Dana Bolger, Outreach Intern

I remember looking at the male intern sitting beside me and being angry.

It was May 30, 2012, the second day of my summer internship. I was at the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing on the Paycheck Fairness Act. A woman was testifying to members of Congress about how she was continually paid thousands of dollars less than her male coworker.

Let me remind you: it was May 2012. Not 1960.

The woman testifying was AnnMarie Duchon. She said, “I have a daughter and when she grows up and looks back at how Mommy didn’t have fair pay, I want her to think it was some historical event that was eradicated years ago.”

I looked at the male intern sitting next to me and wondered how it could be that the wage gap had not been “eradicated.”

I wondered how it could be that when we graduate from college, chances are he will be paid more than me, even if we do the same job—just because he is a man.

I wondered how in 2012 stories like AnnMarie’s could still be commonplace.

And these realizations made me angry.

“I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away…”

That’s how former Penn State Head Football Coach Joe Paterno explained his failure to notify the authorities of Jerry Sandusky’s sexual assault of a young boy.

But as the Freeh report released last week concluded, it wasn’t the university’s procedure Paterno was afraid to jeopardize, but its reputation.

After all, to be consistent with the law, university procedure should have required Paterno to speak up.

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (aka “the Clery Act”) requires colleges and universities to publicly disclose the number of reports of criminal offenses—including sexual assaults—that occur on their campuses each year.

Under the Clery Act, Paterno had a legal obligation to inform the proper authorities after learning of the sexual assault an assistant coach had witnessed. Instead, Paterno sat on the report. He even delayed speaking with his supervisors so as not to “interfere with their weekends.”

Ultimately, Paterno and then-University President Graham Spanier decided not to report the sexual assault to campus police. The Department of Education is now investigating potential Clery Act violations at Penn State.

In addition to their failure to report, Paterno and Spanier neglected to investigate the assault: to determine the identity of the victim, take action to protect him, and remove Sandusky from Penn State facilities. As a result, they “provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims.”

This “consistent disregard [for the] welfare of Sandusky’s child victims” points to a deliberate practice of valuing the university’s football program over children’s—or students’—safety. Indeed, the Freeh report specifically noted that “a culture of reverence for the football program…. [was responsible] for [the] failure to protect…victims.”

This bizarre moral compass may help explain earlier eyebrow-raising disciplinary decisions regarding Penn State football players:

In 2002, a player who admitted to sexual assault was allowed to play in a bowl game during his two-semester suspension.