Coach, I am sensitive to your perspective. I am a former LL president who has had the unsavory (but totally necessary) task of doing background checks on hundreds of volunteers, which I always limited to a very small group (usually myself and one other trusted board member) because you would not believe the number of false positives - usually because of errors due to name similarities - and people understandably get very, very upset at even a suggestion that somebody with any kind of allegation of misconduct against them might have access to their children. We certainly have to be extremely vigilant in thoroughly investigating this sort of thing before making anything public (and seeing inevitable "scarlet letter" public reaction), and we all need to avoid the rush to judgment and condemnation in the absence of a full and fair hearing of all the facts.
I am also sensitive to the plight of the victims of this kind of abuse. As a kid, my football coach from 2nd through 5th grade was actively abusing my teammates. I did not know this at the time; I knew only, as I told my Dad, that "Al played favorites" and that I was not among the favorites (thank God). But, when this all became public when I was in high school, I was not surprised. Nor am I surprised that several of his victims - my friends and teammates - have been complete recluses whose lives have been irretrievably and horrifically altered by what happened. We cannot ever forget the vulnerability and preciousness of childhood, and when push comes to shove, the balance should always be tipped in favor of protecting the child rather than the accused. After all, as others here have pointed out, one can protect oneself from such allegations simply by not being alone with a child (and the resistance of a coach or teacher to having other adults around is ABSOLUTELY a red flag for any parent - not to mention an act of naivete at the least and sheer stupidity at the worst by any innoncent teacher or coach). There is no perfect balance, and certainly there are false accusations and serious consequences that flow from that, but in my opinion, laws that require the reporting and investigation of any allegation of child abuse strike the right balance.
Another thing that really needs to be made clear is that
this scandal is nothing like the example of the potentially falsely accused teacher or coach whose life is ruined by false accusations and a rush to judgment that you mention. This report is based on not charges, but
grand jury indictments after an investigation that took nearly three years and resulted in a 23-page, very specific and detailed findings of fact to support the indictments. This case didn't just "make it to the grand jury," it resulted in mutiple indictments. I generously referred to this as "lots of probable cause" but it is really much more than that: anybody who reads the grand jury's findings of fact would have a difficult time imagining how Sandusky's legal team will ever create reasonable doubt, as there are multiple, extremely similar stories testified to under oath by many, many people. And, even lack of proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not the equivalent of innocence, and does not absolve the "exonerated" from being judged in the court of public opinion. [I, like you, would simply ask that people make informed judgments, only after a full hearing of all the facts. But they are entitled to their opinions and judgments, and to legally act upon them.]
This is part of where even Coach Paterno now finds himself: legally exonerated, but seemingly very culpable morally. If you read the report of the grand jury, it is clear that officials were aware of very, very similar conduct in 1998, but Sandusky was never charged (even though the investigation
then revealed a second victim with an indentical story - one which would be repeated again in 2002. It was very soon after that investigation that Sandusky abruptly retired - after a closed door meeting with Paterno that he emotionally told yet another victim about and told that victim to keep quiet. Are we to accept that Paterno knew nothing of the allegations and investigation in 1998, that they had nothing to do with his meeting with Sandusky and subsequent abrupt "retirement" in 1999, or that he wouldn't have even thought of the prior
nearly identical incident when a grad assistant reported what he had seen in 2002? That he would have never even confronted or asked Sandusky about any of this? And if he did not, is that not just as telling?
Ultimately, this is why - even though I find myself sympathetic to those who are falsely accused - I cannot condone those willing to risk those giving the accused the benefit of the doubt by failing to report any alleged abuse. These understandable feelings of not wanting to risk the reputation and careers of friends and colleagues end up serving to enable those (let's hope it is those few) who have actually done what they are accused of to continue their abusive ways. This Deadsp
Deadspin article says it very well:
quote:
"Blowing the whistle is the exception to the rule. The fact that Paterno, deemed by many to be the Gold Standard for how a football coach ought to conduct himself, isn't immune to it should tell you something. Because I'm fairly certain that despite all this, Paterno remains a good and decent person. ...
"Sandusky was Paterno's colleague (and one would assume friend) for over three decades. So imagine someone coming up to you and telling you that your friend of 30 years was raping a kid in the shower. Would you believe it? Would you want to believe it? Probably not the first time you hear it. Would you go to the police? What if the grad assistant was wrong and your friend's life is ruined because of a misunderstanding? You might not even want to explore the matter further because you can't tolerate the idea of someone you trusted doing such monstrous things. I think the reason Paterno went to his AD and didn't go to the cops is because it provided him with the chance to have it both ways. This way, he was able to 'report' it, without having to be the person who takes the significantly braver step of actually calling the police. Problem solved. Conscience cleared.
And yet, because of these understandable feelings, a person apparently capable of horrific acts was allowed to continue to abuse several victims well after Paterno and his Penn State colleagues either knew or should have known something was very seriously wrong and failed to do anything about it.
I'm all for waiting until the facts are in before "outing" the accused, or making any kind of judgment, and those who truly are exonerated should see that shouted from the hilltops as loudly as those who would brand them with the scarlet letter at the outset, but the balance in such matter - imperfect as it will inevitably be - should always be struck in favor the child.
