September 17th / 19th
"Students' Safety, Teachers' Rights"
Last week a firestorm of controversy erupted in the Winston-Salem Forsyth
schools when district attorney Jim O'Neill and the SBI launched an
investigation into whether school officials, in particular attorney Drew Davis, had
failed to report allegations of sexual misconduct to police in a timely
manner. The school board subsequently and swiftly suspended Davis with pay
pending the outcome of the investigation.
Apparently O'Neill's concerns were triggered by a case involving a teacher
at Wiley Middle school in May of this year. Particulars of the case aside,
O'Neill's crusade is really about process and procedure.
The State Board of Education's policy on these matters seems
straightforward, yet it is also open to interpretation. It requires principals who
have personal knowledge of a criminal offense occurring on school grounds, to
"immediately report the act to the appropriate law enforcement agency".
There are two problems. First, criminal offenses can range from gun
possession to sexual misconduct. And while gun possession is a clear and
verifiable infraction, a principal may not have seen or have personal knowledge of
misconduct. The other problem involves interpretation of what an act
means.
In a statement emailed to me, Superintendent Dr.Don Martin said, "An act
can be interpreted to mean allegations of an act, or it can be interpreted
to mean an actual act, and that requires someone to ask questions to see if
an act actually occurred before he reports it".
Martin's explanation and his process seem fair and logical. If a student
or parent comes to a principal and says, "My daughter's teacher kissed her
on the mouth", then the principal can call his supervisor or the
superintendent who in turn would notify the school attorney. One or more of that
group would question the teacher, then the attorney can advise as to whether the
matter has merit enough to refer to the police. In the meantime, a parent
always has the option to bypass the school and file charges on their own.
O'Neill, however, does not want alleged offenders questioned by school
officials at all. Instead, he wants the matter immediately turned over to
authorities so that charges can be brought if warranted. That sounds OK in
principal until you consider what can happen to a teacher who turns out to have
been falsely accused. Absent an internal investigation by school
officials, that teacher essentially goes directly from classroom to courtroom,
expends a fortune in legal fees, and has his personal and professional
reputation permanently tarnished.
Yes there are an increasing number of teachers and coaches nationwide
being convicted of inappropriate contact with students. And yes, there are
times when, facing the possibility of a scandal, a guilty teacher might resign
so he can move to another district and get a job without anyone knowing his
baggage. There's also the problem of back room deals in which schools
waive prosecution if the guilty party agrees to move away. That practice is
referred to in education circles as "passing the trash". That's why the Oregon
state legislature passed a law last year which prohibits school officials
from entering into any agreement that would suppress information related to
child abuse or sexual misconduct. It is a good law, and one that North
Carolina should adopt.
Still, unless there is a case in which a student is in imminent danger, I
cannot support a process that excludes and prohibits school officials from
asking questions of the accused party. Without such preliminary
questioning, the lives and careers of innocent teachers can be ruined, or worse. Case
in point a Roanoke, Virginia teacher who was falsely accused in 2005 of
sexual abuse. He was eventually exonerated, but not before he committed
suicide because of the shame and stress incurred from an over eager prosecutor.
Such mistakes are not rare. In his book, "Elusive Innocence", author Doug
Tong reported that 71% of accusations of sexual abuse by male teachers are
false.
That data in no way excuses or justifies secret deals, passing the trash,
or obstruction of justice involving teachers who are guilty of sex crimes.
In fact, any adult convicted of taking liberties with a minor should be
thrown under the jail for a long time. But so far as Winston Salem is
concerned, the district attorney and the SBI need to take a step back and let
Police Chief Cunningham, Sheriff Shatzman, SROs, and Superintendent Martin and
his principals work together to craft an approach that will protect students
and deal with teachers in every conceivable situation. Such a summit would
serve a much more constructive purpose than seeking retroactive punishment
of school officials who may have failed to adhere to an ambiguous statute.
Right now we need more solutions, not more victims.
|
