September 19th, 2012Top StoryMalcolm Gladwell Turns Jerry Sandusky Into A Parable By Leaving Out Some FactsBy Dom Cosentino This week's New Yorker brings a new retelling of the Jerry Sandusky story, this one from pop-think guru Malcolm Gladwell. In his usual this-thing-explains-that-thing mode, Gladwell cites case histories of two other prominent pedophiles, using those stories to explain how Penn State failed to act on what appears, in hindsight, to have been obvious, ongoing child abuse. Child molesters, Gladwell writes, are good at deceiving other adults:
That's fine. Gladwell is right that Jerry Sandusky had a public persona that could fool anyone. He was a successful defensive coordinator, the man who made Penn State into Linebacker U. He was the trusted lieutenant of Joe Paterno, famous for his own rectitude. And Sandusky had founded a charity to help underprivileged youth. Why would anyone suspect he was a monster? But Penn State officials were dealing with more than first impressions. And to try to fit the Sandusky case into his story of how regular people are manipulated by molesters, Gladwell leaves out a number of facts that indicated that Penn State officials seemed to understand what they were dealing with. So Gladwell frequently refers to the case of Jeffrey Clay, a well-liked Canadian elementary school teacher who repeatedly made angry denials about his behavior while allegations about him continued to surface. Unlike Clay, though, Sandusky was the subject of more than rumors. [Correction: There was a police investigation of Clay, but the case fell apart in part because some of the boys interviewed by police denied he had touched them.] His actions were investigated by police and by the state Departement of Public Welfare, back in 1998. Here's Gladwell's account of Sandusky's visit with the mother of a boy he'd showered with—a conversation that happened while Penn State police detective Ronald Schreffler and another detective listened in from the next room:
This account of Schreffler's conflicted and uncertain thought processes sounds good. But Schreffler himself was sure that what he had heard was enough evidence to bring charges. He said so in December, and he said it again in June. The decision not to press charges wasn't made by the detective but by the district attorney (who has been missing since 2005). Gladwell moves on to discuss the psychological evaluation of Alycia Chambers, a psychologist who had been working with that same boy. The mother, as Gladwell notes, asked Chambers if she was overreacting by bringing her concerns about Sandusky to Chambers's attention. And the boy didn't want to get Sandusky in "trouble" because the boy was enjoying the access he was getting to the Penn State football program through Sandusky. To which Gladwell adds:
Again, Gladwell overstates how unavoidable the uncertainty was. Lauro, the DPW investigator, later said PSU police never shared Chambers's evaluation with him, and that if they had, Lauro "would have made a different decision." Gladwell then demonstrates how Joe Paterno and Penn State administrators might have been duped. He writes:
The implication here is that PSU officials were aware of nothing more than an investigation, which had led to no charges. Yet three years later, when those officials were confronted with then-graduate assistant coach Mike McQueary's eyewitness report of Sandusky and another boy in a shower, Schultz's handwritten notes from the time show that he "reviewed the 1998 history," while an email reveals that he asked the PSU police chief about the report from the '98 incident—a report that included Chambers's and Seasock's psychological evaluations, plus Lauro's assessment. And as Gladwell mentioned earlier, even Seasock's evaluation, the less damaging one, had recommended that Sandusky be advised to "stay out of such gray area situations in the future." Instead, Sandusky ended up in the showers with another boy—witnessed this time by McQueary. Gladwell narrates how McQueary's eyewitness account worked its way up the chain of command at Penn State after McQueary talked to Joe Paterno, who then talked to athletic director Tim Curley:
Didn't it occur to them? According to the words of these men themselves, they knew they were discussing something more than goofy horseplay. McQueary has testified repeatedly that he conveyed to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz that what he saw was "sexual." Paterno told the grand jury McQueary had informed him of "fondling" and something of "a sexual nature." As for Curley, he twice told the grand jury he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, when the emails in the Freeh report demonstrate that he did. And in the fateful email exchange in which Penn State officials decided not to report Sandusky to child welfare authorities in 2001, they acknowledged that Sandusky had "a problem" and that they felt he needed "professional help." Professional help for what? For Jerry being Jerry—because, despite Gladwell's version of events, Penn State knew what Jerry was. |
|
A destination on the Interweb to brighten your day (now get back to work!)
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Malcolm Gladwell Turns Jerry Sandusky Into A Parable By Leaving Out Some Facts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment