Learning from Our Parents’ Protests: Occupation Unidentified

One consistent critique of the Occupy protests has been their lack of leadership.  Michael Moore called it a “leaderless movement” during his visit to the Denver protests last week.  What Moore seems to admire about the movement is precisely what has been a sore spot for Denver Mayor Michael Hancock.  As concerns about sanitation, health, and safety in Occupy protest sites grow, particularly as winter approaches, it is easy to understand the Mayor’s frustration.  It is considerably more difficult to negotiate arrangements for sanitation, and health and safety with a leaderless group. 

Earlier this week Denver Occupy acquiesced to the Mayor’s insistence that some kind of leadership be selected for the group.  Inspired by the Citizens United ruling treating corporations as people, the Denver protestors elected a well-known fixture at the protest in a landslide, Shelby.  Charismatic and photogenic, Shelby has been receiving a lot of attention, which she seems to be heartily enjoying.  It should probably be mentioned that Shelby is a three year-old Border Collie mix.  No word from the Mayor’s office on how this new diplomatic relationship is progressing, though I suspect there are concerns about the Mayor bribing the young and impressionable Shelby with cookies, ear rubs and walkies. 

Perhaps a tongue and cheek selection of a leader is the only kind possible with the Occupy protests.  The protests consist of a demographically diverse group and it seems that each protestor is there for a different reason.  This lack of focus has been fodder for much criticism and humor at the expense of the movement.  To outsiders at least it seems the only thing that ties this protest together is outrage.  Some Occupy protests have developed elaborate ways of attempting consensus (see Kristine Baumstark’s October 17, 2011 post in this blog; A similar system is in use at the Denver protest), which may help protestors feel like they are being heard, but are unwieldy and ill-adapted to timely or “big picture” decisions.  The lack of national leadership makes changes in national government policy virtually impossible.  Without leadership to articulate a coherent purpose there is no way to negotiate with or appease this crowd.

A lack of leadership, coupled with (or caused by) unfocused outrage, makes it difficult to envision the Occupy movement doing more than fizzling out when the cold hits.  Apart from hoping its press attention will spur broader public engagement, it is difficult to see just how the movement hopes to affect change.  This is not to criticize the protestors’ ideals (goodness knows, there are a number of subjects of outrage represented that I agree with), but generalized outrage does not appeal to me for the same reason that I’ve never felt the urge to scream at an ocean.  Sure you can do it, but why?  

Previous civil rights movements’ protests were successful in affecting change because they were focused.  When disability advocates in the 1960s and 70s held sit in protests there was little confusion as to why they were there – they were outraged, but with a purpose.  Rather than protesting for disability rights generally they would have a sit in at the regional transportation authority protesting for public transportation accessibility or lobby for what would become the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

The point is this: The jokes about the Occupy movement are getting tired, illnesses and injuries among the protestors are increasing, and it’s getting cold outside.  It is time for the protestors to articulate a vision for their movement or find leaders who can do it for them.  Failing to do so gives the people in power a pass to ignore the popular movement as a curio of flashes and bangs that disappear in the blink of an eye and are forgotten almost as quickly.   

Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting

The world of sports was rocked this week by former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky’s indictment for allegedly abusing eight young boys over the last fifteen years.

As the week progressed, it was revealed that Penn State officials knew about Sandusky’s actions, at least to some extent,  and failed to take action.  The fallout included the firing of long-time head football coach Joe Paterno and the departures of university President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz.  Additionally, a graduate assistant coach who witnessed Sandusky abusing a young boy and did not report it to the police has been placed on administrative leave.

Paterno’s firing, although supported by much of the country, has raised the question in many people’s minds: Was he required to go to the police, or did he fulfill his duty by telling his superiors about what his graduate assistant witnessed?

Based on statements made thus far, it appears unlikely Paterno will face charges for failing to report to the police because he fulfilled his duty by reporting to his superiors, the athletic director and vice president of the university.  However, some people familiar with Penn State are speculating that Paterno filled such an authoritative role within the university that his decision not to go to the police guided everyone else in their inaction.

Almost every state, including Pennsylvania, has legislation naming specific professions whose members are mandated by law to report mistreatment of children to law enforcement.  Those statutes typically include professions such as social workers, teachers and other school personnel, doctors, child care providers, and law enforcement officials.   Pennsylvania’s statute does not require someone in Paterno’s position to report suspected abuse to law enforcement.

Many mandatory-reporting statutes specify which communications are privileged and which are beyond that privilege and must be reported.  For example, states often exempt communications between an attorney and his or her client, but require communications between a doctor and patient or husband and wife indicating possible abuse to be reported. 

In making these laws, states must strike a balance between a desire to protect children and an individual’s constitutional rights.  Most recently this analysis has arisen in connection with mandatory reporting statutes that compel a clergy member to disclose information in a manner that impinges on his religious beliefs.  Only a few courts have spoken on this conflict so far, as many of these statutes arose more recently after the Catholic priest child abuse scandal.  Those courts that have addressed this issue tend to support the state and uphold the reporting statute.

The ACLU has also spoken out against expanding mandatory reporting statutes in some instances.  Last spring the ACLU of Illinois described a pending bill that expanded mandatory reporting of child abuse to cover every employee or volunteer of any organizations that provides or refers for reproductive health care as “creating cumbersome and unnecessary bureaucracy and training requirements for non-profit organizations and diverting time and money from patient care.”

Although it appears Paterno did not violate a legal duty to report, it remains to be seen whether mandatory reporting laws will be changed in Pennsylvania or elsewhere as a result of these events.  The media storm will inevitably continue and people will debate Paterno’s legacy, but we’d do best to remember the true victims of this abuse – the young boys whose lives were changed forever.