A few weeks ago, the students and teachers at the school where I teach watched “The Lady,” a biopic about Aung San Suu Kyi. During the scenes with the Burmese soldiers running rampant, one of the students was visibly disturbed and had to be comforted by one of her fellow students who is from the same background. That sort of reaction does not happen without a reason, but since the reason is personal I have decided not to pry. Such matters are not for others to interfere in without permission, especially since no permission was generally given when those memories were formed in the first place.

I have been following the repercussions of the Penn State sexual abuse scandal rather closely, and I have blogged about it a little bit [1] [2] so far. Last night the independent Freeh Report, undertaken by a former FBI chief, found some major problems in the culture of Penn State, including a cavalier disregard for the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in their quest for victories on the football field. The idolatry given to athletes and to coaches, in the case of Penn State (and probably many other institutions as well) prevented university officials and a legendary coach from behaving like decent human beings and protecting children from a monster who exploited his position to fulfill his horrible lusts on children without protectors or defenders.

It is hard to speak about such matters without wanting to spit fire and take the law into my own hands, but I do my best to control myself. One bit of truth that I found rather alarming was that there is a law, called the Clery Act, in the United States that requires universities to protect children from abuse [3]. Despite my interest in both the issue of sexual abuse and the laws that govern educational institutions, I had never heard of this law at all until the release of this report. Penn State, incidentally enough, appears never to have heard of it either, not coming up with a plan to implement enforcement of the law until after Sandusky had been arrested. It is likely that many other universities have failed to fulfill their moral and legal duty to protect children on their campuses but have not yet come under the same scrutiny because no Sandusky-like cases have been found, yet.

What is so difficult about looking after some fatherless children and saving them from abuse at the hands of one of your own associates? When you find out that someone is guilty of such monstrosities, the way you react to that truth determines what kind of person you are. When we find out wrongs have been committed, do we deal with them (privately if necessary) or do we turn a blind eye because of our own selfish concerns and our desire not to deal with unpleasant matters? Penn State made their choice, and a few people have had their reputations ruined and will be spending time in jail for violating federal laws by failing to report crimes, and the university itself might lose its federal funding as a result [4]. Why is it so hard for people to do the right thing?

Many people find it easy to spend a great deal of effort wooing those who can be of profit to them. College coaches spend many hours recruiting players, wooing them with promises of playing time and popularity. Guys spend many hours wooing women in various ways. Politicians charm and woo people for votes and fundraising. Advertisers bombard potential customers with marketing for their own profits. If someone has something to offer us, we are willing to spend the time in getting what we want, often at heavy costs. I could tell stories on myself at this point, but I will refrain from doing so. Suffice it to say that I am not immune from this general human tendency.

But the world is full of people that we think have nothing to offer us. What effort do we spend on them? The top officials at Penn State were unwilling to call the District Attorney after an assistant coach had witnessed a man inflagrante dilecto with a young boy. Speaking for myself I would have a difficult time avoiding physical violence in such a situation, and reporting to the authorities would be a foregone conclusion, with the willingness to take a spot on the witness stand myself to protect the young people themselves from having to undergo the stress and anxiety of testifying themselves. And I would expect that any decent person would do the same thing themselves. But how do we have universities like Penn State (and, no doubt, many others) who have no such decency themselves.

What do we do about this situation? How do we ensure that we protect those who would otherwise not be protected? How do we ensure that we have a base level of respect and concern for all other human beings, regardless of what they can do for us or regardless of whether we like each other or not? We are not judged by how we treat the greatest and most important people of this world. It is assumed (generally accurately) that we will treat the powerful and wealthy and influential with a great deal of respect. We are judged, instead, by how we treat the lowest and most humble and least important. This is because our true character is determined by how we treat those with whom we could do whatever we wanted, and who can do nothing to us. If we treat them with love and respect, we are people with those qualities deeply engrained in our hearts. If we treat them with contempt and abuse, then we are contemptible people ourselves, no matter our own titles or power. Why is this so hard to understand?

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/old-school/

[2] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/somewhere-to-run-somewhere-to-hide/

[3] http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–freeh-report-penn-state-key-findings-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky-.html

[4] http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/freeh-report-penn-state-violated-clery-act/nPsB5/