A few points to keep in mind about the alleged crimes: (1) People have been charged with crimes but not convicted. In addition to the child molestation charges, Penn State administrators have been charged with perjury (lying about knowing about an instance of child sexual abuse that they was reported to them). I think the Time article forgets about these points in an attempt to provide some sensationalized reporting about a terrible situation.
(2) From the accounts provided in several sources in the media, McQueary, a graduate student at the time when he observed the child abuse and had discussed the issue with his father on what to do before he told coach Paterno, did what was legally required of him, that is, tell his supervisor coach Paterno. In turn, Paterno notified his superiors and it went up the administrative ladder. Why someone would confuse this with bystander apathy is a puzzlement BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID WHAT THEIR ROLES REQUIRED THEM TO DO. That is, there is a clear hierarchy that has to be followed in the organization and, without a law requiring a person observing child sexual abuse on campus to report it to outside authorities/police (Pennsylvania has no law requiring reporting), everyone did what they were required to do, probably with the assumption that a person at a higher level of authority (or high pay grade) would contact the police if it was decided that it was necessary. So, submission to authority and "knowing one's role" and confirming to it is really the relevant psychological concepts -- we should be talking about Milgram and Zimbardo and not Darley and Latane. (I believe Paul Brandon made similar points but in a different way). -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------- On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:28:22 -0800, Beth Benoit wrote: This take on the horrible story about child abuse at UPenn troubled me, since the story of the coach who observed the little boy being raped in the shower is NOT a very good example of "bystander apathy." It doesn't really fit what we know about bystander apathy, particularly the most important concept: that the more people there are, the less likely one will step forward. With only *one* observer, it's more likely that that one person will feel responsible. Of course there are other parts to the "bystander effect," and "lack of knowledge" might loosely fit here - that is, Coach McQueary may have been a little unsure what he should do, but that doesn't really seem relevant either. But I hate to see this story dubbed an example of the bystander effect. http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/11/bystander-psychology-why-some-witnesses-to-crime-do-nothing/?xid=gonewsedit --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=14187 or send a blank email to leave-14187-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
