Penn State: just another pedophilia scandal

Here's an interesting piece from The Atlantic from July 17.  "Could the Penn State Abuse Scandal Happen Anyplace Else?  Definitely."  It's an interview with Chris Gavagan who was involved in making a documentary of sexual abuse in sports called "Coached into Silence" and his answer is a resounding yes.  What happened here at Penn State was a classic case of pedophilia, the enabling of pedophilia, and the covering up of pedophilia to protect the institution and the people who should have been protecting the kids.  Nothing unique here.

The relevance to MT, besides that we live and work here, is that more and more is being published to document the high prevalence of pedophilia, including stories about its purported prevalence in other athletic programs.  If a high fraction, like 1 in 4 or 6, of children experience some sort of sexual abuse at the hands of adults, then not only do we have a social problem, but we have to re-think some of the commonly held views about a central area of biology: sex, and its relation to gender.

We've posted on this before.  Sex in terms of chromosome number (XX and XY) varies, with a non-trivial fraction of the population having some different number of X and/or Y chromosomes.  Or, they have mutational variants in their chromosomes that lead to unusual physical or reproductive traits.  While most people are XX or XY and most have the genital and other bodily manifestations associated with the normal genotypes, there is variation and whether or what aspects one wishes to characterize as, for example, 'disease' is somewhat subjective.  An evolutionary viewpoint would say that if the variant prevented successful reproduction it was dysfunctional or, in our cultural terms, 'disease'.

But that's not so clear, because many people have normal appearing chromosomes and normal appearing plumbing but bear no children despite having normal heterosexual relations.  How do we characterize that?  Here we tend to assume something psychological or cultural, and most of the time we'll allow it to be 'normal'.  You are not 'diseased' if you stay single, marry but choose not to reproduce (or simply don't end up having children despite trying), or become a nun or priest.  Or your tendency to honor monogamy, and so on.

Or, we have reasons in some instances to say that you have a physiological 'problem' or 'anomaly', that affects your sexual preference, behavior type ('gay' personality), or you look unusual for your sex, and so on.  This will be attributed largely to your genes, which then could be argued to mean that you may have the plumbing but you really aren't 'male' or 'female'.

Then some would argue that for cultural or physiological reasons you are of a normal 'sex' but a different-from-typical 'gender'.  Your behavior makes you act differently than you would for someone of your sex. Homosexuality would be one such variant.  But stereotypical homosexual behaviors--call them gender behaviors if you will--are not always associated with homosexuality.  Clearly there is variation and it's far from dichotomous.  There is not just one set of two distinct genders, and what one wishes to call abnormal or 'diseased' is subjective to a great extent.

Pedophilia seems to be an example.  Pedophiles have normal plumbing, are not gay, but prey on children (sometimes same-sex and sometimes opposite sex).  The 'ped' part is what's different and doesn't put you in one of the other classes--it seems to be a class of its own.  Psychologists apparently find that this is as ingrained as sexual preference, and is resistant to attempts to change it.  It is, somehow, born of the person's 'genes' or their interaction with early environments in unclear but clearly complex ways.

Now, if pedophiles are so common that 1/4 of all children experience their assault, clearly most pedophiles also marry and reproduce.  So are they 'diseased' in ways other than by social definition?  And, yes, pedophilia is an entry in the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

This is a legitimate question since the age of 'consent' varies greatly among human cultures.  In turn that means that what we've been treating as a rare disorder is part of a continuum of variation that's not so rare at all.

What this would imply both about the biology of sex and gender, and about its evolution, is that we've been far oversimplifying the reality.  As is our usual wont, here we'll point out that with such complex and gradual variation, there won't likely be a single gene 'for' the trait, like pedophilia, nor a variant that isn't also found in 'normal' people.  It's an aggregate genotypic effect, of variants at many genes, interacting with environments--even if the result, like pedophilia, is built-in to the person when s/he is an adult.

So triggered by this scandal here at Penn State, and the facts it is evoking nationwide (along with the prior stimulus of the Catholic church and scout problems), this should force biologists to think more about the nature of sex and gender--so much at the heart of successful reproduction in a species, and at the same time, so variable.

What is Penn State?

Dear MT readers:
We have both been here at Penn State University for 26 years.  When we got here, Joe Paterno had already become legendary and had been our football coach for nearly 20 years.  He had already long and publicly stood for doing the right thing.  Students that do not cheat, that honor themselves and the university, and that graduate, even if not all in high-pressure majors.  In many, many ways that ideal is just what he achieved, and with few precedents anywhere in the United States.

Legions of Penn State students (and faculty) have acted with pride and dignity, and for things that were right, and just. Our graduates were recently shown to be among the most active in service to their communities, and the like.

But it's well known, and sad, that another major part of our reputation, and what draws too many students here, are sports well out of control, and a culture of riotous drunken behavior. 

That is one of a number of issues that Penn State did not confront.  It has been an insular university, where 'loyalty' means promoting from within, and unfortunately, circling the wagons when it comes to controversy.  Loyalty to our image--our 'brand'--has taken far too much precedence when it comes to dealing with things like the drinking party culture, the excessive stress on sports and similarly superficial things, and the scandal that is now engulfing us.  Pleasing undergraduate students and a fine Nittany Nation image, have taken precedence over academic rigor.

This is not just about hypocritical judgments in hind-sight on our part.  Probably there are more facts to emerge, and it seems unlikely that they will be in any way exculpatory.  Those in charge went through a few of the motions, but did not press to see that reports of sexual abuse were followed up.  More probably knew more, long ago even, about the sex abuse than has come to light so far.  Who knows--perhaps innocently, conveniently, administrators just hoped it would go away.  Perhaps no one wanted, or dared, to be the one who brought negative light on 'dear old State'.

Our President was always someone for whom it seemed that appearance and spin consistently took precedence over substance.  He was very good for us in many ways, raised a lot money and built many buildings.  But one can see how his over-riding need for smiling before cameras is what led in many ways to where we are now.  Had he been a person more about substance than appearance, even a whiff of child abuse would have, or should have, led to action.  Instead, a mentality of covering up rather than taking stands on difficult issues, of which there are many examples, allowed things to build to a point when they could no longer be contained.  We are, properly, paying the price for that today.

On the other hand, we can assure any MT readers who many not know it, that there are many, many very fine, good, intelligent, delightful, thoughtful and decent people here--among our students, our faculty, and our staff.  We hope this will not be overlooked.

We are embarrassed, but more importantly, we are saddened for the boys who were abused, by a person of power in the storied Penn State football program.  The abuses went on for so long, many here on campus, that many of these boys are now men.  The fact of their pain should not be forgotten.

But we will move onward.  Hopefully, a new administration will pay more attention to the real issues facing universities, ours as well as others, and less to football, partying, and photo-ops. 

It is a moment, and we hope we'll seize it!

We owe that to our many, many very fine, good, intelligent, delightful, thoughtful and decent people here--among our students, our faculty, and our staff.