Sandusky, Penn State and the Freeh Report

At one level, all of us who work in the field of child protection should celebrate the Freeh Report on the way in which Penn State University handled the sexual abuse allegations regarding former assistant football coach Sandusky. The report is blunt and scathing in pointing out the lack of accountability and responsibility by the university. It makes it clear that these children were not protected and could well have been (not to mention victims that had yet to be brought into Sandusky's abuse).

The report states:

The most saddening finding by the Special Investigative Counsel is the total and consistent disregard by the most senior leaders at Penn State for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims. As the Grand Jury similarly noted in its presentment,1 there was no “attempt to investigate, to identify Victim 2, or to protect that child or any others from similar conduct except as related to preventing its re‐occurrence on University property.”
Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University – President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President‐Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno – failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well‐being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001. Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child’s identity, of what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001.

These individuals, unchecked by the Board of Trustees that did not perform its oversight duties, empowered Sandusky to attract potential victims to the campus and football events by allowing him to have continued, unrestricted and unsupervised access to the University’s facilities and affiliation with the University’s prominent football program. Indeed, that continued access provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims. Some coaches, administrators and football program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky’s behaviors and no one warned the public about him. (pp.14-15).

Already we see some of those named coming out to deny their culpability. Certainly, the individuals resposnible should be identified and their actions held up to scrutiny with all of the resultant consequences. What matters most here, however, is what can be learned about sexual abuse in institutions that can be useful elsewhere.

The report is long and has many suggestions.

In my mind, one of the most poignant lessons is that wealth, power, prestige can all combine to make an institution and those who serve it wilfully blind to events that can tarnish that reputation. at best, it can cause them to cover up or act behind the scenes. As I have said before, sexual abusers uses secrecy as one of their best tools to keep going In the Sandusky case, he had powerful allies to Penn State to help him with that.

Critics argue against mandatory reporting laws stating that they will lead to a flood of complaints and further over burden an already over burdened child protection system. They fear that the system will become over intrusive and apprehend children who should not be apprehended. Yet, this report shows that without methods to demand institutions and individuals to do the right thing, many will not.

This avoidance of doing the right thing is not unique to child protection. We need only look at yet another series of banking crises emerging in both the United Staes and the United Kingdom to see that.
We have also seen multiple examples of institutions who avoid accepting the responsibility that comes with managing people who abuse children - Mount Cashel Orphanage in Canada; the Roman Catholic church with their priests and brothers in many countries; the Boy Scouts in Canada; The churches who ran the Residential Schools throughout North America and so on.

Thus, we do need government to legislate and regulate as it seems too many of its citizens and institutions aren't willing to do the right thing.

Mandatory Reporting Laws

There is often debate about whether mandatory reporting laws should exist. Should mental health, medical, education and other professionals be required to report cases where they suspect that child abuse is occurring? There have been many examples in the media where mandatory reporters have over reacted to information. In Canada, there is the recent case in Ontario where a child drew a picture of what was thought to be her father holding a gun. This resulted in an over reaction even to the point of the father being arrested.

What does a professional do when an older teenager discloses abuse in a session and then insists that the case not be reported? The child makes a cogent case that reporting will make things worse - what then? These are difficult ethical dilemmas for many professionals.

A court in the United States has shown the damage that can be done when a report is not made. While the case from Oklahoma shows that there were many errors including purposeful deceit, it does make the point that it is up to the child protection authorities to decide on a case, not the mandatory reporter.

In Florida, partially in response to the high profile Sandusky case one suspects, the legislature has now made it possible to levy serious fines on universities for failure to report. The Florida bill goes further according to Tampa Bay Online :

Additionally, the bill makes it mandatory for everyone to report suspected child abuse or neglect, even if the alleged perpetrator is not the child's caregiver. Previously, the public only was required by law to call in a report if a caregiver was responsible. 

 Opponents of mandatory reporting laws feel that they lead to an over reporting of cases and that pressure to err on the side of protecting the agency leads to unnecessary and intrusive actions by child protection authorities. They feel that it results in children coming into care who do not need to be there and thus, destroying families as well as dispersing resources that can be better spent on families that really are abusing their children.

This of course begs the question - if nobody is required to report, then how will cases get known to child welfare? Where is the balance?