This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Moral Obligations Were Shirked in Sandusky Case

Penn State officials obeyed the law, but ignored their ethical responsibilities when abuse charges against Sandusky were passed "up the chain."

 

The controversy surrounding Penn State and Jerry Sandusky is far from settled.  With 40 charges of sexual misconduct in a span from 1995 to 2005 from the eight victims who have come forward, the question on every parent’s mind is, why didn’t anyone stop this?

According to David Gilgoff, PhD, CEO of Valley Youth House, “all sexual abuse of children is not covered under child sexual abuse laws but they are covered under criminal statutes.”  

Find out what's happening in Bethlehemwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) will investigate a case against an alleged “perpetrator,” which is defined by the law as the child’s biological or adoptive parent, the paramour of the child’s parent, an individual 14 or older residing in the same home as the child or a person responsible for the welfare of the child which includes childcare providers, therapists, doctors, etc.   

Sandusky would not be considered a "perpetrator" under the child protective services law because he did not have a direct connection to the welfare of children according to child abuse law. 

Find out what's happening in Bethlehemwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Child sexual abuse laws speak to child custody and, in the case of Sandusky, his was a criminal act. The used for criminal acts often follow a chain of command up the institutional hierarchy. 

“They were not mandated reporters — the college student population is 18 and older, they are not generally people working with minors. Penn State reporting up the scale is not unusual,” said Dr. Gilgoff.

While witness Mike McQueary reported to who reported to Athletic Director Tim Curley who reported to the Vice President of Business and Finance Gary Schultz, they were only obligated to hand off institutional responsibility up the chain of command. Legally they performed their duty.

Dr. Gilgoff said, “The system of going up the chain of command has two disadvantages in the law: one, the more the facts can be confused and the more institutional review process takes over; and, two, when institutional personnel are involved the investigation has to be independent rather than internal.”

Athletic coaches like Sandusky form a powerful bond with the athletes as mentors and at times surrogate parents. His victims may not have wanted to damage Penn State’s reputation, thinking it could best handle the situation internally.  Sexual predators are successful because of the willingness of those around them to keep the secret.

“Anybody can make a report to ChildLine,” said Dr. Gilgoff.

“There are those who are mandated reporters, anyone who works in child welfare — doctors, nurses, teacher and therapists — the law is such that if you have a suspicion not necessarily evidence, that you should report to ChildLine.”

Back to the question, why didn’t anyone stop this? From the bottom to the top, only the minimum requirement to satisfy legal obligations and institutional policy, reporting to a supervisor, was accomplished.

Child abuse should be a collective responsibility, an ethical obligation to protect children. Doing the minimal requirement might satisfy the law but it in no way exonerates one of his or her moral responsibility to confront systems that would otherwise shield abuse and sexual predators.

Even if you are not a mandated reporter, you can directly report the suspicion of child abuse, to the ChildLine and Abuse Registry by calling 1-800-932-0313 or the police.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?