Tweet
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
I had a bad feeling about this last weekend and now it is coming to fruition.
For months, the right have been lobbing bombs at Kevin Jennings, President Obama's Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
They have levied ridiculous charges against him – he wants children to be “taught” gay sex, he uses profanity, he hates Christians, he has said nasty things about God.
The charges are easily kicked aside. But then comes the most serious one – Jennings allegedly approves of pedophilia because he supposedly didn't report an relationship between a 15-year-old and a older man.
Based upon what I have seen and read over the past few days, it is this charge which the right will try to make stick.
And today came a huge hit piece via the Washington Times by way of Fox News.com:
A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an “older man.” At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama's “safe school czar.”
. . . According to Mr. Jennings' own description in a new audiotape discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy met the “older man” in a “bus station bathroom” and was taken to the older man's home that night. When some details about the case became public, Mr. Jennings threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the statutory rape “unethical.” Mr. Jennings' defenders asserted that there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the older man.
Knowing Fox News' “track record” when it comes to the Obama Administration, I would like to hear this tape.
As luck would have it, Media Matters heard the tape. And there are a lot of distortions with what is being claimed.
In addition, there are a more few things that I find disturbing about this Fox News/Washington Times gang-up on Jennings.
Let me break down the distortions as I and Media Matters sees it.
In the first place, Jennings is not a “czar.” He was appointed to his position by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
In using the term “czar,” the Washington Times is using the Glenn Beckish code word for supposed “corruption” in the Obama Administration as a way to weave a narrative of “Jennings is indicative of Obama appointees.”
Then there is the claim that Jennings encouraged the young man to “use a condom” in the relationship:
In 2000, Mr. Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an advocacy group that promotes homosexuality in schools. On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that he told the student to make sure “to use a condom” when he was with the older man.
According to Media Matters, the Washington Times distorted the condom quote:
JENNINGS: And I said, “Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?” And he said, “Well, I'm tired.” And I said, “Well, we all are tired and we all got to school today.” And he said, “Well, I was out late last night.” And I said, “What were you doing out late on a school night?” And he said, “Well, I was in Boston.” Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, “What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?” He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, “Well, I met somebody in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.” High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn't know what to say. Knew I should say something quickly, so I finally — my best friend had just died of AIDS the week before — I looked at Brewster and said, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.” He said to me something I will never forget. He said “Why should I, my life isn't worth saving anyway.”
And then comes the huge misrepresentation – that Jennings encouraged the relationship. From the Washington Times piece:
That he actively encouraged the relationship is reinforced by Mr. Jennings' own description in his 1994 book, “One Teacher in 10.” In that account, the teacher boasts how he allayed the student's concerns about the relationship to such a degree that the 15-year-old “left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”
But nowhere in the book does it say that Jennings actually encouraged the relationship. Here is the portion in question mentioned by the Washington Times in its exact context:
On a hunch, I suddenly asked “What's his name?” Brewster's eyes widened briefly, and then out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years,until he graduated.
Now while there no longer seems to be a question of whether or not “Brewster” was of age, the situation is still not as clear cut as the right is trying to make it.
Jennings never saw any relationship and it was a judgment call whether or not he should have told anyone what Brewster told him. What if he had? I tend to think that the story would have had a very negative denouement- Brewster's suicide.
And I think that Jennings had the same feeling, which was why he kept silent about what Brewster told him.
Instead of attacking Jennings, we need to ask ourselves what would possess a young man like Brewster to put himself in a situation like that. Why would a young man feel so depressed about his God-given sexual orientation that he doesn't care about putting himself in danger?
How often does this continue to happen and what can we do to stop it?
Attacking Jennings for dealing with the situation the way he did is a classic case of ignoring the forest for the sake of the trees.
Because he had to deal with a situation like this one, Jennings is exactly the right person to deal with issues of school safety. He knows the reasons why youngsters, particularly lgbt youngsters, exposes themselves to danger and based on his track record with GLSEN, he can work to stop this behavior
But neither Fox News, the Washington Times, nor any other party on the right seems to care about because they are determined to put Jennings' head in their trophy case.
They don't care about the safety of lgbt children because they have a more practical purpose for zeroing in on Jennings.
If their charges can get him dismissed, it would look bad for the Obama Administration. In addition, the religious right can refer to this situation for a long time when they want to push the lie that “g
ays recruit children.”
Lastly, it would also be another thing to get the lgbt community mad at the President.
So attacking Jennings may turn out to be a win-win situation for the right.
But it may also be death for America's children.
You can go here to give some support to Jennings.
Related posts:
The new attack on Kevin Jennings – he said something ugly about God
The continuing attacks on Kevin Jennings – now Fox News gets involved
The possible attack on the President's lgbt appointees
The tea party idiots – will they go after the lgbt community next?
Traditional Values Coalition attacks Kevin Jennings and . . . Tom Cruise?
Support Sean's Last Wish and Kevin Jennings
The religious right thinks that character assasination is a Christian virtue
The war against Kevin Jennings – now it's getting pathetic
Attacks on Kevin Jennings sleazy, un-Christian
More right wing lunacy on Kevin Jennings courtesy of Kevin McCullough
More attacks on GLSEN'S Kevin Jennings – Now the Family Research Council gets in the act'''
'Fistgate' and President Obama – religious right pushes a pitiful attempt of guilt by association
15 Comments
Not goodIf this is true, its not going to play well on Main Street…
UghCan we just shoot all the wingnuts into space already? I’m sick and tired of this con game they run with children where they do all sorts of fucked up shit in the name of “protecting children” while actually putting actual children in actual danger as a result.
This teacher did what a teacher should do, try and protect the kid from the consequences of their actions. Kids will do shit. They’ll have sex, do drugs, date older men. If you tell them no and set every person in authority to arrest them on sight or face jail time or otherwise negative responses, you get kids not telling anyone about it. This means they get diseases, pregnant, drug overdosed, in deep shit with criminals and drug dealers and no way out or no one they can trust to talk to about it.
Without this teacher, that kid would be dead, either by lack of condom or suicide, before that kid could grow up and understand their life, before they could trust who they were on any level.
But to the wingnuts, it’s not about saving these kids, it’s about using them to sermon about some other ill. They dislike sex, so ban sex. They dislike drugs, so ban drugs and beat up anyone who “coddles” the students on these issues, call them a pedophile or a drug dealer and have them run out on a rail. And then send the ambulance around the secret entrance in the back so that when the kid O.D.s on campus, no one can see the human cost of zero tolerance.
Kids need the truth and they need honest advise on how to negotiate their fuck-ups so they won’t destroy their entire lives with them. They need safety nets and support. They need what this brave teacher did, not tired bullshit like this.
They are at war with kids, happy to add to the body count to win some war against “youth” in general. We need to call them out on this instead of acting like they are acting in any way for the betterment of children or in defense of them.
Check out medamatters.orgAfter FoxNews.com truncated Jennings’ quote, Wash. Times, Fox Nation accuse “safe school czar” of “encouraging” statutory rape
http://mediamatters.org/resear…
The Washington Times is laughable in Washington, DC. No one reads that rag who lives downtown. It’s only the people outside the beltway who still drag their knuckles on the ground that read that trash.
It will still get tractionIt will be yacked about on the cable infotainment channels, Glen Beck, that whiny little piggy, will drag out his chalkboard, christian parents will organize protests and marches, and GSAs will be threatened and shut down because Beck and Limpballs and Billo said that GSAs encourage kids to have sex with older predators and GAYS ARE ALL PEDOPHILES! The Obama administration will throw Kevin Jennings to the wolves just like they did Van Jones, and roll over and expose its belly yet again, cowering and crying, “Please don’t hurt me! Here, have him, do whatever you want, just don’t HURT ME!” Then Rahm Emanuel will use the whole episode as the final excuse to actually tie us to the bus and drag us along behind, because LGBT rights are just too inflammatory. Gutless shits.
If I’m wrong, I’ll eat my derby hat in pleasant surprise.
Confident prediction: Obama will cave to them.See under “Jones, Van.”
Your derby is safeYour prediction is horribly likely. Only question left is whether GLSEN gets dragged down as well. How long before some Blue Dog chairman hauls Jennings and GLSEN before his committee? That kind of posturing looks swell on C-SPAN, doesn’t it?
What a teacher should doNot sure what the laws are in MA, but in NY, as teacher, I would be required by law to tell someone that a student was involved in a relationship that was considered statutory rape. I could get arrested, lose my license and be sued if I didn’t. If those were the laws in MA, and Jennings kept his mouth shut, then what he did was indeed unethical.
Illegal vs UnethicalI think you’re confusing ethics with law. Violating the law is not necessarily unethical, nor is blindly following the law necessarily ethical. In this case, blindly following the law potentially places the child’s well-being at risk. In this case, the law’s an ass (and a potentially life-threatening one) and needs to be bypassed for the good of the child (never thought I’d end up having to use a think of the children argument for something like this, but anyway).
Its sad when the wingnuts don’t use common sense.Lets face it, you’ve been called to the carpet by a teacher and so have I.
If I was ever asked about any intimate relationship I wouldn’t give up my boy/girl friend to anyone. PERIOD.
Anyone delving into any part of my intimate life? Like I’m gonna tell ‘em anything.
Wingnutz…
and the “out” factorSo, if Jennings (or this hypothetical teacher) did tell, it probably outs the student — and maybe the teacher as well (he was closeted at that time, wasn’t he?). So, the student winds up bullied in school, or maybe out on the street. Jennings had a tough call but frankly I would not second-guess him.
And here we have the Times not only cropping his account of the story but imputing that he somehow approved of the relationship by not reporting it. It’s the kind of 1+1=3 reasoning that seems to affect the center as well as the right these days.
The actual quote, from Media Matters, is at http://mediamatters.org/resear…
(under subhead “Times Editorial Mischaracterized What Jennings Said”)
And if something happens to the student…Sorry. I would not risk jail time, my career, my teaching license and my personal assets.
Wolfe – If you were a teacher, I believe you would think differently.
Ethics sometimes trumps lawYour concerns seem more self-interest than actual interest of the child. What if reporting causes the child harm, which, from my experience, blindly following the law in this case is likely to do?
Sorry, sometimes, the ethical and the legal courses of action are two separate things. A teacher trusted by a student such as the one being discussed is in a position to prevent the student from coming to harm. Reporting potentially breaks that trust and further isolates the child, which is not what that child needs if they are already engaging in risky behaviors, and in fact practically ensures that something will happen to the child.
Personally, I’ve met teachers and counselors who are more than willing to break all sorts of trust with high-risk children, and I have no use for them. At some point in your career you’re likely to run into a situation like this one and if you simply knee-jerk report things you are likely causing harm to this student. Again, just because something is legal does not make it ethical. Sometimes the ethical course of action is not legal. And sometimes something that is completely legal is not by any means ethical.
Self-interestReporting a relationship based on statutory rape to a school social worker may help the student more than encouraging him to use a condom with an adult he met at the bus stop.
And yes, self-interest is a part of what influences my decisions. It influences you and it influences everyone else out there. As for your not having any use for teachers who have broken all sorts of trust with high-risk students, I think you would think differently if you were a teacher. You seem to think that a good teacher is a “cool” teacher who wants to be friends with his students. As an educator, I’ve seen more careers ruined and more students hurt with this sort of mentality. I’ve seen students turn on “cool” teachers who have kept their secrets once parents and school administrators find out what the student has been up to or once a student has been hurt by something he or she has done.
There are many ways you can help a child without risking everything you have worked for and without risking a child’s life, which is what people do when they keep things a secret.
I’ve been in situations where I’ve had to report things. Some students may have faced some additional difficulties in the short term, but have benefited from intervention from school officials in the long run.
Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?
Relationship?The teacher didn’t “encourage” the student “to use a condom with an adult he met at the bus stop.” When the student told him that he had already had sex with an adult he met at the bus station bathroom, the teacher, sort of in shock, said that he hoped that he had known to use a condom. When he later found out that the student was and had been sexually active with men, he encouraged him to use protection. Mr. Jennings’ actions apparently greatly helped this student. What exactly do you suppose would have been the result if the teacher had just reported the student to the authorities, as you would have had him do?
I didn’t say or imply that self-interest is not a part of what influences anyone’s opinions. I stated that your concerns were more self-interest than what’s actually in the child’s best interest. You know, the child, the one who should be at the center of this discussion? Ethically, the student’s best interest needs to top your list of concerns.
How does your suggestion that we just automatically report this to the authorities benefit the child? How does it not potentially cause harm to a child who has already indicated that he is unconcerned with his own well being and is already behaving in ways that he seems to know are self-destructive?
As for my definition of a good teacher, it has nothing to do with the supposed “cool” teacher. A good teacher, for me, is one who doesn’t go about desperately seeking to be everyone’s friend but who does not, when he or she earns a student’s trust (especially high-risk students), screw up that trust to keep his own butt covered. You really should give up your would-be mind-reading act, because it really sucks. But it’s funny that your concerns still basically devolve back into careerism on your part.
“It’s the law” does not make a course of action ethical. Mr. Jennings showed a great deal of insight in the course of action that he took. By providing the sympathetic ear that the student needed at that particular time, he probably kept the student from ending up in jail, on the street or dead. He didn’t keep things secret, he allowed the student to feel safe that there was someone he could talk to.
Had he simply reported it, there’s a good chance that the student would have simply run away from home, placing him out of anyone’s guidance.
Do try to remember that this all occurred over 20 years ago. There wasn’t exactly a huge number of programs for at-risk gay youth as there are now and prevailing attitudes towards gays were nowhere near as positive as they are now. Today, he could have encouraged the student to go to one of the community organizations that exist now. Then, not so much.
You say that you had to report things and that the students have benefited in the long run. I’ve known students who had opened up to teachers/counselors about their personal problems only to completely shut down when the authorities were notified.
As for what I do for a living, not that that has anything to do with a discussion of ethical concerns, I am a computer programmer/IT manager by trade, though I have worked in and for schools in a range of capacities and have a number of family members who are or have been teachers.