GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Kevin Jennings Should Resign from Education Department

by

This past month, Michelle Malkin has joined other conservatives in pointing out that Kevin Jennings (who happens to be gay), the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had, as a young teacher, done nothing to protect of a 15-year old boy from who had told him he was having an affair with an adult (male).  That is, Jennings did not report this to authorities.  (Nor did he, as far as I can tell, confront the man.)

Today, for the first time (as far as I can figure out), he publicly expressed regret for his inaction:

Twenty-one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little training and guidance about this kind of thing. All teachers should have a basic level of preparedness. I would like to see the office of Safe & Drug Free Schools play a bigger role in helping to prepare teachers.

It is troubling, to say the least, that the Administration would tap such a man to serve in the Education Department who detailed the boy’s confession in a book One Teacher in 10, yet did not express regret until long after his appointment.*

The same people who got so worked up (and rightfully so) at the silence of the Catholic Church in the wake of similar conduct among its clergy are silent in the wake of Mr. Jennings’s own silence.  (I guess for such things to excite outrage, the “enabler” must come from a class of those sanctioned for condemnation.)

While Jennings’s wrong pales in comparison to that of the man having sex with the teenager, he still behaved badly, especially given that he was a teacher at the time.  And while it’s generally a good thing to have openly gay people serving in government, Jennings’s prominence does more to hurt the public image of gay people than it does to help it.

He should resign his position immediately, saying why he believes his past actions disqualify him for the job, particularly given his 21-year delay in expressing regret.  Most gay men neither engage in sexual activity with minors nor condone it, but all too many of us seem all too reticent when it comes to condemning it publicly.  We should not be so silent.

With his resignation, Jennings could make a strong statement, saying we need speak out on such matters and addressing how such relationships harm the boys sexually involved with older men.

*(If, however, it comes out that Jennings had previously acknowledged his wrongdoing, then I will reconsider the call for his resignation.)

Comments

  1. “Twenty-one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently.

    “…now that it’s gotten me in trouble. Otherwise I would never have had the slightest second thought about it.”

    “Teachers back then had little training and guidance about this kind of thing.

    “…and God knows, morality and common decency didn’t exist in 1988, a wild and hedonistic time. So it’s not my fault! Screw you if you think it is!”

  2. I think I’m going to disagree with my fellow conservatives on this one. I think his excuses are valid and compelling. Things were so different 21 years ago. He basically would have been outing the young man, and possibly himself if he went more public. He did give the boy some safe sex advice and hopefully suggested it wasn’t heathy ultimately for a 15 year old to be with a 50 year old. This was a young teacher I think 24 years old, two years out of college. So often in hindsight we think we can have the perfect solution to quandries like this. The boy said his life was worthless, imagine how things would have turned out if his family was called. Many times it ends up with another dead gay boy.

  3. I don’t think it matters one way or the other what one thinks of this. Why? Today’s “apology” is the white flag in politics. Right or wrong, this guy is toast. It’s only a matter of time now. I give it about a week.

    So I wonder what skeletons are in his replacement’s closet?

  4. He basically would have been outing the young man, and possibly himself if he went more public.

    Who says he had to do that? He could have gone to the teacher and told him to stop, then gone to the principal if the teacher didn’t stop – keeping it relatively private.

  5. So, when did they start telling educators that it is wrong to have sex with their students?!?

    To then claim ignorance of harm to the victim – at 15, regardless of genders and orientations the kid is a victim – at this point, the man should be prosecuted as accessory to statutory rape. What an abomination! Or perhaps given the caliber of this administration, he’s an obamanation.

  6. Look at this from the point of view of the heterosexual person. In other words forget that any of the parties are homosexual. Now look specifically at the age of the boy involved. Keep in mind that it could have been a girl, and she could have taken the same story to a female teacher.

    It would be wrong for a female teacher not to react if a 15 year old girl came to her and said that she was engaging in casual sexual relationships by hanging out in a toilet block. It would be wrong because the girl is under age and any such actions are statutory rape. A teacher should know that information.

    Now apply the same information to the situation that was described. It is still statutory rape and a crime has taken place. As such the teacher should not have been advising the boy to take precautions and just let it go, he should have taken other action because of the fact that a crime had been committed.

    On top of that, was this not the same person who was advocating for the law to be changed in order for consent to be for 14 year olds?

    Girls and boys at the age of 14-15 are still discovering their sexual identity. That is one reason that they need protection from older men and women, regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

    Daniel, well done in speaking up….

  8. And while it’s generally a good thing to have openly gay people serving in government, Jennings’s prominence does more to hurt the public image of gay people than it does to help it.

    Since this is exactly the image many people have of gays, having him in a position of authority over children – will simply reinforce that stereotype.

    Of course he won’t resign on his own, it will be interesting to see if the conservative pressure will force him to do so.
    btw, my kids were in early elementary school 20 years ago, teachers were already being warned about inapropriate behavior (McMartin preschool anyone?) and it was already policy 20 years ago that a teacher should report anything suspicious.
    Seeing that schools love to be the final authority rather than the parents, I’ve got to believe this could have been handled without the parents, if the boy was worried about them finding out.
    No this isn’t the level of depravity that Polanski showed, but it is very depressing that this was common knowledge and this is who our president picks for yet another czar who needn’t be vetted by anyone.

  9. The point that is not being emphasized about this story is that Jennings’ actions (or failure to act) were a violation of state law. In the 1970s, Congress passed a law that provided funding to states that enacted mandatory child abuse reporting laws and Massachusetts (where I believe the incident took place) has had a mandatory reporting law since 1973. All the talk about it being “a different time” and “there was no training about these things” is complete bullsh*t.

    It’s not that it’s impossible to believe that a young, gay teacher failed to exercise good judgment or even to forgive the mistake (where there has been genuine remorse PRIOR to being busted). But it’s just ANOTHER example of how totally incompetent the Obama Administration is. Out of all of the candidates in the nation that would have been exceptional nominees for this post, Obama picks this guy–the one with a documented history of drug abuse and who kept quiet about a 15 year old getting it on with some vile predator he met at a bus depot. We already know that the Administration is incompetent when it comes to vetting its appointments, but if Jennings isn’t pressured to resign and the Administration just blows this off, it will also confirm (again) the Administration’s pathological inability to distinguish between right and wrong and its disregard of the rule of law when it comes to fellow liberals.

    In trying to learn more about the situation, I stumbled upon Pam’s House Blend, and as expected, the Left is casting Jennings as the victim and the right-wing as the villain:

    “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 “gays 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.”

    http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13241/washington-times-publishes-ugly-hit-piece-on-kevin-jennings

    That’s right. The kid wouldn’t have been looking for danger with bus-depot-pedophiles in the first place if evil, hate-mongering right-wingers hadn’t made him feel so depressed about his “God-given sexual orientation.” And, of course, when viewed through the sick, twisted, perverse, disgusting prism of liberalism, attacking Jennings is risking “death for America’s children.” Horrifying.

  11. This Gay man’s regret and excuse are a crock of manure!!! I had finished my Master’s Degree in Psychology in 1986 and believe me, we had plenty of training in reporting child abuse. To give him the out of playing ignorance is what Liberals use to excuse all sorts of idiotic behavior. #2. Your disgreement points to a basic flaw in logic – which allows all sorts of activity – you allow someone to be harmed for some esoteric, superordinate goal. The young man keeps getting abused because you dont want him outed – what if he wasnt homosexual??? The people that Obama has appointed have demonstrated many character flaws – I was just hoping that this Gay man would have had some balls so that he wasnt eventually an embarassment to the rest of the Gay Community.

  12. Ummm–this is the way most gay people think. My best friend in high school was a 15 year old gay prostitute. There are lots of older gay men who prey on young men. But we can’t talk about that because the “gay community is so diverse” and “not every gay does that.” We can’t talk about the older gays who exploit the young and get them into drugs and give them STDs and cause them such deep emotional pain they commit suicide. We have to pretend that the gay community is one long Will and Grace episode and there are only a few fringe perverts here and there.

    I am grateful to God that there are churches now like the ELCA who can offer young gays spiritual and emotional guidance away from the gay community.

  13. This man is abhorrent, not only in his moral judgement, but also in his divisive leadership.

    I take issue though with your statement, “while it’s generally a good thing to have openly gay people serving in government…” This is not what Conservatives are about; we do not operate in identity politics. We look at principle, character and policy. I cannot and will not identify with your statement, because then we are as divided and as compartmentalized as the Democratic party.

  14. I think you’re absolutely right. He should have done something to make it right just like the Republicans in congress did when they found out about the Mark Foley incident… oh wait a minute. They had to be forced to fess up nearly a year after coming into information about it, right?

    Seriously, I know the shoe is on the other foot, but when will Republican offer contributions to governing the country other than witch hunts? Especially when less than a year ago we we’re still reeling from ACTUAL Republican scandals, not specious claims TWENTY-ONE years after the fact? If that’s your criteria for anyone to be in office, I don’t think there’s anyone, including those of you here in your glass houses, that would be eligible for public office.

    I mean you have a sitting Republican senator, Vitters, who was on the rolls of a prostitution ring. Where’s the outrage there and calls for investigation and resignation? You have one of the most prominent conservative radio talk show hosts convicted of illegal drug possession (Limbaugh) and conservative television host whose alcoholism ruined his first marriage (Beck) who still receive multi-million dollar contracts and are somehow celebrated for their past failings instead of calling for their resignation. Your presidential candidate last year began an extra-marital affair when his first wife was mangled in a car wreck. Your leader of the Republican revolution (Gingrich) railed against then-President Clinton for his immoral extra-marital affair when he himself was having an extra-marital affair with a woman 30 years his junior who then became his third wife. Ah respect for the institution of marriage.

    The Bush white house deleting years of potentially damaging email, the politicization of the justice department, Abramoff and all the related scandals, tax fraud, hiring illegal immigrants, paying off press to write supposed unbiased articles, Department of the Interior…

    How much worse does an actual Republican scandal have to be than a Democratic one for the light of hypocrisy to be too blinding to your eyes?

  15. I think you’re absolutely right. He should have done something to make it right just like the Republicans in congress did when they found out about the Mark Foley incident… oh wait a minute. They had to be forced to fess up nearly a year after coming into information about it, right?

    Turns out, Counterveil, your Obama Party not only knew a year in advance, but deliberately withheld the information from being released for political purposes.

    Since your screaming Pelosi and Barack Obama insisted that children were endangered by that information not being released, will you now state that the fact that she, Barack Obama, and the Obama Party knew and did nothing to stop it at the time means that they were endangering children? Or will you blabber and spin and demonstrate that you fully support withholding such information for political purposes?

  16. I mean you have a sitting Republican senator, Vitters, who was on the rolls of a prostitution ring. Where’s the outrage there and calls for investigation and resignation?

    Aren’t you looking, Counterveil?

    The amusing thing is that Counterveil, who supports and endorses Congressmen who was not only on the rolls of a prostitution ring, but was keeping those rolls and profiting from them, is actually even foolish enough to blunder into this space in the first place. But that’s typical of Barack Obama and the Obama Party, who are all against things like child rape until prosecution and punishment of it would put their fellows like Roman Polanski in prison.

  17. He should have done something to make it right just like the Republicans in congress did when they found out about the Mark Foley incident… oh wait a minute.

    Not only did liberals, so worried about “the children, sit on the story for a year for political gain, not long after they supposedly fixed everything, there were stories leaking out that pages were having drunken parties, hooking up for sex and sneaking out to bars. I’m sure not much has changed even now.

    You have one of the most prominent conservative radio talk show hosts convicted of illegal drug possession (Limbaugh)

    Convicted you say? Prove it. The way I recall (reality), the liberal prosecutors couldn’t make a case after two years and an attempt to invade his privacy. Meanwhile a S. Fl. judge who actually HAD engaged in doctor shopping was sentenced (Rush volunteered) to rehab and was heralded as a hero by Fl. liberals for having the strength to overcome his addiction.

    and conservative television host whose alcoholism ruined his first marriage (Beck) who still receive multi-million dollar contracts and are somehow celebrated for their past failings instead of calling for their resignation.

    First of all, he dealt with his alcoholism and he doesn’t hide it. He mentions it frequently and how he overcame it. Second, can you name ONE person who celebrates him for his “past failings”?

    It may be cliche, but Christians aren’t perfect. Just forgiven.

    You are soooo pathetic when you lie, Countervail.

  19. Oh and how about the Chairman Obama WH not supplying visitors lists?

    How about Filegate?

    How about Barney Frank running a prostitution ring out of his house and fixing parking tickets?

    Liberals kept reelecting Ted Kennedy after A) killing a woman and B) the Kennedy-Dodd waitress sandwich.

    Sandy Burglar
    Robert Torricelli
    James McGreevy
    Jesse Jackson
    Gary Condit
    Elliot Spitzer
    Daniel Rostenkowski
    Mel Reynolds 12 counts sexual assault on 16 y/o. Pardoned by BJ.
    Wayne Bryant
    John Murtha
    Gerry Studds sexual relationship with a minor. Got reelected
    Fred Richmond solicited sex from a 16 y/o. Got reelected.
    Alcee Hastings
    Marion Barrie
    Mario Biaggi
    Gus Savage fondled a Peace Corps volunteer
    Daniel Inoyue accused of sexual harrassment
    Brock Adams drugging, assault, rape
    John Young paid a staffer for sexual favors
    Wayne Hayes hired an unqualified staffer for sex
    James Trafficant
    Henry Cisneros

    You can take your faux indignation and shove it sideways, Countervail.

  20. he still behaved badly, especially given that he was a teacher at the time.

    Dan, I can’t abide by that judgement of him. Think about it for a sec: It’s 1988, dark times as far as AIDS go. Sodomy is illegal. Criminal. There are barely gay support groups for adults, let alone teens. Kids get kicked out home and onto streets all the time. That was the reality of the world. It’s an insanely horrible position to be in as a teacher.

    If he reported that a student was sneaking out of the house to have sex with an adult, he outs the student to a system the most likely wasn’t able to deal with him. Outs him to parents who, if a kid is able to to sneak out of his house and be gone overnight without his parents noticing, probably aren’t that great of parents to begin with. And outs him to a legal system that could bring charges against the kid too, especially if they couldn’t find the adult that Jennings had scant information about. That’s on top of the horrible self esteem the kid had by thinking he didn’t deserve to live.

    It was bad enough in Virginia, in 1992, when I was doing HIV/AIDS prevention work, to keep teens like that safe. There were a few more resources, but not nearly enough. And the laws in Virginia were pretty horrendous all around. To deal with getting 15 or 16 year olds to wait/be safe with their peers was a struggle. To get them to wait/be safe with an adult was a struggle up the steep side of a falling mountain.

    I don’t think you can say, in 2009, that a teacher of 1988 was wrong not to disclose what a gay teen was doing to system that had no real resources to deal with the situation, outside of imposing criminal and social sanctions that most likely would have fallen on the teen.

  21. I think you’re absolutely right. He should have done something to make it right just like the Republicans in congress did when they found out about the Mark Foley incident… oh wait a minute

    1. Mark Foley hit on young ADULT men. No matter how much the liberal press tried to imply otherwise. Democrats SAT on the information for a full year. And Republicans asked Foley to step down.

    Republicans have pushed for Vitter to step down. Republicans are also pushing for Mark Sanford to step down.

    Your sleazeball coached a CHILD into continuing to be raped by an adult and NO DEMOCRATS are defending him.

    Another liberal icon anally raped a 13 year old girl, and liberals give him lifetime achievement awards, standing ovations and are outraged that he has been arrested.

    Barney Frank ran a prostitution ring OUT OF HIS OWN FREAKING HOUSE, and you re-elected and promoted him.

    Ted Kennedy Drunk-drove a woman off a bridge, and left her to die of asphyxiation (not drowning) in the back of the car where she survived the crash in an air pocket, while he escaped and tried to figure out how to save his career…

    AND YOU RE-ELECTED him and promoted him to leadership!

    Seriously. Get a f**king clue if you think ANYONE in your party has even the tiniest iota of credibility when it comes to moral issues. Your party is the very definition of immoral! Your party exists to steal from people! The man you call the “conscience” of your party is a freaking Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon for crying out loud!

    Charlie Rangel has committed more crimes than the entire populations of many small countries, and your party does NOTHING but defend him.

    Your president bought his house in a criminal deal, for which the man who bought it for him is in jail, sold his senate seat, for which his governor is going to jail, got his wife a criminal $300,000 payola raise, for which her boss got millions in earmarks.

    Seriously, I have had it up to my eyeballs with Democrats who even pretend to have a decent bone in their bodies.

    YOU DONT. The LOT of you are disgusting.

  23. #20

    But under Massachusetts law and school policy, he was required to notify authorities. He did not. Instead of keeping this safe, he essentially jut told the child to wear a condom and, apparently, keep sneaking off to meet God knows who. Do you not think that if the child turned up dead, Jennings wouldn’t have had any culpability? Doesn’t this constitute neglect?

    This is just sick. Libs don’t seem to give a crap what kids do as long as they wear a condom. Better yet if the libs can profit from the story.

  24. Gene, I’m going to have to disagree with you.

    13 or 15, male or female, it’s the same thing. The teacher used his position of power to force himself on a young boy, instead of drugs on a young girl. To say “Times were different” is just making excuses.

    Same things goes for “EIT is bad, buggering young boys is fine” Jody’s reply up there.

  26. Wait, am I missing something? Some of the posts above (#4 and #5) seem to imply that the pedophile in this case was another teacher. Maybe I am misreading this.

    As for the issue, count me as one of those who feels shame and embarrassment for having one association with Jennings — that of also being gay. He perpetuates the image of gays being predators, or at least that of gays being indifferent to predatory activities.

    Some of my gay friends, sorry to say, are inclined to overlook just about any kind of deviant behavior because to condemn it would be showing “intolerance.” There are situations where intolerance is clearly called for.

  27. If he reported that a student was sneaking out of the house to have sex with an adult, he outs the student to a system the most likely wasn’t able to deal with him. Outs him to parents who, if a kid is able to to sneak out of his house and be gone overnight without his parents noticing, probably aren’t that great of parents to begin with. And outs him to a legal system that could bring charges against the kid too, especially if they couldn’t find the adult that Jennings had scant information about.

    But if he doesn’t, the student CONTINUES to sneak out, CONTINUES to get into trouble, and CONTINUES to have problems with self-esteem; however, a gay adult gets to continue having a nubile and easily-manipulated sex toy.

    No surprise; liberal gay Jody goes with keeping the sex toy.

    Lots of excuses, Jody. None of them changing the fact that you and your gay leftist friend Jennings don’t think what this child was doing was bad enough to put a stop to it — and in fact, you encouraged and supported it.

    So did you use this excuse and allow continued sexual exploitation of children when you were working for the DFCS?

  28. For #26, GayInOklahomaCity responding to my #4 – Yes, I misunderstood the situation. I forgot that the older man was someone the kid met at a bus depot. I regret the error.

    Moving on:

    Ummm–this is the way most gay people think. My best friend in high school was a 15 year old gay prostitute. There are lots of older gay men who prey on young men. But we can’t talk about that because the “gay community is so diverse” and “not every gay does that.” We can’t talk about the older gays who exploit the young and get them into drugs and give them STDs and cause them such deep emotional pain they commit suicide. We have to pretend that the gay community is one long Will and Grace episode and there are only a few fringe perverts here and there.

    Ash: Your comments are plain nutty.

    1) You don’t know “the way most gay people think”. You have your personal experiences to draw on, and you know how the writer at Pam’s House Blend thinks (because Sean A was kind enough to tell you). But you, of all people, would not know how “most gay people” think.

    2) “There are lots of older gay men who prey” – What kind of McCarthyite statement is that? I mean, of course there are some – just like there are older straight men who prey – but what is “lots”? What number (whether absolute or a percentage rate)? And, once you’ve offered a number, what is its significance? Ash, would you care to ever back up one of your sweeping assertions with… you know… specifics?

    3) “We can’t talk about the older gays who exploit the young” – Of course we can. We do it on this blog all the time. WE ARE DOING IT RIGHT NOW, would you kindly notice? But I will admit, it does help – that is, your remarks are more likely to be well-received – if any new, bold or sweeping assertions in them are supported by links to evidence. Evidence that is more than anecdotal. Yours tend not to be, and read like an excerpt from the Salem witch trials.

  29. To re-address the point that Jennings “basically would have been outing the young man, and possibly himself if he went more public”, after correcting my error (i.e., in light of the fact that the older man was semi-random or not a teacher):

    I still don’t agree. If nothing else, Jennings should have told the young man that what the older man was doing was wrong, and that Jennings would support the young man 100% if he (the young man) wanted to go to the police. Even if nothing changed – even if that didn’t stop a thing – Jennings would have been (1) letting the young man know the difference between right and wrong, and (2) letting the young man know he was not alone in this thing. And it doesn’t take specialized training to do that. All it takes is the modicum of common sense and empathy that we are all supposed to possess. Jennings acted wrongly in this thing and his “apology” is an insult (as I started to touch on, at #1).

  30. until you take a non-partisan stance against all pedophiles and those that condone it (i.e. the Mark Foleys, the roman catholic church, etc) your words are hollow.

  31. bnl, clueless as always!

    (1) People on this blog do, almost universally, take a stand against all pedophiles and all who condone pedophilia in any fashion.

    (2) Including that they condemn Mark Foley. But it is worth noting, in that context, that Mark Foley was never found to have had any actual sex with his young targets. Gerry Studd (D – Mass) did. Until you, bnl, take a non-partisan stance against all pedophiles and those that condone it (i.e., the Barney Franks of the world and other Democrats who condoned Studds), your words are hollow.

  32. It’s official. There is NOTHING that liberals will not defend and excuse to protect those who share their politics. This week, the Left’s reaction to the Polanski arrest and its defense of Jennings, has provided Americans with conclusive proof that liberals measure character and integrity exclusively by one’s position on “the issues” and/or one’s “talent as an artist.” Of course, we already knew this, but these two examples confirm unequivocally that for warped, sick individuals like Jody and Countervail, liberal politics trumps the safety, welfare, and protection of children.

    Contrary to the uninformed pronouncements in this thread, Jennings had an ethical, moral, and LEGAL obligation to report the information he received from the 15 year old student to either a law enforcement or child protection agency because Massachusetts has had a mandatory child abuse reporting law since 1973. The intent of that law (which had been on the books for 15 years by 1988) was intended to apply to precisely the situation Jennings encountered as a teacher, and the receipt of federal funds under the federal statute that encouraged the states to enact such laws specifically required the states to offer training to mandatory “reporters” like Jennings. He had a legal duty to act, was certainly provided with some training regarding that duty, and he blew it off in favor of some warped connection or camaraderie he imagined that he had with the young gay kid. Any other characterization of the undisputed facts is a disgusting, politically-motivated white wash.

    #20: “I don’t think you can say, in 2009, that a teacher of 1988 was wrong not to disclose what a gay teen was doing to system that had no real resources to deal with the situation, outside of imposing criminal and social sanctions that most likely would have fallen on the teen.”

    Jody, you’re full of it. Your description of 1988 as a draconian theocracy that would have used the information to punish the individual that mandatory reporting laws are designed to protect is a crock and your attempts to pretend that Jennings made the right decision that somehow protected the minor are VILE. Your depiction of 1988 as comparable to Oscar Wilde’s time is both transparent and pathetic.

    #20: “And outs him to a legal system that could bring charges against the kid too, especially if they couldn’t find the adult that Jennings had scant information about.”

    Charges against the kid, Jody? Really?! Like what, for instance? What exactly would a 15 year old minor who reported an adult male preying on him at a bus depot be charged with? Seriously, can you back up such a ludicrous statement? Or, is it just that you’re so desperate to excuse the illegal, unethical conduct of a fellow liberal that you’re willing to pretend that Jennings was protecting the minor from prosecution by remaining silent?

    The accusation that is already on some of the other blogs is absolutely applicable: by defending Jennings, liberals have placed themselves in a position that makes them hypocrites to condemn Catholic priests for keeping silent about sexual abuse against minors in their parishes. Some of the cases of abuse in the Catholic Diocese cases date back to the 1950s and 1960s. Thus, if Jennings was “protecting” the boy by keeping quiet in 1988, the same could certainly be said of Bishops and Cardinals that failed to alert authorities to child abuse they knew about in the 1950s and 1960s. Afterall, Jody, they certainly wouldn’t have wanted the VICTIMS of the abuse arrested and prosecuted, right? So, well done on aligning yourself with the accomplices, Jody, and giving us an honest, unmistakable glimpse of who you really are and what you stand for. Well done.

    I have to say I agree with American Elephant on this one: “The LOT of you are disgusting.”

  33. ILC, his words are always hollow, a tale of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

    Keep in mind, he beleives that the guy in Florida is an ‘American Hero’.

    Good thing BNL’s never gone to the doctor, or to the hospital or paid his taxes. Since surely he holds that it is a ‘holocaust’ he wouldn’t want to be part of the infrastructure supporting it, or take advantage of it…

    Since turning a blind eye to it and not fighting it would make him equally guilty.

  34. But do you guys think 21 years ago, if outed the 15 year old would have committed suicide? I do. Yes the older man deserved prosecution, but the teenager would have been dead.

  35. Gene,

    21 years ago, I was a junior in High School. We had one openly gay student and one closeted one. Small rural school in SE Ohio. Both were in Drama. I was too, no sterotyping here. 😉

    The only times the openly one had direct trouble was when his mouth outran his brain (Telling the farm boy lineman ‘I’d love to ask you out’ is not recommended).

    Point is, if a bunch of rednecks could deal with the kids in class, I’d think an enlightened community of the west coast would survive.

  37. But do you guys think 21 years ago, if outed the 15 year old would have committed suicide?

    I want to make the following point again (since I blew it the first time and it might be lost in the shuffle). Let’s say you have a point. Let’s say the particular kid, family and community added up to “suicide risk”. Jennings could have brought that forward. But let’s say he wanted to lay low and do the absolute, most discreet thing possible. Then, rather than giving sex tips (or perhaps in addition to it), Jennings should have told the kid, “This older guy is a creep, and what he is doing in pursuing you is just wrong. And if *you* ever feel that you can’t get out or want to go to the police, I will be there to help you.” Jennings didn’t even manage to do that.

  38. “But it is worth noting, in that context, that Michael Jackson was never found to have had any actual sex with his young targets.”

    Just thought I’d improve your comment there, ILC. (Defending Mark Foley–wow–just wow.)

  39. There’s a reason 20 years ago gay teen suicide rates were astoundingly high. You guys aren’t addressing that. And you don’t know that Jennings DIDN’T suggest the teenager quit the older man. And asking if the kid was using condoms didn’t condon the behavior either. He was trying to keep him alive.

  40. (Defending Mark Foley–wow–just wow.)

    Except, of course, that I did not.

    What I did was: Accurately portray Foley’s offense, for which we rightly condemned him (on this blog) and for which he rightly resigned in shame.

    You need to keep working on that whole “false witness” thing, Ash.

    it is worth noting, in that context, that Michael Jackson was never found to have had any actual sex with his young targets

    Ash, I think that is the first time I have ever seen you acknowledge that Michael Jackson did, in fact, prey on underage children. You know… *just like Mark Foley*. Thank you for that.

    Also note that Jackson paid one kid $25 million to change his story to the police, and in the other case, some of Jackson’s jurors said publicly that they believed he did it. (They just couldn’t convict beyond a doubt, and under the instructions they were given.) I put a lot of stock in Jackson’s jurors, who were there hearing the evidence and seeing the witnesses: i.e., I believe what they had to say. Don’t you?

  41. Gene,

    I’m not persuaded.

    He had a legal obligation to report it.
    He should have had a moral obligation to take an advisory role to kids I’ve had a couple 16 year olds contact me online, my reply has been “If they’re willing to break the law to be with you, what makes you think they’ll be safe sane concentual with you?”
    He had an ethical obligation to report it, as a teacher he’s a positive role model.

    Saying “He might have comitted suicide” is speculation. The Bus Stop guy ‘might have been’ a serial killer. Facing the task ‘might have been’ the catalyst to make him a Supreme court Justice.

    Coulda-woulda-shoulda.

  42. I tend to be a black and white guy, little grey areas for me. But being a misrable young gay man, closeted for years, I know these kinds of examples aren’t always simple. I guess that’s all I’m saying. Remember when Jennings saw the gay kid around campus after their counceling session, the kid always had a smile for him. He may have felt he had one friend, one person who knew the truth and didn’t care.
    I know in a perfect world the right thing to do would have been to march the kid to the police. And in a perfect world the teenagers mom and dad would have hugged him and said, we love you.

  43. very interesting article

    Fox News’ Bill Hemmer continued his network’s attacks on Department of Education official Kevin Jennings by claiming that Jennings knew of a “statutory rape” case involving a student but “never reported it.” However, Hemmer ignored that Jennings’ attorney wrote in a 2004 letter that the student was 16 years old, which Jennings’ book appears to support, and that 16 is — and was at the time — the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200910010024

    In his 1994 book, One Teacher in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories, Jennings writes of “Brewster, a sophomore boy who I came to know in 1987, my first year of teaching at Concord Academy, in Concord, Massachusetts.” Jennings writes that “during the spring of 1988,” Brewster told Jennings “a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston.” Jennings writes that he “listened, sympathized, and offered advice.” Later in the book, Jennings writes that on April 3, 1993, he “caught up” with Brewster at “the annual awards dinner of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.” Jennings writes that Brewster was then “twenty-two, taking time off from college, and living with his boyfriend.” If Brewster was 22 in April of 1993, then Brewster would have been either 16 or 17 in the “spring of 1988,” when, according to Jennings’ book, Brewster told Jennings of the “older man.”

  45. Say Rusty, can you clear this up:

    General Laws of Massachusetts

    Chapter 272: Section 4 Inducing person under eighteen to have sexual intercourse

    Section 4. Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

    Also, what’s the position of Massachusetts on same sex intercourse? Do MediaMorons speak to that?

  47. I found this snippet at http://www.ageofconsent.com/massachusetts.htm

    Added 07-2002:

    The point of this section is to penalize someone for inducing an innocent minor to commit an unlawful sexual act. It does not of itself declare any sexual acts to be unlawful. To illustrate, if a married person were to initiate a sexual relationship with a “chaste” 16-year-old, that person would be in violation of this section because adultery qualifies as unlawful sexual intercourse under Massachusetts law; if the person were unmarried, there would be no violation. Note: this section has been successfully challenged as being unconstitutionally vague (i.e. the meaning of “chaste” is unclear); the legislature is expected to amend.

    that’s what I can come up with. Hope that helps TGC

  49. Massachusetts is one of 8 states that have different ages of consent for men and women. The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16 for women and 18 for men. This is the age at which a person may consent to heterosexual sex with a partner over the age of 21.

    Massachusetts has no valid statute that specifically addressed the age of consent for same sex relations.

  50. Jennings’ book suggests student was 16 or 17 at the time of the incident. Jennings wrote that “during the spring of 1988,” a student Jennings referred to as “Brewster” told Jennings “a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston.” Jennings wrote that he “listened, sympathized, and offered advice.” He later wrote that on April 3, 1993, he “caught up” with “Brewster” at “the annual awards dinner of the Coalition of Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.” Jennings wrote that “Brewster” was then “twenty-two, taking time off from college, and living with his boyfriend.” If “Brewster” was 22 in April of 1993, then “Brewster” would have been either 16 or 17 in the “spring of 1988” when the incident allegedly occurred. From his book:
    Toward the end of my first year, during the spring of 1988, Brewster appeared in my office in the tow of one of my advisees, a wonderful young woman to whom I had been “out” for a long time. “Brewster has something he needs to talk with you about,” she intoned ominously. Brewster squirmed at the prospect of telling, and we sat silently for a short while. 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. [One Teacher in Ten, page 25]

    […]

    I remember April 3, 1993, when I went to Club Café, a gay restaurant in Boston, for the annual awards dinner of the Coalition of Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights. An organization I had helped found, GLSTN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Teachers Network), was being honored that night, and I had come to accept the award on our behalf. I sat with some friends, my back to the center of the room, and soon got engaged in conversation. From behind me, I heard a familiar voice. “Care for a drink, sir?”

    I turned and it was Brewster. Shocked, we were both speechless for a moment, before we hugged each other and caught up. He was now twenty-two, taking time off from college, and living with his boyfriend. His smile showed that he had found his way to a happy adulthood. In that moment, I remembered why I had gone into teaching in the first place. [One Teacher in Ten, page 27]

    I also remember why I had such a wonderful time working with GLBT youth (many of them homeless and displaced because of intolerant homes), remembering their stories and the comfort they expressed in finding someone who was willing to listen to them