HLNtv’s Jane Valez-Mitchell took a firm stance on the issue of Penn State University’s responsibility toward the children who were hurt by football coach and child-predator monster Jerry Sandusky. On HLNtv.com today, Valez-Mitchell explains:
The time has come to vigorously prosecute the officials who ruled this legendary institution when these allegations surfaced and who are charged with failing to tell cops about suspected child sex abuse. As we know now, had someone in power simply dialed 911 the boys — who were sexually assaulted by Sandusky after the initial allegation — could have been spared.
It was a over decade ago that a shaken coaching staffer Mike McQueary told his boss, legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, that he saw Sandusky and a pre-pubescent boy in the Penn State locker room doing something that looked extremely sexual. Paterno did not call 911.
There were so many people who dropped the ball in this case. And the consequence of failing in their responsibilities wasn’t lost profits or someone’s hurt feelings. The cost was the innocent lives of children, who were forever changed due to being raped by a man whose career and reputation were more important than the safety of children.
Valez-Mitchell makes the case for a hearty punitive financial settlement:
In our culture we punish through prison and payment. You can’t put an institution behind bars. But, you can make it pay through the nose.
The people who run America’s most powerful institutions — be they educational, religious or corporate — must get the message, once and for all, that they cannot put the inanimate thing that pays their salary above the welfare of beings that can feel pain.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
While money cannot repair the damage done by a sexual predator, it may offer some relief and the opportunity for the survivors to get the therapy and help they may need. Also, if the lawsuit is awarded in amounts significant enough to make the university truly, truly hurt, it is a message to institutions that they have a financial incentive to protect children… Since obviously the children themselves were not motivation enough to do the right thing.
Photo of lost and alone courtesy of Shutterstock
MADD did not exactly cause all the legislation that altered our well-entrenched drink-n-drive culture. It was the insurance lobby that did it all. They used MADD as a PR tool for popular buy-in. But it all came down to Ins cos not wanting to pay the price any longer. Same with sexual harassment laws and requisite training for large employers. The insurance companies dictate that employers train accordingly. Some day Aetna et al will coma around to figure this out. Then they will require some very fundamental institutional training for their customers. In the interim, I hope their in-action costs… Read more »
Lots of substantial payouts are essential. It must be cheaper to protect children, and prevent child abuse, then to compensate the victims when they reach adulthood.
I agree 100% that Penn State must assume responsibility. They failed to do so when these boys needed help. In a crime where secrecy is maintained through the helplessness and shame of children, adults who suspect it is happening have a special obligation. Like bacteria on an agar plate, silence is the medium on which sexual abuse thrives, and any measures to prevent or stop it fall short if they do not address that key issue.
When any (any) institution is willing to sacrifice a child for their own prosperity, safety, comfort, etc., they ought to be treated with greater prosecutory zeal than the actual offending individual(s). I will hear no excuses and no spin. The catholic church, penn state, syracuse u, and a myriad of other institutions have recently demonstrated that a throw-away child, a “fringe child,” is fair sacrifice fodder, and clearly not worth the demise of a “good man,” a “great institution,” and should certainly never trigger the death of a “greater good.” State College, PA area poor-boys were sacrificed on the alter… Read more »
This is a very worthwhile question to pose because, from my point of view, it can open up a larger discussion. Think of all of the millions of boys and young men who have endured non-heterosexual sexual innuendo, both verbal and physical, over long periods of time, from men. Is it possible that enduring such continuous long term treatment has an effect on males that is just as demeaning, undermining, depressing that it has for females? Males are not likely to talk about it. And they are perhaps even more likely than females to pretend it doesn’t matter or that… Read more »