Own the Walls

FACTS About Pennsylvania Law and The Sandusky Scandal, as they relate to Joe Paterno.

I feel as though many people lack the understanding of what Pennsylvania Law actually dictates about the treatment of the reporting of child abuse.

So here I am to explain.

Please reblog if you agree or find this information useful to the general, uneducated public.

In his last interview with the Washington Post, Joe Paterno said:

“I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was… So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”

Knowing this, it is time to understand what Joe Paterno did and could actually do by law.

Pennsylvania Code, Title 49: Professional and Vocational Standards, Chapter 16, Subchapter G, Paragraph 102 dictates that:

“Board regulated practitioners who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility, or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation, or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility, or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

Upon notification by the Board regulated practitioner, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made.”

Cleared of any wrongdoing, Joe Paterno fulfilled his obligations under Pennsylvania State Law. But what about the moral question at hand? Could JoePa have followed up more aggressively?

Again, under Pennsylvania Code, it states that “the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made.”

Under this provision, many public and private institutions throughout Pennsylvania require that their employees follow the strict “chain of command rule”. In speaking to one schoolteacher about this, I was told:

“A teacher can receive numerous reports of child abuse, but they always have to report to the principal. What happens from there is confidential, only to be reviewed and acted upon by the principal and government services.”

Furthermore, under the Penn State Administrative Policies, Policy AD12, it states that:

“Disciplinary sanctions for violations of this policy will be imposed in accordance with applicable University policies. The range of sanctions will include termination.”

So what?

The way this law is worded, a teacher or other school employee (and depending on the strictness of the enforcement of the PA Code in the school) could risk the loss of their job for breaking a PA Law. Even if they wanted to act further on a report of child abuse, they cannot by law because it has now become the sole responsibility of “the person in charge”.

But he had a moral obligation, the public says.

Yes, I am aware that he had a moral obligation. And so he followed up as best he could under the law.

The Grand Jury Report states:

“Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning… Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate supervisor, to his home the very next day… Approximately one and a half weeks later, the graduate assistant was called to a meeting with Penn State Athletic Director Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz (“Schultz”)… Curley and Schultz assured the graduate assistant that they would look into it and determine what further action they would take. Paterno was not present for this meeting. The graduate assistant heard back from Curley a couple of weeks later. He was told that Sandusky’s keys to the locker room were taken away and that the incident had been reported to The Second Mile.”

What was he to do? Joe Paterno was out of the loop by the second meeting of University officials.

He did everything required of him by law and by his workplace.

Well he must have known that things were happening, some will say.

But who is to say that he knew that the behavior continued? After the initial “follow up” by Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, “everyone” knew that had lost locker room privileges and he had been reported to The Second Mile and to Child Youth Services.

Furthermore, in the Washington Post interview, the reporter states:

“McQueary (the graduate student) has testified that he gave both men (Tim Curley and Gary Schultz) a far more graphic description of what he witnessed… At the preliminary hearing for Curley and Schultz on Dec. 16, McQueary said he had been reluctant to go into similar “great detail about sexual acts” with Paterno, out of respect for the coach, who was 75 at the time… [Paterno] reiterated that McQueary was unclear with him about the nature of what he saw - and added that even if McQueary had been more graphic, he’s not sure he would have comprehended it. ‘You know, he didn’t want to get specific,’ Paterno said… ‘I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.”

Finally, Joe Paterno met with Sandusky in 1999 and encouraged him to retire, telling him that he “would not be the next head coach at Penn State.”

There are some people that would say that, despite the law and despite his lack of information, Paterno should have done more. “It was his moral obligation to see it all the way through”, and he did not.

I personally think that the blames lies with a few different people.

Tim Curley
Gary Schultz
Graham Spanier
PA Law

Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have already been indicted on charges of perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse, based on their inaction.

Graham Spanier was fired on November 9th, along with Paterno.

However, the last culprit, the Pennsylvania Law, has not been changed. The “chain of command” style law is grossly inhibiting, and it prevents employees from taking proper action right off the bat.

States like Louisiana have “proactive” reporting laws, requiring that employees report it directly to police and Child Youth Services.

Perhaps, for the sake of students and children everywhere, the Pennsylvania State Code should be changed to encourage and allow reporting of abuse crimes by employees and staff directly to police.