Dr. JC posted this on the BWI McAndrew Board. The literary references of Dr. JC (below) are stunning as well. I thought it was worth reposting here, and with his blessing, here it is.
A NEW NARRATIVE: THE TRAGEDY
OF PREMATURE CONCLUSIONS
OF PREMATURE CONCLUSIONS
Sometimes it is
painfully difficult to hold onto something that in your soul you believe is
true, particularly when that very belief has faced an onslaught by those parties
and individuals who control the dialogue: Maybe that is what faith is all
about. Penn State students, alumni, and fans who have followed the tragic
situation at their university have had to sit tight and endure the anger,
incriminations, and vitriol that were the manifestation of the Louis Freeh
Report, a presentment that went without challenge or vetting: The fact is, that
this it was literally accepted in its entirety on face value. However, in
recent months we have had the opportunity to experience new and revealing reports
commissioned by the Paterno family. These presentments offered cogent, well
constructed, comprehensive counterpoints and challenging findings by individuals with truly impressive credentials. Finally, we have the opportunity
to experience the long overdue vetting and rebuttal to what some considered the
questionable findings of the Louis Freeh Report. Yet for the most part, these new presentations have been ignored by
the media or discredited for a host of what seem ill-considered reasons. It
feels as if there is a dedicated unwillingness to countenance the possibility that the Freeh Report was flawed and
overstated in its conclusions.
Let us not forget the
response to the findings and pronouncements contained in the Louis Freeh
Report. The popular hosts of television and radio talk shows, sports commentators,
columnists, private citizens, fans, the Penn State Board of Trustees (BOT), and
of course the NCAA all reacted almost instantly, ruthlessly castigating in
particular the legendary coach Joe Paterno for allegedly being an accomplice in
a disgraceful cabal to hide what happened at Penn State. In my opinion, Mr.
Freeh presented his findings in a manner filled with hyperbole and
overstatement, a theatrical, dramatic style clearly designed to "raise the
ire" of the audience. Of course, the media picked up the "drum
beat" and opined in a similar style, the airwaves and editorial pages filled
with commentaries couched in indignation and outrage. To be incensed with Jerry
Sandusky after the trial revealed his guilt is totally understandable and maybe
even welcome. But regarding the "Penn State Four" (Spanier, Schultz,
Curley and Paterno), it quickly became apparent that for far too many there was
neither the time nor the desire to be patient until a more complete picture
could emerge - a picture wherein other sources of factual evidence could be put
on the table and considered before reaching conclusions regarding any alleged
cover-up. And, regardless of the Paterno presentments, I fear that the
particularly loathsome nature of sexual predation and victimization has
permitted and justified in the minds of many a sweeping attack upon and sterilization
of everything Penn State-related. A predator hurt young children; hysteria and
the lack of due process damaged a great university and an iconic figure.
I believe it is
incumbent upon us to at least wonder why so many individuals were willing to
almost blindly accept one presentment and not at least wonder if there should
not have been a public vetting of a document that was filled with such damning
conclusions, particularly since theconclusions were based upon a suspect
methodology of investigation. To me, that was unconscionable! It should not
have been permitted to happen. Were those who based their opinions strictly on
the Freeh Report not aware of his investigative record? It is both important
and revealing to note the fact that Louis Freeh completed a report for FIFA,
the governing body of the International Soccer Association, pertaining to
corruption charges against Bin Hamman, a candidate for president. Upon review
by the Court of Arbitration of Sport, many of the charges were dismissed as they found the investigative report by Freeh to be incomplete
and lacking in the necessary comprehensiveness. Should that not at least be a
flag that suggests proceeding with caution before taking his findings at Penn State
as irrefutable, rock-solid truths? I would think so.
Apparently in what has
been termed a "rush to injustice," there was neither tolerance nor
time for another narrative to develop. Due process and in particular one of the
most honored pillars of American jurisprudence – the notion of prosecution and
defense, were cast to the wind. It seemed everyone knew who the guilty parties
were - so let's not waste time: Might as well just throw the rope over the limb
and have a good old-fashioned media lynching! It would have been helpful if
someone had reminded those individuals who were so quick to convict and punish
of that famous novel that so dramatically depicted the consequences of callous
injustice - The Ox-Bow Incident.
Unfortunately, like many
media-generated stories, the Penn State saga has a "media life"
wherein other more recent narratives and information no longer pique the
interest of the media and general public; the once irresistible sensationalism
of Paterno and Penn State has quickly lost consumer interest. In essence, the
damage has been done and the thinking of many has been set almost irretrievably
in concrete.
As a psychoanalyst, I
believe that what we are currently experiencing (as evidenced by the recent
Piers Morgan and Matt Lauer interviews) is technically what we call resistance.
Particularly, individuals are often rigidly resistant to facing the reality of
their actions and misperceptions. Simply - they would rather not know and
remain attached to their false notions, delusions, and dysfunctional behavior.
When these individuals are confronted, they often become agitated and highly
defensive. A perfect example of this was the manner in which Piers Morgan
attacked Ziegler and tried to dismiss his information as bogus and ridiculous.
Unfortunately, Ziegler's natural manner is not conducive to having a reasonable conversation with
someone as defended as Morgan.
Resistance must be tactfully addressed and removed before an individual can
engage in a conversation that might raise their anxiety and promote a degree of
self-examination. Few have the capacity of a Bob Costas to entertain the notion
that he was premature in his opinions and consequently found the capacity and
strength to revise his conclusions. For most of those who publicly denounced
Paterno, they must either flee from or discredit the new revelations in order to
save face and to sidestep the damage to a great university, its alumni, and a
legendaryiconic man, which in part they are responsible for. Sadly, it seems to be a characteristic of our still immature and often tabloid-minded society.
I am particularly
confused by the actions of the NCAA regarding the draconic sanctions imposed
upon Penn State. To me, they seem a little "psychotic;" that is, not
in touch with the reality of what transpired at Penn State. And, it is important to understand that what
happened at Penn State has likely happened at other universities and
institutions across our country. This is a national problem, not just a Penn
State problem.
In my opinion, the NCAA
wandered far out of bounds from their designated role; that is, to monitor and
assure the fairness of competition and safety of college athletics. And, it is
important to keep in mind that the true scope of these sanctions or more to the
point - punishments, intentionally or unintentionally has caused substantial
distress to the entirety of the Penn State : the reputation of a great
university; the alumni of Penn State; the current student body; present and
past football teams (wins vacated from 1998 through 2011); and of course the
residents and businesses of central Pennsylvania that are reliant upon the
revenues generated by football at Beaver Stadium. Of course, it is particularly
frustrating, as the justifications for these sanctions have now been challenged
with some well-considered opinions that are rather convincing in their
dismissal of the assumptions and poorly substantiated conclusions contained in the
Freeh Report.
Again, I believe that
the NCAA is in the same situation regarding resistance. It would be
rather anxiety provoking for them to change their position, as it might suggest
that they were at least extreme in their actions regarding PSU, if not
downright wrong. Attacking or confronting them simply will strengthen their
resistance and resolve to keep the sanctions in effect. However, an empathic
non-confrontational strategy that helps reduce their resistance to considering
the Paterno presentment might at least provide a stepping-stone to reducing or
eliminating the sanctions.
When considering what
happened at Penn State, we need to promote a rational perspective. Jim
Clemente, a highly recognized expert on child sexual abuse and a former FBI
profiler clearly points out in his report that the failure on the part of
individuals and institutions to quickly recognize the identity of sexual
predators and the scope of their actions is both well documented and
unfortunately all too common. Psychologists and sociologists have long
elaborated upon how incredibly masterful predators are in covering up or
obscuring the reality of their behavior with children - the so-called
"grooming" process: familiarity with family members, a high level of
regard within the community, and a revered image all work in the service of
cleverly concealing that which is actually happening and can cause hesitation
within the minds of those who might entertain suspicions. In his report, Jim
Clemente uses the expression "nice guy acquaintance" victimizer in
referring to the pattern and style of predation that Jerry had mastered. Under
an elaborately constructed disguise as a pillar of the community, legendary
defensive coach,and the force behind the Second Mile program, he was able to
satisfy his sexual needs with children with no suspiciousness by anyone. In
essence, he was a masterful and cunning "groomer;" but it was not
strictly the children who were groomed for his needs. Over a long period of
time, the entire Penn State University - State College community was
successfully groomed to cover up his deeds and provide for his special
needs. It is well within reason to at
least consider that the situation at Penn State was one in which anyone who may
have had some questions regarding Jerry Sandusky's behavior with children may
unfortunately have cavalierly dismissed them as just "Jerry being
Jerry." And of course, his development of and commitment to the Second
Mile Program put him high in the regard of the entire State College community.
I believe that we need
to communicate to our detractors and doubters how incredibly difficult it was
to even contemplate, let alone believe, that someone who maintained such high
esteem within the community - an individual who had been the source of
accolades and admiration could be guilty of abusing those very children he
purported to assist and protect. And, in Jim Clemente's opinion, that is what
happened at Penn State and that is why in fact there was no cabal - no
sinister intent to cover-up of Sandusky's actions. It is just those
thoughts - those very misperceptions regarding "acquaintance
victimizers" that enable masterful predators like Jerry Sandusky in
particular, to go without revelation until the tragedy that has befallen the
victims is finally recognized and confronted. Finally, there now is a
reasonable, plausible narrative presented by an acknowledged expert in the
field of child sexual abuse and victimization that makes sense out of how
things went down at Penn State in the late 1990's and early 2000's. I suggest
that it is relatively impossible to use 2011 eyes to see and understand actions
in 1998 or 2001. And that was Freeh's critical fault and the failing of his
report; that is, the inability to grasp the true nature of what was happening
at Penn State circa 1998-2001.
In my opinion, the Penn
State board of trustees should have defended, not defiled Joe Paterno's
reputation until due process or at least further sworn testimony showed that he
was a knowing participant in any alleged cover-up: The dedication of his life's
energy as well as much of his personal wealth to Penn State should at least
have warranted that consideration. You do not permit a great university, its
alumni, and an iconic figure to be trashed on a singular, unchallenged, and
suspect piece of so-called evidence. Had the media and the board of trustees waited until the truth came forward, hysteria would have succumbed to the quieting
light of due process and honest revelation - and that is the way it should be!
For reasons that are
rather apparent, the assault on the legacy of Joe Paterno reminded me of the
infamous "Dreyfus Affair." In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a French
army artillery officer, was tried and found guilty of treason by a court
martial on the basis of false and misleading evidence - evidence that was
contrived and corrupted in order to reach a predetermined desired outcome. It
was later revealed that testimony on the treasonous actions of Dreyfus was
perjured -filled with outrageous insinuations and assumptions. However, thanks
in part to the relentless efforts of the fiery writer Emile Zola (J'accuse) and
a few dedicated individuals, the truth was finally revealed and the conspiracy
against Dreyfus was shown for what it really was - -anti-Semitism and the
corruption of due process by entrenched powers. After spending years banished
to the infamous Devil's Island in French Guyana, he was found innocent and his
rank restored. But the similarities are disturbing: When initially found
guilty, Dreyfus was paraded in front of a jeering public, stripped of his rank
and insignia medals, and his sword broken in half. In his disgraced and torn
uniform, he was paraded through the crowd and spat upon. Think about it! Joe's
statue being removed, his placards torn down, his record from 1998 through 2011
erased, and his legacy being dragged through the media to be spat upon and his
name a source of disgrace. Again, are the parallels not compelling at least
and frightening at worst? All this predicated on assumptions and "must
have knowns." J'accuse the American media of a mass hysteria. J'accuse
the media of creating a man of mythical proportions, only then to revel in
destroying him.
It is rather ironic to
note that the NCAA chastised Penn State for permitting the culture of football
to dominate and corrupt the affairs of the university. What? Did I hear that
correctly? Are they joking? Is the NCAA suffering from delusions? For decades,
Penn State has been the absolute model for the student-athlete, with the annual
graduation rates for football players consistently amongst the highest in the
country - and often the highest. Particularly, the graduation rate for
African-American athletes surpasses almost all other institutions. Penn State
is noted for producing academic all-Americans at an unprecedented rate; yet;
the NCAA warns them about the culture of football – a culture largely created
by the NCAA itself, as it has negotiated massive financial contracts with
the media for bowl games, play-offs, etc. J'accuse the NCAA of blatant
hypocrisy - of pointing an accusatory finger at Penn State when that very
finger should be pointed at themselves. And, J'accuse the board of
trustees for cowering to bullies by not demanding due process to provide a more
reasonable and factual understanding of what really transpired and illuminating
any role that JoePa and others might have had in this tragedy. J'accuse
the board of trustees of derogation of the responsibility of debunking the
attacks regarding the "culture of football" at Penn State and
demonstrating with facts what we have accomplished in the last forty years. J'accuse
the board of trustees for not properly and openly vetting the Freeh report,
before accepting it as fact and justification for their actions. In fact, I now
must wonder if the board of trustees had an agenda regarding Joe - maybe even
the rare opportunity for a few to act-out some bizarre vendetta regarding Joe
Paterno. It surely begs the question: Was the Sandusky situation an ideal time
to get some payback and destroy the legacy of Joe Paterno? Maybe not to others,
but to me that is the only way I can understand the impulsivity of the board in
firing Joe and their refusal to stand behind a man who had done so much for
Penn State. There seems to be a play within a play within a play.
In closing, if due
process should reveal culpability on the part of Joe Paterno and other members
of the administration for the tragedy that occurred at Penn State, I will
accept it and slowly, painfully work through it - always remembering that children
were hurt. But until that is established, although cantankerous in nature
and imperfect as a man, I will continue to embrace the notion of Joe Paterno as
a brilliant and dedicated coach, teacher, and philanthropist at a great
university. He was steadfastly committed to an idealized notion of what college
athletics should be and never veered far from that vision. Unlike the
falsified, aggrandized media image that made Joe Paterno a man for all seasons
- the reality is that he was but a man made for the football season.
Joseph A. Cattano, Ph.D.,
PSU 1971
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment