn’t normally work with children.

Comments are closed.

Search

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get a daily recap of the news posted each day.
^ Top