EDITOR: The events reported below are fictitious and meant only as a parable to assist the reader to view matters from a fresh perspective and in the context.of the times. CEOs deal with dozens of matters each day. And what at one time frame is perceived as being a “big brother” at another raises the spectra of pedophilia. Actions in the past are viewed by current standards.
In 1995 I co-founded an organization that provided a six week summer program on college campuses for promising adolescents of disadvantaged backgrounds. (True, but the rest is fiction.)
In 1998 I was approached by a subordinate at a college field house who told me that a child’s mother had complained that a college professor who was head of our program’s sports activities had showered with a boy from our program.
We relayed the information to the local child welfare authorities. They responded that they believed whatever took place to have been innocuous, especially since the adult was known to be a respected leader of a highly esteemed organization that served local youth.
Then in 2001 a junior counselor reported to me that he had seen the same adult acting inappropriately with a boy in the shower. There seemed to be disagreement among my staff about what the junior counselor had witnessed: was it just “horseplay,” or was it of a sexual nature?
By then the professor had retired from our program and the college but, as did other retired faculty members, retained the privilege of using the college gym.
Having been advised earlier that the authorities did not consider “horseplay” activities evidence of any crime and the ambiguousness of what had been reported, we did not again refer the matter to local authorities. I nevertheless arranged that the retired faculty member not shower any longer with program boys.
It later turned out that the faculty member was a pedophile and for more than a decade accusations against him had been ignored or mishandled by various local and state authorities. An indictment finally took place and he was convicted on a number of counts of pedophilia and sent to prison — in a scandal that caught national attention.
As part of the investigation I was accused of not having taken appropriate action in 2001 when it had been brought to my attention that something had been witnessed between the retired faculty member and a boy from our program while showering together.
I was arrested for not alerting the local authorities concerning what had been reported in 2001 and earlier this week was convicted on a misdemeanor charge of child endangerment.
Although I deeply regret not having appreciated the danger of what might be going on, clearly sensitivity to pedophilia was not nearly as much fifteen years ago as it is today.
I now may at worse have to spend years in prison and at best pay fines and receive a suspended sentence. Of course I will be unemployable, shunned, and our previous good name is besmirched to the detriment of my children and grandchildren.
EDITOR: The following is an excerpt from notes in preparation of a forthcoming book on corruption in Pennsylvania by Bill Keisling:
In March 2017 jury found Spanier guilty of one misdemeanor count of child endangerment.
In November 2012 Spanier was charged criminally in connection with the Jerry Sandusky pedophile scandal along with former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley.
The three were accused of not adequately protecting victimized kids from Sandusky and lying about their actions before a grand jury.
Spanier was forced to resign in November 2011, following Sandusky’s arrest, and at the same time Coach Joe Paterno was fired.
Spanier and Schultz were originally charged with child endangerment, perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
The criminal charges against Spanier, Schultz and Curley were brought after former FBI Director Louis Freeh published emails between the three administrators ruminating about what to do with Sandusky in 2001.
The grand jury perjury charges against the three were dropped in January 2016, when Superior Court Judge Mary Jane Bowes ruled that Penn State General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin could not testify against them due to attorney-client privilege.
Spanier was the subject of a blistering attack by Freeh in his report.
The Freeh Report discusses, for example, Spanier’s supposed response to a report that Sandusky was seen with a boy in the Penn State shower room in 2001:
“Spanier said he asked two questions: (i) ‘Are you sure that it was described to you as horsing around?’ and (ii) ‘Are you sure that that is all that was reported?’
“According to Spanier, both Schultz and Curley said ‘yes’ to both questions. Spanier said the men agreed that they were ‘uncomfortable’ with such a situation, that it was inappropriate, and that they did not want it to happen again. Spanier says he asked Curley to meet with Sandusky and tell him that he must never again bring youth into the showers. Spanier said the men also agreed to inform the Second Mile that this direction was given to Sandusky and ‘we did not wish Second Mile youth to be in our showers.’ Spanier said there was no mention of anything abusive or sexual, and he was not aware of the hour of day, the specific building involved, the age of the child, or any other prior shower incident. Spanier also said he did not ask for such details.”
