The sickness at Penn State

Everyone seems to be trying to explain or understand what happened at Penn State. Sure, there is the unbelievable evil of Jerry Sandusky raping young boys over (at least) a 20 year period. I would never minimize that, but we have had pedophiles before, and will (unfortunately) again.

The question that haunts me is how he could continue to do this behavior after discovery. How do good people, in other words, allow this evil to occur? Nicole Rodgers suggests that it is a product of the good old boys club, and I think there is much to that.

But I also wonder if this is not about paternalism and deference gone awry. The more I read about PSU, the more I see that Joe Paterno had a pretty unique situation there--one he had, in large part, created. Successful coaches are powerful elsewhere, but Paterno seemed to have cultivated even more power on the campus--and largely through means that we would all celebrate. Many credit him with transforming Penn State's academic prowess from an ag school into a intellectual powerhouse. One reporter suggested that Paterno had enough power to remove a university president.

In fact, what I read reminds me of a mob boss (bear with me), though with a key difference. Actually two key differences, because I have yet to actually read of Paterno abusing people. On the contrary, the stories of his leadership (prior to this scandal) are legendary.

What I mean by mob boss is that he had created the environment where everyone on campus sought his approval. (One key difference is that I have also yet to read of real credible efforts to overthrow Paterno. Everyone there seemed to both admire the man, and recognize that his name was synonymous with the brand. Some other coach, in other words, could not replace him.)

That need for approval, or intense deference, was built on the understanding that Joe Pa would take care of them. It is that context, I think that might (might) explain the grad assistant's response. He witnessed Sandusky raping a child, and instead of interceding himself or calling the cops, he spoke with his father and only the next day told Joe Paterno. It is conceivable that Mike McQueary saw the situation in the context of not wanting to disappoint Paterno. (Not an excuse, mind you, but possibly how he saw the situation). He might have thought (and I suspect if any of this is true, this is in the subconscious) that going after Sandusky could possibly alienate him with Paterno. So, he deliberates and then decides to tell the boss what he knows.

Paterno, for his part, turned the information over to his AG. If I am correct, however, instead of giving it to his boss (perhaps on paper), Paterno was delegating to a subordinate, who could also fear upsetting the boss. The message might have been clearly unspoken--take care of this, but don't upset the program (and "program"="Joe Paterno").

I am speculating on most of this, but have observed this deferential behavior in myself in dealing with perceived betters, and observed it often when working in an organization. And I am not suggesting that Paterno is malevolent. I am suggesting that the unintended consequence of the "cult of the personality" of Paterno created a very unhealthy organization. And I would suggest that this disfunction occurs in many, many organization. Most, however, don't have these stakes.

I would like to know more about how things operated in Penn State when the stakes were lower. Did assistants and grad assistants do the equivalent of "whistle-blowing" on other problems? How did Joe Pa deal with people who screwed up? Where there people who were "untouchable?"

None of this excuses any of them for not picking up the phone and calling the cops. But a possible way of examining how people operate in this kind of organizational structure.