15 de novembro de 2011

Violences at Universities: A Penn State Trustee Searches for Answers


Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011

By Andrew J. Rotherham and Julie Rawe

Pennsylvania education secretary and Penn State trustee Ron Tomalis spoke with TIME about the special committee the university's board of trustees created on Nov. 11 to investigate the culture at Penn State and what led to the grand jury indictments of two school officials and former football coach Jerry Sandusky, regarding his alleged sexual abuse of boys on school facilities. Fellow trustee Ken Frazier, the CEO of Merck and a graduate of Penn State, will chair the committee. Tomalis is vice chair.(See pictures of Joe Paterno's storied career.)
TIME: How can people have confidence that this will be an independent investigation and break through what is obviously a tightly connected group of folks in power?
Tomalis: First of all, the chairman, the CEO of Merck, is an individual of very high caliber and talent who is helping to oversee this committee. And I am a state official. I'm not a Penn State alum. I have no relationships with Penn State except for my position on the board as a state official. We're also bringing in outsiders. The outside counsel will have no connection with Penn State, and [these lawyers] will be the ones who will be doing the investigation. And it is our intent to make their investigative report totally public. We are not limited in our scope, except that we cannot interfere with the attorney general's criminal investigation that is still ongoing.
Given how influential Penn State is within Pennsylvania, do you think it is likely you'll get a firm that is based outside the state?
I think it's likely that we will do that.(See pictures of the Penn State riots after Joe Paterno's firing.)
Did you see the article in late March in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, where a reporter got ahold of a lot of grand jury details and pretty much laid out the Sandusky case?
I did see the reports in the Patriot-News.
Was there any reaction to those reports?
Well, they were secret grand jury proceedings, so there wasn't much that could be done because those were all private grand jury proceedings.
But they were publicly discussed in late March.
Correct.
Was there any planning for a course of action in the event that the attorney general would go public with the investigation? Were there any discussions about preparing for the worst?
Not that I was a part of. I don't know if it was part of the discussion among [school president Graham] Spanier's leadership, but not that I was a part of.
Up until now, could anybody in Pennsylvania control Joe Paterno?
Well, that's one of those areas, the relationship between the football program and administration and the board of trustees, that will be part of the examination that the special committee will be looking at. It was a complete shock when the grand jury indictment came out and when people actually sat down and read the 23 pages of what was alleged to have happened during the time that Sandusky was the coach for, or was still involved either indirectly or otherwise with, Penn State University. (See seven key players in the Penn State abuse case.)
Will your committee have the authority to compel people to meet with your committee, to compel their testimony?
We will be approaching every individual who we believe, through our outside counsel, can provide us information that can get us to what we need to know as to what happened at Penn State. And we certainly hope or would expect as much cooperation as possible.
Will university employees be at risk of losing their jobs if they don't cooperate?
We have the commitment of the current leadership of Penn State to cooperate fully in any way that we can, so as we begin to have our outside counsel proceed with the investigation, if there are individuals or times when we hit a roadblock, we'll address those when we get to it.
You said your plan is to make the entire report public. How does the possibility of civil lawsuits complicate your mission?
We wouldn't be surprised if there are some potential civil lawsuits. But it's the commitment of the board to get to the answers wherever they may be, regardless of the consequences. We need to know what happened because of this incident. The board is extremely committed to finding out what happened, regardless of where it may take us and the consequences of this discovery.
Governor Tom Corbett said he that when graduate assistant Mike McQueary told school officials he had seen Sandusky sexually assaulting a child, he met his minimal obligation for reporting but did not meet his moral obligation. What's your take?
We can say that someone met this fine line standard within the law, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they did what was right. And that's the most troubling aspect of this for me.(See a TIME viewpoint on why the Penn State unrest was senseless.)
What does that tell us about the culture of football and the culture of oversight at the university?
What I caution everyone to talk about is saying that this defines the culture of Penn State football. I think you saw the culture of Penn State football at the beginning of the game on Saturday [Nov. 12], when all those players got down in the middle of that field at the beginning of the game, got down on their knees and prayed for those kids. When you saw the tens of thousands of students come out not for a white-out, for a blue-out. Even though earlier in the week, there was an extremely small number of students who took to the streets, following the announcement of the coach. The culture of Penn State was better represented by the tens of thousands of kids who came out at the candlelight service on Friday night [Nov. 11]. So I'm cautious about saying things related to culture that encompasses everyone. Now, does that mean that it isn't an issue? Of course it's an issue. We have to be careful about the relationship between the football program and the rest of — or individuals in the football program and the rest of the university. But to say that this is indicative of the entire program, I think, would not be correct.
Colleges are big, powerful institutions. They have their own police forces and judicial systems, and they control when information gets passed from the on-campus authorities to those off campus. What can you say to people like us who are wondering if there are more Sandusky-type transgressions that are getting swept under the rug?
We have to be very concerned about that. We have to remember that in many circumstances, in many cases across the country, not just in Pennsylvania but across the country, these universities are small cities. These are big enterprises, multibillion-dollar enterprises, with tens of thousands of employees. Where I would look at it, as a parent of two children myself — one day we will be looking at colleges to go to — is this symbolic of the overall culture and climate at the university? Or is this the exception? Overwhelmingly, students at Penn State would say this is the exception. Overwhelmingly, that this is not symbolic of what happens at State College. And I would imagine that that would be a true statement at almost every one of our universities. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And what the investigative committee will do, what the board of trustees has committed to do, what all universities should look at across the country, is to make sure they recognize that we are as vulnerable as the single student is on that campus. And in this case, unfortunately, it was a 10-year-old boy in a shower. We cannot let that happen again. So while people will make broad, general statements and try to apply it, or seek a very specific incident and make a general statement about a university, I know that's not the case for Penn State, and certainly for the students.(See why silence in the locker room can be painful.)
You said the students who were protesting were greatly outnumbered by the students who were disgusted by the protests and who went to the prayer vigil. Are there any other big misconceptions about Penn State?
One of the misperceptions is about the slowness of the board to react to this situation after it broke. You have to remember that it was four days, 96 hours, from the time that that report was made public until Spanier and Paterno were both relieved of their responsibilities. Considering the size and scope of that institution, that's quite aggressive action in a short period of time.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário