Outrage, self-interest, and fear are primal human motivations but it is when we are presented with the moments that make us afraid, or are easy to ignore, make us furious, or might go against our own immediate interest that we decide where we will throw in our lots, and what label we will be given. These moments are usually fleeting, and challenge our most primal motivations. They are the moments we regret if we choose inaction, the moments we wear most proudly when we act. On rare occasion, the choice can be so important to another person and one’s self, it leaves no ambiguity; it is the choice to be a villain or a hero.
When the news broke that a former assistant football coach at Penn State University, Jerry Sandusky, was arrested for the rape of children, and is suspected in the rape of dozens of others, it sent shock waves through the country. A secondary wave rippled across the state when it was made public that more than half a dozen people knew about the rapes, some even witnessing assaults in progress, and never called the police. Even more shocking was the subsequent riot in support of the employees fired due to their inaction. Some sports casters even spoke with outrage that people were fired because they only knew about the abuse. Penn State is a powerful example of the power of compound, unchecked, passive but potent villanry.
In a civilized society, there should be no disagreement that, if Sandusky is guilty of what he is accused, he is an undeniable degenerate; a villain no matter which dictionary is consulted. What seems to be less clear to some is the categorization of the persons who knew about the rapes, and did not nothing to stop them.
Unlike most rapes there were adult witnesses in at least two of the Sandusky rapes. Temporary employee janitor James Calhoun and then graduate assistant (now a receivers coach at Penn State) Mike McQueary both have publicly stated that they saw Sandusky raping children.
These two men were not faced with a moral quandary; they were faced with an immoral quandary. They could take all action necessary to expose him and protect the child or not. To take action, to stop the attack, call the police, and stop the predator was the only moral choice. The dilemma they faced was one of tribal allegiance or economic self interest coming before the welfare of the child currently being raped right in front of them and future children that would be raped by Sandusky. Child pornographers, and the Catholic Church have already forced us to examine how we as members of our society feel about putting financial self-interest and tribal allegiance before the welfare of children.
Even though McQueary says he did notify the child’s father, both Calhoun and McQueary chose to try to defer the consequences for acting to their bosses. Instead, they only compounded the rape of the children by putting them and other children in danger.
By refusing to act responsibly and call the police, they not only sent the message to the child that the issue was more complicated than that of being rape victim; they sent the message to their bosses and the raped children that there was room to act with immorality, creating moral wiggle room for a morally wiggle-free situation.
Had McQueary and Calhoun contacted the police, their supervisors would have been faced with attacking the credibility of their employees and the rescued children, making them public monsters. By not calling the police, both witnessed changed the dynamic from one focused on the only moral choice and changed it to an indirect, hearsay situation with all of the plausible dependability necessary to justify inaction on the part of the supervisor. The each supervisor knew the risk of exposure was low because they knew the supervised would already not go to the police and probably would not go public.
When supervisors Head Coach Joe Paterno was notified by McQuery and Jay Witherite was notified by Calhoun, both again decided not to call the police. Both supervisors again passed off the responsibility. Witherite told Calhoun to make an internal report but this would be essentially a non-starter to getting police action because Calhoun was already trying to escape the responsibility of reporting.
Paterno went the other direction, contacting the Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley with the report. Instead of calling the police in a single hearsay situation, Paterno, and McQueary created an easy to cover up double hearsay situation. To make matters worse, eventually Vice President for Finance and Business at Penn State Gary Schultz was contacted instead of the police.
It is reported that a meeting was called with Curley, Schultz, and McQuery in which Curley and Schultz tell McQuery they will look into it.
It is here again, through is inaction that McQuery confirms to his tribal leaders (supervisory staff) that he is will put the welfare of the child he witnessed getting raped behind his allegiance to his tribe. McQuery creates a further disincentive to take action and incentivizes inaction. Curley, Schultz, Witherite, Calhoun, McQuery, and Paterno all knew it could be embarrassing or damaging to the reputation of the school if the allegations became public. Had Calhoun or McQuery called the police when they saw the rapes, that would no longer be a consideration because the potential damage would have already been done. It is the inaction of Calhoun and McQuery that forced the welfare of the child(ren) to have to stand the test of inter-tribal loyalty and self-interest.
It is impossible to view any of these men as innocent victims of the situation. In conversations about morality, we often reduce our views down to what if X resulted in the rape of children to see if our moral or ethical stances hold true.
After Paterno was fired, many Penn State students protested in his honor, angered that he was fired for nothing more than knowing and doing nothing. I suspect if a mother of a child knew that her husband was raping their child because an adult friend witnessed it and reported it to the mother, these students would be appalled and call for the imprisonment of the mother. Yet, when Paterno asked to exercise the same judgment and presented the same circumstances and fails to take the appropriate action, throngs of people angry protestors come out to provide him support. It is unconscionable act of malicious lunacy to protest the removal of a person from leadership when they fail to act in a case with an infinitesimally small moral gray area.
The protestors should be treated with the same public, unabashed, ruthless disdain as Curley, Schultz, Witherite, Calhoun, McQuery, and Paterno. They made the same choice the Catholic Church made when they covered up the rapes of the children in their flock; they chose to set aside morals for tribal loyalty.
Our minds come with the feature of contextual understanding (the rules of behavior are different at grandma’s house than home) and different standards of behavior for those in the in group (tribe), which is why so many of these cover ups occur while people are at work, or in another group context such as a church. Instinctively we may, at first, understand why someone goes to their boss instead of the police. They are at work, and work has policies for dealing with such things.
The problem is, even though in our mind we change out of our societal clothes and into our business attire or church bests when we go through the doors of our offices or holy places; we never actually leave society. Our duty is to our society before our bosses, or our company, or our tribe.
There is no eight hour moral exception to our responsibilities to act with regard for the welfare of our fellow human beings while we are at work. There is no two hour moral exception in the church walls. A personal substitute for moral responsibilities cannot be made. One cannot pass off their ethical duties to a proxy or let someone else choose a side for them. By action or inaction, when one makes a choice, they own it. They wear the label that comes along with it.
Calhoun and McQueary had a duty to society and to the person they saw in the act of being raped; just as the Bishops who received abuse complaints from the Catholic Church had a duty to report abuses, or the bankers had a duty to not sell products that could hurt the economy. Each of us, individually is responsible for our own behavior, even while we are at work.
It is our responsibility to stop allowing all people to get away with immoral acts because they are at work. We have a duty to personally shame publicly anyone who acts with such moral indifference as did the Penn State football and administrative staff. We have to read the label people, through their actions, put on themselves. More importantly, we must remember that just because we change our context by going to work, or school, or church, or mosque; the rules of morality still apply.
Handing off responsibility is a tempting deception, but it is a deception. Calhoun and McQueary were as responsible for their actions before they told their bosses as after. Until the right action has been taken, and sometimes even after, the ability to do good comes with a responsibility to do so.
In the case of the Penn State University Child Rape Enabling Tribe; Curley, Schultz, Witherite, Calhoun, McQuery (who still defends his actions/inaction), Paterno, anyone else who knew about it including spouses, secretaries, supportive sports casters, understanding social commentators, and their throngs of morally bankrupt protestors; they cast their lots. They all were presented with a clear moral question, they chose a side and are responsible for their choice. They chose to take the label villain.
Each of us will be faced with a day when we will be compelled to select a label from two choices; a clear black and white ethical choice with no moral ambiguity. This will be selection of our own making. In doing, we will take the label of hero or that of villain. Our actions will be used to define our chosen word, to at least one person, and maybe only ourselves, but it will be with us for the rest of our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment