home

Applicability Of The Bystander Theory: 40 Years Of Bystanding On Inequality?

Atrios points to Booman about, as Atrios puts it, "David Brooks s[itting] down and th[inking] to himself, "how can I blame liberals for what happened at Penn State, but in a subtle way." On MTP, Brooks said:

MR. BROOKS: I don't think it was just a Penn State problem. You know, you spend 30 or 40 years muddying the moral waters here. We have lost our clear sense of what evil is, what sin is; and so, when people see things like that, they don't have categories to put it into. They vaguely know it's wrong, but they've been raised in a morality that says, "If it feels all right for you, it's probably OK."

While Brooks' entire thought process is repulsive, I was struck by the "30 or 40 years" line. Obviously Brooks was trying to allude to the 60s I think. That was confirmed by Brooks; discussing the "bystander effect:"

MR. BROOKS: If you're alert to the sense of what evil is, what the evil is within yourself and what evil is in society, you have a script to follow. It's not a vague sense. You have a script to follow. And this is necessary because people do not intervene. If--there's been a ton of research on this. They say people, they ask people, "If you saw something cruel, if you saw racism and sexism, will you intervene?" Then they hire actors, and they put it right in front of them. People do not intervene. It's called the bystander effect. It happens again and again, people don't intervene. That's why we need these scripts to remind people how, how evil can be all around.

The bystander effect was studied after the infamous Kitty Genovese murder in Queens in 1964 (more like 50 than 30 years ago) when 38 "bystanders" were alleged to have done nothing in response to Genovese's cries for help.

While the Genovese murder story turned about to be more apocryphal than revealing, the "bystander effect" has been studied and, not surprisingly, Brooks misunderstands it or deliberately misstates its thesis. In the Penn State situation, the person who claimed to have witnessed the sexual assault, McQuery, was alone. The "bystander effect" posits that:

These experiments virtually always find that the presence of others inhibits helping, often by a large margin. [. . .] There are, in fact, many reasons why bystanders in groups fail to act in emergency situations, but social psychologists have focused most of their attention on two major factors. According to a basic principle of social influence, bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since everyone is doing exactly the same thing (nothing), they all conclude from the inaction of others that help is not needed. This is an example of pluralistic ignorance or social proof. The other major obstacle to intervention is known as diffusion of responsibility. This occurs when observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so each individual feels less responsible and refrains from doing anything.

There is a lot to be said about what happened at Penn State. None of it is related to the bystander theory.

A more apt application of "bystander theory" is to the "30 0r 40 years" of Republicans and conservatives like David Brooks rationalizing and justifying the growing levels of income inequality in the United States. In a later post, I'll take up that issue.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Second Amendment Remedies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The Golden Age Always Wilts When Looked At (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    Two things. First, the bystander effect has some applicability in terms of all the people who basically knew what was going on that didn't want to be the "one" to go to authorities and finally start some ineluctable ball rolling. In a strange way this applies to the victims as well, but there are additional psychological and societal barriers there.

    Second, David Brooks' entire theory of hippie-caused social decay hinges on that idea that cover-ups about child sexual abuse/exploitation began in the 60's and have accelerated as "we have lost our clear sense of what evil is, what sin is". No one believes that this stuff didn't go on. In fact, it used to be MORE accepted and MORE hushed-up. What David Brooks is actually seeing is a sampling bias (reporting, selection and/or confirmation -- you figure out which fits bets). Awareness of where information comes from (and how to analyze it) is not Brooks' strong suit, though, which is pathetic because he majored in history and that awareness the spine of the discipline.

    And of course there's the incredibly cliche (but true) worldwide past of slavery, child exploitation, genocide, rape, bloody land-grabs, etc. where people in the past "vaguely know it's wrong, but they [were] raised in a morality that says, if it feels all right for you, it's probably OK." All that stuff existed before hippies walked the Earth -- but David Brooks often excuses all THOSE "bystanders" of old. Why? Usually because they enslaved or murdered or raped in a way that was "appropriate" for their era and consistent with the morality of their society. The very thing he tut-tuts about when it happens post-hippies, apparently.

    So I guess that was three things.

    Disagree on the bystander theory (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:09:01 AM EST
    Kicking the decision upstairs is not the bystander theory.

    Avoiding the buck is not the bystander theory.

    Parent

    Broadening application of underlying mechanism. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:32:43 AM EST
    Well, I think it's important to note that the "bystander effect" is not really one thing. It's a collection of "psychological mechanisms". As a GT researcher describes them:

    Self-awareness: The (perceived) presence of an audience to his or her actions inhibits the individual from acting. He or she does not want to appear foolish or inappropriate in front of others.

    Social cues: Individuals actively look to one another for cues about how to behave in the situation. The inaction of others will likely cause the inaction of the individual. These social cues can interact with the other mechanisms to increase the effect. If all individuals are initially inhibited, to the audience all will appear inactive. Every individual will perceive all others as inactive, further inhibiting action.

    Blocking: When multiple bystanders take action, the emergency often can become worse. The action--or perceived or suspected action--of one bystander effectively blocks others from taking action.

    Diffuse responsibility: In a situation where only a small percentage of the bystanders can take action, responsibility is diffuse. Each individual feels he or she has only limited responsibility for the negative consequences of inaction.

    http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/papers/journal/hudson-bruckman-jls04.pdf

    The first two are the most common shared elements involved in bystander effect studies, and also both present in the Penn State case.

    And the most recent research/analysis has shown how these same mechanisms work in a broader social and organizational context:

    http://web.mit.edu/ombud/publications/coming-forward.pdf

    http://web.mit.edu/ombud/publications/bystander.pdf

    In short, the root causes of what has been termed the "bystander effect" existed before that umbrella term existed, and virtually every feature of the short-term emergency bystander effect can be seen in broader and more long-term social settings as well. It's a useful umbrella term. I think it's important to break the terminology out of the narrow "Genovese model" of application and into social/organizational apathy and compartmentalization.

    Parent

    I didn't see your (none / 0) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:12:59 AM EST
    post until after mine posted... yet we cover similar points!

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    ...sometimes the flaws in an argument are obvious enough that most people will come to the same set of counter-arguments. If Brooks claimed the sky was green I think a lot of people would have similar arguments against that! No one at the New York Times, though.

    Parent
    Brooks writes (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:06:09 AM EST
    vacuous tripe. There aren't any absolute goods or absolute evils, and i for one don't believe in this concept of 'sin.'

    Behavior is acceptable or unacceptable. the definition changes through time. 150 years ago owning another human and having sex with that human was acceptable.

    60 years ago much of society, made up of people accepted at face value the inherent superiority of whites as 'fact.'

    Again it comes down to people who think anthropology and sociology are just made-up liberal game.

    Of course, he's another conservative historian... i think history attracts more conservatives than liberals... but he hasn't studied the social history very well.  his preoccupation with sin demonstrates his ethnocentrism and/or his moralizing.

    Too bad he has the Times as his soapbox. He's a waste of trees.

    I disagree now (none / 0) (#8)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:24:43 AM EST
    I used to think more like this:
    There aren't any absolute goods or absolute evils, and i for one don't believe in this concept of 'sin.'

    But now I think it's an absolute evil, and a sin, to torture.

    I think it's an absolute evil, and a sin, that anyone dies of hunger while food rots in silos.

    I think it's an absolute evil, and a sin, that anyone must choose between caring for their health and paying for food or lodging.  

    There's a few more, but I'm just saying that I'm more judgemental now than I used to be.  I used to think it was a matter of poor distribution.  Now I realize that most of those absolute evils are more a matter of profit than of logistics.

    I do, however, completely agree that Brooks writes vacuous tripe.

    Parent

    Isn't this exactly what the Catholic Church (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CST on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:10:47 AM EST
    tried to say????  Blame the hippies.

    I really despise the not so subtle suggestion that those of us who do not follow the "Brooks approved" lifestyles have no moral compass and do not know right from wrong.

    I know what evil is.  I do not think it is the same thing as sin necessarily, but I know what it is.  And I don't need a book written by a bunch of dead guys to tell the difference.

    And yea, as Addison points out, it's not like this type of thing wasn't going on before the 1960s.

    What about the Constitution? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    Also written by a bunch of dead guys.


    Parent
    Laws aren't religion, though, JB (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    There's nobody praying to the Washington Monument that I know of...

    The Constitution is changeable, while religious tomes aren't. Additionally, we acknowledge that the Constitution, the magna carta, and other legal and governmental systems aren't handed down from some divine being on high, don't we?

    There's a conservative approach of originalism to the constitution, but I personally don't buy it, or Scalia's/Bork's arguments supporting it.

    Parent

    As for the Washington Monument (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:00:16 PM EST
    I'd like to place this into
    evidence

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#65)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    Religious tomes (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    Change as well as legal ones - it just takes longer in most cases.

    Exhibit 1- the Catholic Church condemned Galileo, but now accepts his theory of how the earth revolves around the sun.  We also accept evolution and the Big Bang theory.

    As to CST's point - if you don't want to accept religious laws and definitions because some  dead guys wrote it, why accept laws and definitions written in context of setting up a nation when other dead guts wrote that?

    I think our moral standards in this country HAVE fallen over time.  Not necessarily based on one set of religious values, but in the way that there is no shame anymore and that we live in an "anything goes" society where the more private repulsive /scatalogical / sexual / rude outrageous etc. the behavior, the more it's ok to let it be seen for public consumption and the more it seems to be lauded and rewarded.  Is that the reason for Sandusky's actions?  No - he's just disgusting.

    But it's funny that we can't agree on what is right and wrong on this blog, yet those who choose to live by (or at least try to live by) a set of rules set out by religious leaders are routinely mocked.

    Parent

    Lots of issues brought up here, but (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by observed on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:04:24 PM EST
    I'd like to point out the relevance of power inequality.
    You may be offended by seeing outrageous behaviors, previously secret, now broadcast publicly; however, I think there is a corresponding trend towards exposing the abuse of the powerless by the powerful.
    Does anyone really think that abuse of boys started within the last 100 years????
    Obviously this practice is as old as civilization. What is different in the last few decades is that FINALLY, the boys (and girls) have some voices raised to protect them.

    Sexual abuse of children is only one issue; one could also list racial prejudice, prejudice against various religious sects, etc.---a whole host of areas in which more sunlight has led to more protection of weaker groups in society.
    Still, my example is a good test. Show me another past society which even acknowledged that AS A RULE, many powerful men used children for sex, and this needed vigilance?

    Parent

    to be clear (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    it's not that I don't accept religious laws and definitions because some dead guys wrote it.

    I don't accept it as fact because I have no compelling reason to accept it as fact, despite the fact that it was written by a bunch of dead guys.  Dead guys have written a lot of things in the past, whether I agree with them or not has nothing to do with who they are, it has to do with what they wrote.  Critical thinking does not end with "some dead guy wrote it, it must be true" or for that matter "some dead guy wrote it, it must be false".

    I have no problem with people who choose to follow a set of rules.  You want to do all that, be my guest.  I have a problem with people thinking they have a monopoly on morality because they follow those rules.

    Parent

    I didn't realize the (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:06:31 PM EST
    Catholic Church accepted evolution.

    Parent
    Theistic evolution. (none / 0) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    A planned and purpose-driven natural process actively guided by God.  In evolutionary creation, faith and science related to human evolution are not in conflict.  Humans are special creations and existence of God is necessary to explain human origins.

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:28:23 AM EST
    I can point out to probably 4 amendments that are routinely violated by our government daily.  And over a year, probably damn half the Amendments are broken by our government.

    It's strictly for show, no one actually believes in it that has power.  It's like the Bible, something they whip out to get the lower classes in line and pretend that they give a damn about either.

    Parent

    what is your point? (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    Do you need the constitution to know the difference between right and wrong?

    Me neither.

    Plus the constitution is a document that was specifically designed to change with the times.  Which means they knew enough to know they didn't know everything.  This comment is just confusing to me.  What does the constitution have to do with anything I said?  It's a legal document, not a moral one.  I don't think there is a moral case to be made for everyone owning a gun.  Or for that matter for the states to have power that doesn't explicitly go to the federal government.  Or even a moral right to free speech (see Phelps).  These are all legal rights to protect you from an overzealous government.  Which has nothing to do with morality.

    Parent

    Actually, the Catholic Church tried to (none / 0) (#51)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    place the blame on "the gays." The Church followed that pronouncement with a gay purge campaign at the seminaries. It was a typically brutal and self-serving move by the Church of Peter.

    Still, you are correct that is much the same tactic.

    Parent

    Nothing muddy here (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    David Brooks is evil.

    On purpose.

    This was less about bystanders than (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    it was about enablers, and less about the culture of the witness(es) than about the culture of the institution that was Penn State.

    This wasn't a crowd of people standing around the showers, all paralyzed with indecision, or waiting for someone else to "do something" while a child was raped; this was about Penn State employees fully invested in the monolith that was and is Penn State football, who allowed that monolith and the enormous power it wielded to determine the extent of their involvement.

    McQueary was fearful of rocking the Penn State boat, and its captain, Joe Paterno - as apparently pretty much everyone involved had been afraid of doing.  What would be the ramifications to McQueary - or whoever else could have stepped forward over the years - if whatever he did ultimately brought the program and its staff and university officials down?  That seems to be the only explanation that makes sense for why he went first to his father, and never, ever called the police.

    As for David Brooks, he is, was and always will be a twit of the highest order, comfortable looking down his nose and blaming the hippies for everything.  


    Good comment. (none / 0) (#43)
    by observed on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    Brooks is often devious, but you've really caught him here.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    McQueary was fearful of rocking the Penn State boat, and its captain, Joe Paterno - as apparently pretty much everyone involved had been afraid of doing.


    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    I saw someone pre-Brooks bring up the bystander theory too, and it is so non-applicable, for all the reasons you state.

    It is more of a whistleblower case, if there has been any studies done on that.

    Parent

    More complex I think (none / 0) (#62)
    by Madeline on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    McQueary and most of the others connected with the scandal adopted the system's values. For years, according the The Collegian campus newspaper,  the university has been confronted with their lack of transparency in all things; the secrets kept about salaries, job descriptions, student contact with administration,etc. McQueary had good teachers.

    Also, when people witness an event such as the sexual attack of that young boy in the locker room, they frequently become disorganized with the shock. They guy went to his father who started the ball rolling to keep it in the system. Is that an excuse? No. It's just more complex than
    'he should have' or he's a scumbag.

    Another is that pedophilia is an illness. So far, there has been little cure except for castration. I don't know if that let's Sandusky claim mental illness, but I am betting it does.  

    It's just complex with the bottom line that many people share the blame for what happened.

    Parent

    Pedophilia is a mental illness? (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    Didn't homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness?

    Parent
    Pedophilia is (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by observed on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:40:15 PM EST
    an orientation which is not amenable to change, as is homosexuality, and as is heterosexuality.
    Do you see the difference between the first example and the other two?
    I do.

    By the way, I read something fascinating on this subject years ago, when I was a regular reader of the NYTimes obituaries.  Kurt Freund was a pioneer in the research of sexual arousal.
    Two conclusions he drew were that pedophilia was incurable, and that homosexuality, while likewise resistant to change, was not an illness. The latter was in Czechoslovakia in the 1950's.

     Freund was also involved in administering conversion therapy: "Freund made a large-scale attempt in Czechoslovakia in the 1950s to change the sexual orientation of homosexuals to a heterosexual orientation through the use of behavioral aversive therapy."[2] His empirical data also showed some of the first evidence that sexual orientation conversion therapy was generally futile. He demonstrated that even homosexually oriented men who appeared to have given up sexual relations with other men and established heterosexual marriages were still aroused by images of men rather than women. Freund also challenged contemporary psychoanalytic theories of male homosexuality that suggested it was due to a fear or aversion to women.[3][4] Freund concluded that homosexual men simply lacked erotic interest in females. Based on these studies, he advocated the decriminalization of homosexuality in Czechoslovakia (which took place in 1961) and the end of conversion therapy. These opinions also put him out of favor with the psychoanalytically dominated psychiatric establishment in Toronto, as he continued to argue that homosexuals needed understanding and acceptance rather than treatment.

    Considering the era---IMO the 50's were the era in which psychiatrists routinely committed atrocities with state sanction---and also that he made these remarks while in communist Czechoslovakia, I was quite impressed to learn about this man.

    Parent

    Or, to quote Dorothy Parker, (none / 0) (#71)
    by observed on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    "Heterosexuality is not normal---it's just common".

    Parent
    My comment was mainly a light questioning (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:48:01 AM EST
    of what a "mental illness" actually is.

    There are all sorts of "common" and "less-common" sexual orientations and desires, and it seems the definitions of which ones are "illnesses" can be somewhat fungible.

    I'd be interested to see why, for example, the desire to have sex with children is an illness while the desire to have sex by force from unwilling partners is not, or, say, the desire to beat your spouse is not, or other desires that are "wrong."

    fwiw, my bet would be that, as a child, Sandusky was sexually abused.

    Does that, combined with being definitionally "mentally ill" now make him a victim?

    I'm not really asking you these questions with the expectation of a "correct" answer from you or anyone...

    Parent

    Thanks for the clarification. (none / 0) (#73)
    by observed on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    I was just giving my two cents. Also, I appreciated the opportunity to mention a man I consider a true hero.
    I'm sure there is research on whether pedophilia is learned or innate; all I'm saying is that it is immutable.
    Wife-beating is definitely treatable, by comparison.


    Parent
    that can be had, but not acted upon, as is, I'd also imagine, the desire to have sex with an unwilling partner by force. I would presume the desire to have sex with children falls into the same category; the desire can exist and not be acted upon.

    Parent
    another theory (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CST on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    being thrown about by nytimes writers.  Link

    "Bad and mediocre people are tempted to sin by their own habitual weaknesses. The earlier lies or thefts or adulteries make the next one that much easier to contemplate. Having already cut so many corners, the thinking goes, what's one more here or there? Why even aspire to virtues that you probably won't achieve, when it's easier to remain the sinner that you already know yourself to be?

    But good people, heroic people, are led into temptation by their very goodness -- by the illusion, common to those who have done important deeds, that they have higher responsibilities than the ordinary run of humankind. It's precisely in the service to these supposed higher responsibilities that they often let more basic ones slip away."

    "And out of the temptation that comes only to the virtuous, they somehow persuaded themselves that protecting their institution's various good works mattered more than justice for the children they were supposed to shepherd and protect."

    Nonsense. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:31:52 PM EST
    That is some blatant "no true Scotsman" fallacy going on right there! Basically, if Ross Douthat respects someone then they do bad things not because they are weak, but because they are too heroic! No true Douthat hero could be weak, after all. Good grief.

    This is a column to bookmark and keep for later use. File it under the "Douthat Heroic Villian Clause" -- when powerful people or organizations happen to be respected by conservatives, their criminal acts are due to an excess of heroism.

    Parent

    it's more than that (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:39:40 PM EST
    he is certainly not calling these people heroes.

    Rather pointing out that it's their own self-presumed heroicness that leads them to the great falls.  Because they have convinced themselves it's for the "greater good".

    Here is the ending of the article:

    "Sins committed in the name of a higher good, Zmirak wrote, can "smell and look like lilies. But they flank a coffin. Lying dead and stiff inside that box is natural Justice ... what each of us owes the other in an unconditional debt."

    No higher cause can trump that obligation -- not a church, and certainly not a football program. And not even a lifetime of heroism can make up for leaving a single child alone, abandoned to evil, weeping in the dark. "

    Parent

    You're giving him way too much credit. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:53:00 PM EST
    First off, he's not saying it's a self-proclaimed heroicness. He identifies them personally as "good people, heroic people". He thinks they are heroes. Now, of COURSE he has to say somewhere in there that the end result of too much heroism (i.e. keeping quiet about immoral acts) is bad. But in the end he's saying that because they are "good people" approved by Douthat, their sins must have been well-intentioned.

    He's wrong on the process of wrongdoing and silence and "sin". He's creating some dividing line (who goes where entirely determined by him) between "good" and "bad" people and claiming that wholly different sets of concerns guide the two groups to make the same decision to not act. Some respected "heroic people" want to preserve themselves and some "bad and mediocre people" want to preserve their families. People are people, they are both self-interested and self-sacrificing.

    Douthat's theory is ridiculous balderdash throughout, a transparent sophistry designed ONLY to save face for people he likes. It's sickening.

    Parent

    Addison: Thought provoking...your comments (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    You may have just cut through the fancy words that pass for setting up a situation where the "who" can overshadow & obscure the "what."  More down to earth: It is easier to offer leniency & understanding when the wrongdoer--fallen hero or otherwise--is someone we respect, someone we like, or someone with whom we identify.  That is understandable; but, what is more problematic is when we don't see a distinction between responding one way when we don't like/don't know/don't identify with someone and speaking quite differently when the doer is someone we we don't like. Human nature, but troubling just the same.

    Parent
    About Genovese, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by observed on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:21:15 PM EST
    decades later it came out that Genovese was a lesbian; she had a girlfriend at the time.
    This has nothing to do with the crime, but I thought it must have been especially painful for the girlfriend, holding on to her grief in secret.

    I Would Call the Entire Republican... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    ...party bystanders to GWB while in office and Brooks different then most in that he has an audience and a responsibility to tell the truth.

    No one, not even the Tea Party criticized him from the inside while he was in office.  Then after he left, the claims that he wasn't a conservative, Rush was glad to be done carrying water, and on and on.

    At least the Democratic Party is criticizing one of their own and quite frequently, including large organized protests.  But the end result is going to be the same, re-election.

    So to put in in terms of the murder in Queens, the republicans were the silent bystanders, Brooks the silent cop, and the Democrats would have been the ones telling him to stop, but in the end she is dead, like our damn economy, because no one want to actually stop the man.  

    Well except for the OWS people, they are the only ones doing something about it.  We will see if he is stronger than all of them, let's hope not.

    Back to Penn State, did Brooks bother to find party affiliation.  He had to, a man like that doesn't right around a story w/o knowing.  Paterno is friend to the GOP and a personal friend to GHB.  Not sure about Sandusky.  

    So the issue is the moral failings of the left have turned the right into bystanders, if Paterno is to be considered a bystander ?

    So David Brooks speaks for (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    Bush and all Repubs???

    Wow. The things I learn from you.

    And yes, Repubs hacked away at Bush. Perhaps you remember the 2006 so called immigration reform and how the base was so outraged they stayed home and the Demos won both Houses.....

    They just don't complain about what you want them to..... And that's no surprise.

    And do you really want to bring in the  party affiliation of Sandusky and Paterno? I mean do you actually want to claim that Repubs are child sex abusers.

    Wow. Double wow.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:57:45 PM EST
    I missed all of those things you mentioned, where exactly did I say any of it.

    Just to set it straight, i didn't say nor did I imply anything about anyone party affiliation and child molesters.

    Jim refrain from making it up.

    Parent

    Back to Penn State, did Brooks bother to find party affiliation.  He had to, a man like that doesn't right around a story w/o knowing.  Paterno is friend to the GOP and a personal friend to GHB.  Not sure about Sandusky.


    Parent
    Both are Republicans (none / 0) (#63)
    by Madeline on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:15:25 PM EST
    Me adding to the trivial and admit is a ridiculous response. Who cares?

    They all crossed the Rubicon.


    Parent

    Are you trying to imply (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:53:07 PM EST
    that no Republicans have been no child molesters?  That's as ludicrous as saying that no Democrats have been child molesters.  

    Or are you accepting the self-created characterization that all R's are child molesters, because nobody said that but, apparently, you.  What exactly is your point because I'm not finding one in your last paragraph.

    Actually, I meant your penultimate paragraph, which makes your last one even more meaningless.  Unless I assume that you're so easily scandalized that you scandalize yourself.  Or something.

    Parent

    There's something missing in this story (none / 0) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:39:23 AM EST
    While I haven't followed the details of the Penn State horrors as closely as some others have, I just can't accept the conclusion that many have, and that is many high ranking people knew the facts about Sandusky and did (almost) nothing about them.

    In my long business career (40 years) I have been exposed to, and associated with, some of the highest ranking executives in the country. And, it is simply inconceivable that if, having discovered one of them was a child molester, that it would have just been swept under the rug, with things continuing as if nothing happened.

    I don't know what actions any of us would've taken, but associating with a discovered, known child molester, regardless of his position, wouldn't have been one of them.

    There's more to come out; there just has to be. The current "conventional wisdom," just can't be the whole story.


    To know. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    Just to throw out a speculative guess here, it may hinge on what the meaning of "know" is. How many people knew in the strongest sense? The alleged victims, certainly. McQueary, and wasn't there one other reported witness to another incident in 1998? Perhaps a few more. But do we count rumors in knowing? Do we count a personal judgement based on a pattern of behavior as knowing? Do we count second-hand reports form eyewitnesses as knowing? Which of these types of knowledge is enough to push people in such a system towards action? Which contains enough doubt to allow various internal and external mechanism to effectively prevent action? There are all kinds of "knowing" and people can act on or dismiss them all depending on their circumstances and desires.

    Parent
    Two janitors in 2000 witnessed incidents (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    One saw McQuery administering a BJ to a minor and the other witnessed McQuery exiting a shower holding hands with a minor.

    Parent
    You mean (allegedly) Sandusky? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    Right. Sorry for the horrible mistake. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    It was Sandusky.

    Parent
    Based on the grand jury report, (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    the only way you can keep questioning whether people "knew" there was something going on is if you refuse to accept what Sandusky himself admitted to:

    1998 - Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.

    Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."

    Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.

    The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.

    June 1999 - Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status.

    [snip]

    Fall 2000 - A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy, known as Victim 8, pinned up against the wall, performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13.

    Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8's identity is unknown.

    I'm curious to have your take on how many people had to "know" Sandusky had a problem that was endangering children?

    Parent

    I don't understand your point. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    I think you're misinterpreting my comment somehow. He hasn't been convicted by any court at all and so I'm using "allegedly" out of respect for TalkLeft's nature. That said, apparently people knew to varying degrees about the abuse. Many of those people should have reported what they knew earlier. What exactly is your problem with my response to the above comment?

    Parent
    Should have responded to your (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    original comment about "knowing," sorry.

    Parent
    And rightly so... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    remember the McMartin family....everybody "knew" they were serial pedophiles, until they were exonerated.

    I'm not saying this case is at all similar, the evidence sure appears to be damning...but everyone is innocent until proven guilty, even those accused of the most heinous crimes imaginable like Sandusky, and those who allegedly enabled those alleged crimes to continue for over 20 years.

    Parent

    PBS Frontline covered Janet Reno's persecutions (none / 0) (#37)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    of imaginary pedofiles, who by the time the psychologists were done implanting memories in the imaginary victims, had used everything from imaginary tunnel systems to alien spacecraft (slight exxageration?) to further their imaginary crimes.

    Parent
    Just a hunch (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    Just one hunch on your suspicion that there is more to the story.... Sandusky knew where certain other "bodies were buried," shall we say.  Thus, covering up his alleged crimes was beneficial all around.

    Of course, plea deals will probably uncover some of the "bodies".

    Parent

    Oh Teresa (none / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    That thought just makes me ill.  Even more so since I can't dismiss it out of hand.

    Hopefully, your hunch comes to nothing.

    Parent

    Income inequality... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    is the hippies fault too.  

    Oh and cancer too...damn hippies.

    Only because (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    hippies are by nature lazy and don't make any money thus creating income inequality?

    Parent
    What's nuts about blaming hippies - (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    is trying to wrap my head around the image Joe Paterno, for fifty years, hiring hippies to coach his team.

    Parent
    LOL... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    I have several punchlines in my head, but in the name of good taste I'll keep 'em to myself.

    See that Brooks, a hippie with restraint right here...you should get to know us, you'd be suprised how much decency and morals we possess.


    Parent

    What actually happens when you speak up: (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    Montana Mental Health Worker Who Reported Child Pornography [Google Search] Fired

    An employee of a Missoula mental health center who told police about a client's computer search for child pornography was fired, in part for making the report, according to court records.


    this is not the same thing (none / 0) (#34)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:09:31 PM EST
    as the Penn State situation, & the linked article explains why

    Parent
    Second Mile Charity CEO (none / 0) (#27)
    by someTV on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    The Charity is toast (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:23:58 PM EST
    How can they even think of continuing to run a charity for kids that was founded by a supposed child molester.

    Parent
    Judge who released Sandusky formerly (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    volunteered at Second Mile.  

    Hmmmm. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    While the circumstances are (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    different, two adults (one, sort of not consenting), David Brooks,  lamenting the loss of dignity in America (July 2009) reported on MSNBC that while at a dinner party he sat next to a Republican senator  who "had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time.  I was like ehh, get me out here."    When Norah O'Donnell responded with a "what?", Brooks refused to identify the Republican senator, as if a bystander.   Moreover, it was not reported how many courses were served at the dinner, or if he stayed on for brandy and cigars.  

    Everytime I hear this story about Brooks' (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:04:12 PM EST
    thigh and the Republican senator I find myself wondering why, if Brooks did not want his thigh caressed by the senator, why didn't Brooks remove the hand or say something or get up and move?

    Parent
    Well, it is that hippie culture (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    that have confused David's sense of morals when Republicans are involved.

    Parent
    And I keep imagining Brooks saying (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:39:33 PM EST
    to the senator in question, "excuse me, sir, I can easily understand your confusion, but I believe the cocktail weenies are on the other side of the room."

    Parent
    Sure - there's more than one use for a fork. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:02:45 PM EST
    Brooks' casting couch moment: (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:07:48 PM EST
    What price would he pay for access?

    Parent
    holy s*** (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:06:27 PM EST
    "the entire time"....?

    I think we now know the lengths Brooks will go for the access he so craves.

    Parent

    If Mr. Sandusky really did the things he did (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:47:32 PM EST
    and the allegations in the Grand Jury report are true then everyone in that program knew what was going on and covered it up.

    It is inconceivable that a 20 plus year assistant to Joe Paterno could be a child molester and have no one know anything.   The only question is how much did they know before 1999 and how much did they continue to learn after 1999 when the overt incidents that we know about started happening.

    This is a tight group.  They travel, eat sleep and watch hours of film together.  These people don't just work together.  They live together in the football season.

    As a former athlete in college I can tell you that coaching staffs know everything about each other.  Weather they want to or not.

    All that said these types of crimes are the type you just don't want to know about and if you suspect you would tend to not want to believe them out of hope that you aren't right.   Paterno probably knew something was wrong with Sandusky but by the time he got proof it was too late to undo the tight relationship they had and the fact that no matter when this news came out it would tarnish both his and the Universities legacy.

    What is unfortunate is that it appears he and his fellow coaches and administration when confronted with final confirmation chose to cover it up from top to bottom in hopes that this maniac would not doit again (if he did it) and that it would not come out.

    Unfortunately it did come out and unfortunately if true this man has ruined the lives of several people in the process.