As most people have probably heard, a scandal at Penn State University has been all over the media for the past week. An important part of the scandal took place back in 2002. The scandal involves Penn State’s Division I football coach Joe Paterno failing to report to the police incidents of sexual harassment by his former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, of various younger boys. Paterno apparently reported the incident to his superiors, who barred Sandusky from bringing boys back to the football locker room. This incident, finally uncovered, illustrates how easily truth can be manipulated.
Everyone is reporting different stories to the media. McQueary, the man who originally informed Paterno about Sandusky’ s actions, said he reported the incident in detail to Paterno. Paterno claims he heard it was just something of a sexual nature. Eventually, the story is diluted to the point where an act of rape became just “horsing around” (pennlive.com). The tricky thing about this scandal is that it is all based on hearsay. It is one man’s word against another man’s word; determining the truth in this situation will prove to be quite difficult. With all the conflicting stories, clearly some people are lying.
It is interesting how the truth of a situation also depends upon who is voicing this truth. Technically, Paterno did nothing wrong by following procedure and reporting the incident to officials above him. So then why is everyone holding him responsible for covering up this heinous crime? Records show that there was a new janitor who, a couple years earlier, witnessed Sandusky sexually abusing a child in the locker room. Yet, no one is holding the janitor responsible for not reporting what he saw to the police. People are speculating that the reason for pinning responsibility on Paterno, and not the new janitor, is because Paterno was the only person from whom the police would believe this hideous truth. It was likely the new janitor could have reported the incident, but Penn State would have quickly covered up the incident by challenging the validity of a janitor and quickly firing him. Because Paterno was the most powerful man at PSU, police would have accepted the truth from him.
The implications stemming from this incident clearly illustrate the malleability of truth. As we see with this PSU scandal, too often the truth can get diluted when it is constantly retold. Not only does the truth change with every additional person who spreads it, but it also contains less and less value as it is spread, because such hearsay lacks credibility. Additionally, the same truth can carry different weight, depending on who is voicing it and how much power that person has. It is often said “with great power comes great responsibility”. This responsibility can sometimes be a burden, when it requires the revealing of a heavy truth, but it is necessary, because the power behind a person is sometimes what renders the truth to be credible.
While the legal culpability of Joe Paterno is uncertain; however, it is very clear that he failed in his duty, and therefore hurt many, by failing to speak out in the name of truth.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html
No comments:
Post a Comment