If allegations from Pennsylvania’s top cops are true, there’s been some very sordid business going on at Penn State University – starting with allegations that an assistant football coach raped a 10-year-old boy. It continues with charges that key administration officials committed perjury and covered up a number of dirty deeds.
Naturally, everyone wants to know what the Big Man on Campus knew, and what he did with that knowledge. That’s Joe Paterno, who has been head coach ever since the U.S. was at war in Vietnam. The state’s attorney general has said Paterno fulfilled his legal obligations by reporting to university officials the allegations of his underling’s wrongdoing. But she also suggested that Paterno failed to fulfill his moral responsibility, which was simply that he should have called the police.
Earlier today I watched a clip of former Lions GM Matt Millen discuss the stench coming from Happy Valley. He, like many people, expressed disgust with the situation, but advised that Paterno not be dismissed because (and I paraphrase): “This is America, and you’re innocent until proven guilty.”
Well, yes and no.
Yes: If government is going to take away your liberty by putting you in prison, then yes, you are innocent until proven guilty.
And no: As individuals, we can and should come to our own judgments apart from whatever happens in the legal process. “Innocent until proven guilty” my … foot. There are certain, more burdensome rules that apply (and rightly so) to criminal prosecution. They’re summed up in the phrases “burden of proof” and “due process.”
Millen makes the common mistake of taking the culture and code of government (in this case, criminal prosecution) and trying to apply it elsewhere.
A business is free to make judgments on people short of a criminal conviction or even indictment. That’s why there are morals clauses in some contracts. Granted, Penn State is a government institution, yet I suspect that even it has a morals clause in its contracts.
On an individual matter, the same logic applies. Say you have a daughter. Would you be satisfied if your prospective son-in-law has a history of getting into fights, as long as he hasn’t actually been arrested for assault? I don’t think so. Prosecutors work under a substantial burden of proof, but that’s no reason to think the rest of us must live with the same obligation.
Personal judgments can be harsh and sometimes unjustified, but they are part of every civilized culture. We draw lines between what is acceptable and what is not – and those lines can and should differ, depending on whether the power of government is involved. Reserving our moral judgments only for things that are contrary to the law is at best intellectually and moral lazy, and at worst, an exercise in nihilism and cynicism.
If there’s any good that comes out of this sexual abuse/cover-up scandal, it’s a better understanding of this distinction.
First published by the Michigan View:
http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=3522