Guilty - No matter what!!
Hey Folks -
The Columbus Dispatch continues its report on child-molesting teachers.
I have written them regarding this series, attempting to raise their consciousness a bit regarding some nuances they seem to have overlooked. I'm sharing that letter below. Later I plan to compose another letter addressing the issue of the hypocritical double standard that drives them to attack educational criminals (Devil take the innocent) while defending more powerful criminals (Devil take their accusers).
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Richards,
I do not object to criticism of schools, nor do I object to energetic pursuit of criminals in the schools. I do have some objections to this multiple-day piece “The ABCs of Betrayal,” but I’ll express them in a later letter.
Today, I just want to suggest that some nuances of this issue are being lost in the sensationalism inherent in the topic.
First of all, it often seems the complaint is that allegations are not readily accessible to the world. At other times it seems that the focus is on convictions. If the series recognizes important differences between these two realities, it escapes me. There is, however, a truly tremendous difference.
The Tuesday piece starts, “Parents can learn more about the misconduct of hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects than about the adults entrusted to teach, coach and care for their children.” OK, but are there significant differences between these professions and educators?
How many complaints are made about the former; how many about the latter? If your hairdresser, doctor, or landscape architect is obviously gay or lesbian, how many of their clients are already prejudiced about their character and likely to lodge a questionable complaint? How many hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects are likely to be investigated as a result of anonymous charges filed by disgruntled clients? Should those who are, if any, be exposed to the public before the charges are determined to be verifiable? Are there agencies set up all over the state, one of whose responsibilities it is to take anonymous complaints about mistreatment of clients by hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects?
Is there perhaps a reason why “Parents can learn more about the misconduct of hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects than about the adults entrusted to teach, coach and care for their children.”
Could part of that difference involve the fact that hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects deal mainly with adults and that the results of their practice are pretty clear cut. If your hair falls out, if Doc cuts off the wrong leg, if Joe cuts down the tree he was supposed to trim; that’s pretty clear. If an anonymous tipster claims some obviously effeminate man has been groping children, that’s not so easily demonstrable or true.
Along the same line, an awful lot of people are predisposed to project what they perceive as their children’s failings onto the school system. Johnny got in trouble, was suspended or failed a test or class or year because of the teacher. How many people report their hairdresser to the police on a “bad-hair day”?
Should we tar and feather folks on the basis of allegations? If so, should we tar and feather only teachers on the basis of allegations? I doubt landscape architects would be run out of town as a result of false complaints by a disgruntled, tree-loving client. Can we say the same about teachers falsely accused?
Maybe we should be careful not to ruin an innocent person’s life, wiping out a multi-thousand dollar college investment just because some disgruntled, part-time parent is homophobic, angry at the world, or suffering from a mental illness.
I realize that some folks are willing to execute innocent people to gain the “benefits” of capital punishment, but that doesn’t work for me.
On a different point, are you aware of the kinds of things that qualify as reprimands? Some are pretty insignificant, and I doubt that most of them have anything to do with sex. As a result the statistics appearing in the series are misleading. Even disciplinary matters that might seem somewhat related to the concerns of the series are often the result of local school/social politics, misleading, or easily misinterpreted.
As I said at the start, I do not object to criticism of schools, nor do I object to energetic pursuit of criminals in the schools, but I think that at least part of what the series calls “secrecy” is more likely humane prudence justified by the nature of the situation. If an educator actually IS acting criminally, throw the book at him or her; but I object to an hysterical double standard that sacrifices the innocent.
Yours - Tom Harker
The Columbus Dispatch continues its report on child-molesting teachers.
I have written them regarding this series, attempting to raise their consciousness a bit regarding some nuances they seem to have overlooked. I'm sharing that letter below. Later I plan to compose another letter addressing the issue of the hypocritical double standard that drives them to attack educational criminals (Devil take the innocent) while defending more powerful criminals (Devil take their accusers).
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Richards,
I do not object to criticism of schools, nor do I object to energetic pursuit of criminals in the schools. I do have some objections to this multiple-day piece “The ABCs of Betrayal,” but I’ll express them in a later letter.
Today, I just want to suggest that some nuances of this issue are being lost in the sensationalism inherent in the topic.
First of all, it often seems the complaint is that allegations are not readily accessible to the world. At other times it seems that the focus is on convictions. If the series recognizes important differences between these two realities, it escapes me. There is, however, a truly tremendous difference.
The Tuesday piece starts, “Parents can learn more about the misconduct of hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects than about the adults entrusted to teach, coach and care for their children.” OK, but are there significant differences between these professions and educators?
How many complaints are made about the former; how many about the latter? If your hairdresser, doctor, or landscape architect is obviously gay or lesbian, how many of their clients are already prejudiced about their character and likely to lodge a questionable complaint? How many hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects are likely to be investigated as a result of anonymous charges filed by disgruntled clients? Should those who are, if any, be exposed to the public before the charges are determined to be verifiable? Are there agencies set up all over the state, one of whose responsibilities it is to take anonymous complaints about mistreatment of clients by hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects?
Is there perhaps a reason why “Parents can learn more about the misconduct of hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects than about the adults entrusted to teach, coach and care for their children.”
Could part of that difference involve the fact that hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects deal mainly with adults and that the results of their practice are pretty clear cut. If your hair falls out, if Doc cuts off the wrong leg, if Joe cuts down the tree he was supposed to trim; that’s pretty clear. If an anonymous tipster claims some obviously effeminate man has been groping children, that’s not so easily demonstrable or true.
Along the same line, an awful lot of people are predisposed to project what they perceive as their children’s failings onto the school system. Johnny got in trouble, was suspended or failed a test or class or year because of the teacher. How many people report their hairdresser to the police on a “bad-hair day”?
Should we tar and feather folks on the basis of allegations? If so, should we tar and feather only teachers on the basis of allegations? I doubt landscape architects would be run out of town as a result of false complaints by a disgruntled, tree-loving client. Can we say the same about teachers falsely accused?
Maybe we should be careful not to ruin an innocent person’s life, wiping out a multi-thousand dollar college investment just because some disgruntled, part-time parent is homophobic, angry at the world, or suffering from a mental illness.
I realize that some folks are willing to execute innocent people to gain the “benefits” of capital punishment, but that doesn’t work for me.
On a different point, are you aware of the kinds of things that qualify as reprimands? Some are pretty insignificant, and I doubt that most of them have anything to do with sex. As a result the statistics appearing in the series are misleading. Even disciplinary matters that might seem somewhat related to the concerns of the series are often the result of local school/social politics, misleading, or easily misinterpreted.
As I said at the start, I do not object to criticism of schools, nor do I object to energetic pursuit of criminals in the schools, but I think that at least part of what the series calls “secrecy” is more likely humane prudence justified by the nature of the situation. If an educator actually IS acting criminally, throw the book at him or her; but I object to an hysterical double standard that sacrifices the innocent.
Yours - Tom Harker
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home