So, the "experts in the field" tell us how very hard it is to protect children, even if you have studied it all your adult life.
I will bet you almost anything that academics like her had fairly strong opinions at the time regarding what PSU could have done differently.
I mean, child maltreatment is a much larger issue than Penn State or the Second Mile. In fact the majority of maltreatment cases are actually neglect rather than physical or sexual abuse. It's not like the researchers here are particularly concerned with what's now a defunct charity organization. You're looking for them to help a narrative and that's just not what their job is. At all. They study maltreatment and work to understand it, learn it's causes and work with prevention researchers to reduce it. I really don't see why they should have an opinion about the Second Mile or even a public stance about a case that's 5 or 6 years old now. I also don't know why you would expect to speak with a random researcher and get a quote vindicating Penn State and anyone associated with the Sandusky scandal. That's not really her job.
Disconsonant.Were you trying to be "TIC" with those statements?
Or just trying to set the record for the two most disconsonat sentences ever written down next to one another?
Jeebzus
Wait. Do you think she was lying about whether she knew about TSM because Wendy is a stranger to her? Or do you truly think that it is okay if a person hired to research how to avoid/prevent/stop child abuse of various kinds not know the most basic facts about one of the most notorious sexual abuse cases since McMartin preschool?
Her funding doesn't come from the Sandusky scandal. The decision to focus on those positions for hiring came out of the University's focus on child maltreatment. Her funding comes from the federal government (and there is a whole lot of it).
I'm saying her response is essentially a "No comment". She didn't come here to argue with people about the role of Penn State or Joe Paterno or TSM. She knows what it is, and I don't think it's particularly relevant to what she works on at Penn State. TSM ended up having a pretty minor role. That will boil your blood and draw all kinds of name-calling I'm sure. But the organization as a whole was more than just a front for a pedophile, they did a lot of good work and a lot of people (like Penn State) didn't know anything about it. I'm not here to argue with the merits of the case against Penn State or the narrative they've created or whatever. I was pointing out to Tom that people have put in real work on the research side and their focus goes beyond the local story. It has to. Child maltreatment is a much bigger issue than Sandusky, and there's very little they can say or do as researchers to change the outcome of that story. TSM and it's administrators absolutely got off extremely light. But it's not the responsibility of career researchers to expose them, and they couldn't do it even if they wanted to.
