On Kevin Jennings & Our Critics
The thing which has struck me the most about some of the reaction to my various posts on Kevin Jennings is the thing which disappoints me the most about blogging, that people deliver form responses to the posts, as if reacting to the standard conservative line on that issue or, more likely, their interpretation of what that line is. To be sure, there have been notable exceptions, particularly the commentary from Jody.
Perhaps, he has been more civil and has taken more care to address the actual ideas I expressed because we know each other. He is aware I’m not some rabid right-winger spouting the party line. And on this issue, as on many others, I have offered a different view on the situation than have other conservative bloggers who have addressed it.
From the outset, I indicated I’d be wiling to cut Jennings some slack and reconsider my call for his resignation if evidence emerged that the Obama official had publicly said he wished he had handled the situation (he related in his oft-repeated anecdote) differently. As I wrote in my first post on the topic.
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.
Recall that he is the one who brought up the subject in various public fora, including a published book. Recall that he had said the boy was fifteen at the time. Recall that he never expressed regret that he didn’t discourage the teen from picking up adults in public bathrooms.
Shouldn’t a gay teacher, concerned for the welfare of his gay students, want to tell his charge that there are better ways to meet men?
What troubles me more than anything about Jennings’s anecdote is not the story itself.
First, a personal. Had I been a young teacher in a similar situation, I believe I would shared with the youth the anxieties I felt when I first realized the attraction I felt for other men set me apart from my peers. And told him as well that our situation was not unusual and did offer us, should we be true to ourselves, the potential to lead a fulfilling life. I hope I would have discouraged him from meeting men in public lavatories.
But, as I suggested in previous post, as a young teacher with “a nervous teenager in front” of me, I don’t know for certain how I would have reacted. None of us do. Not even the bloggers who criticize Jennings most harshly.
Had the actual events of that day in 1988 been all there was to the story, I would not join those bloggers in criticizing Jenkins. I would chalk up his failure to his own period of professional cnihtwesende, being a youth.
So this (as I’ve said before) is what troubles me more than anything about this story: Jennings talked about the issue repeatedly, yet never indicated he wished he had handled the situation differently—not until he was serving in the Department of Education and the issue became a political hot potato.
Now, all that said (and once again, as I’ve said before) I will revisit my call for his resignation if information comes forward indicating that prior to his appointment to the Department of Education, he had questioned his actions as a young teacher in the same public manner he discussed them.
45 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
After reading all the posts from people defending Jennings, I can only conclude that some gays are perfectly content to reinforce the stereotype of the predatory gale male who preys on young boys.
It doesn’t matter so much whether “Brewster” was 15 or 16 or 14 years and 11 months. What matters is Jennings bragged for years about facilitating the relationship between a kid he said was 15 with an older man he met in a bus station lavatory.
Comment by V the K — October 9, 2009 @ 10:40 am - October 9, 2009
I believe the issue has extended far beyond the one encounter with the young student.
There has been much more surface all around the blogsphere and even the media on additional issues that bring into question the propriety of this person remaining in his assigned office within the administration.
To concentrate only on the one incident does not take into account the full knowledge of his activities that is emerging even yet.
Comment by DayTrader — October 9, 2009 @ 11:25 am - October 9, 2009
You tell the kid’s parents. You tell the kid’s parents. You tell the kid’s parents. That is the ONLY answer. They are his parents, and you are NOT. And you tell your principal so that he/she is aware of the situation.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 9, 2009 @ 11:30 am - October 9, 2009
Teachers are not counselors. They are not doctors. They are not priests. They are teachers. Once you have told the parents, you then say to the kid, “Make sure you get your math homework in on time.” You are a TEACHER.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 9, 2009 @ 11:33 am - October 9, 2009
Shouldn’t a gay teacher, concerned for the welfare of his gay students, want to tell his charge that there are better ways to meet men?
Given Jennings’s example, a gay liberal teacher is far more concerned for the welfare of his standing in the gay community than anything else — and that means supporting and endorsing those who are having sex with underage children.
Aside from that, given the stories we’ve heard from gay liberals, Jennings’s likely response was, “I was having sex with older men in bus station restrooms when I was even younger, so what’s the problem?”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2009 @ 11:40 am - October 9, 2009
This is exactly what I have been feeling about the issue. It’s not so much what happened that bugs me… it’s how Jennings seems to feel about it.
His pride in this story, coupled with his admiration for a NAMBLA activist, indicates that he either does not understand, or does not sympathize with, the degree of intolerance American parents would like to see toward any adult who tried to sleep with their children.
That this should disqualify him for his current post (maybe not any government post, but certainly his current one) seems like a no brainer.
Comment by Jane — October 9, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - October 9, 2009
Ashpenaz, before I told the kid’s parents, I would probably consult an administrator and a school counselor first, and make sure that was appropriate. Personally, I am wary of telling parents if it would make things worse for the teen. In Brewster’s case, he was out to some students and some teacher, and don’t know if he was out to his parents, or how they would react to him being gay.
And you’re right about teachers not being counselors. As a teacher of students who are almost all adults, there are limits to the amount of personal counseling I give, and have to refer them to a counselor when things start to get heavy. If a student mentioned to me that he/she trolls public bathrooms for sex with much older people, I would refer them to a counselor, after telling them in a nice way his choice was a bad idea.
Comment by Pat — October 9, 2009 @ 2:48 pm - October 9, 2009
It’s not your job to decide whether the kid has good parents or not–they are the ones in charge. It’s their job, not yours, to advise their child. It is the height of arrogance to assume that you, a teacher who plays a transitory role, have better judgment than someone’s parents, who has raised the kid. You tell the kid’s parents. If you suspect abuse on the parents’ part because of his orientation, you call family services.
(This is a generic you, BTW, not directed at you, Pat. I respect your opinion.)
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 9, 2009 @ 3:24 pm - October 9, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO – Young gay people whose parents or guardians responded negatively when they revealed their sexual orientation were more likely to attempt suicide, experience severe depression and use drugs than those whose families accepted the news, according to a new study.
The way in which parents or guardians respond to a youth’s sexual orientation profoundly influences the child’s mental health as an adult, say researchers at San Francisco State University. The findings appear in the January issue of Pediatrics and are being released Monday
AP, Mon., Dec . 29, 2008
It is very important to assess the safety net of any young person coming out.
Spend a little time with young folk and you might learn that sometimes there are young people who cannot turn to their parents.
Comment by rusty — October 9, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - October 9, 2009
Spend enough time with young folks, and you’ll learn a certain contingent will always make themselves the victim. “My parents kicked me out because I’m gay,” usually evokes a more sympathetic response than, “My parents kicked me out because I’m staying out all night, I’m stealing from them, I’ve turned the whole house into a big drama scene, I’m using drugs, and they got fed up with my bullshit.”
Also, apparently, if you spend enough time with more mature gay men, you can apparently discover that an uncomfortably large percentage of them are perfectly all right with older gay men cruising for young boys in public restrooms.
Comment by V the K — October 9, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - October 9, 2009
NICE PORN V. . .you sure Pink and Blue is of legal age?
Comment by rusty — October 9, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - October 9, 2009
D, thanks for the nice shout-out. The tough part about blogs and arguing on-line is that there are no social cues to moderate reading responses in the worst possible light. It helps that I know you are a kind, decent man expressing a deeply held political philosophy believed to be the best path.
I still bang my head against the screen when I read some the posts…
😀
Lovefest over, now back to the bloodshed:
V, in none of his writings is Jennings’ “bragging” about “facilitating” a relationship. They are all about the work he and others have done over the past 20 years to change the lack of options and overall shitty situation gay teens were in in 1988 to the much more positive one they have now.
Ash, teachers are a bit of everything. They often spend more time with young people and children than their parents do. Such duties frequently fall to them.
Sure, now. There are far more options and support services available to gay teens today, but that wasn’t always the case. It wasn’t so in 1988. Telling parents, even administrators, in some places in 1988 was a ticket to a kid winding up homeless on the streets — or worse.
Jennings admiration was for an early gay activist who did a great deal to advance the gay movement. Hay also supported NAMBLA, a big failing on Hay’s part, but that’s on Hay’s part. There’s no evidence that Jennings ever supported NAMBLA — and it’s asinine to keep pushing that claim.
Even reading such a response in the best light still leads to the same response ND30: You have no power here. Begone before someone drops a house on you, too.
Comment by Jody — October 9, 2009 @ 4:15 pm - October 9, 2009
V, it undercuts your argument that teens are helpless children if you are advocating that parents have the right to throw unruly, even criminal, ones out on the street for their poor choices. You don’t throw children out on the street.
Comment by Jody — October 9, 2009 @ 4:19 pm - October 9, 2009
Never made that argument, Jody, you incredibly dishonest individual. My argument has always focused on the creepiness and sleaze of mature gay males who cruise for underage boys, and the apparent tolerance for such creepiness and sleaze among a surprisingly large percentage of gays as a whole.
Comment by V the K — October 9, 2009 @ 4:23 pm - October 9, 2009
BTW, I personally happen to disagree with the 21 year old drinking age law. Should I be able to hand out liquor to teenagers anyway? I mean, teens want booze, don’t they?
I also have two teenage sons who would love to own handguns, but the law says they have to wait until they’re 21. Should I but them guns anyway? I mean, they really want them, after all.
I mean, if our criteria here is that teenagers should be allowed to have what they want, and it should be okay for more mature men to provide these things, then why just sex? Why not guns and booze?
Comment by V the K — October 9, 2009 @ 4:32 pm - October 9, 2009
do your sons have access to your blog? V
Comment by rusty — October 9, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - October 9, 2009
Ah, I see rusty doesn’t have the spine to condemn pedophile gays and their supporters like Jennings and instead is trying to cover up for what he endorses by attacking V the K as being a bad parent.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - October 9, 2009
Ah. . .Miss Rita Beads aka NDT. . .careful honey, that house might just land on your head.
and just for the record, I don’t think you will find any statement or comment that I advocate for older folk having sex with younger folk.
and just for a reminder: The reason Rita Beads is such a funny name is probably sadly lost to most of you, but the threat to “read your beads” was a common expression back in the day, one homo to another. Reading someone’s beads meant to tell them off, to give them what-for, to put them in the their place, in the sort of high-drama that only can come from a place of great creativity and style. And cuntiness. JMG
Comment by rusty — October 9, 2009 @ 5:52 pm - October 9, 2009
rusty, sometimes you’re an idiot… “And this is one of them.”
WHO. CARES.
I’d take a bet that V’s kids have access to South Park. SO. WHAT.
The issue, rusty, is Jennings’ boasting about how he supported a minor – 15 or 16 makes no difference, still a minor – in HAVING. ACTUAL. SEX. (not looking at a tit pic, or beefcake pic) WITH. A. REAL. LIFE. PREDATOR.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 9, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - October 9, 2009
(continued) The difference between that, and letting your kid see a clothed-soft-porn shot on your website, is in other words an order of magnitude. And for you to think you’re making some significant point with it is… just idiotic. Dumb beyond belief.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 9, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - October 9, 2009
Yeah, it’s much better to let a kid travel to Boston so he can turn tricks in the bus station bathroom. Why am I not surprised that you work for DCF?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 9, 2009 @ 7:25 pm - October 9, 2009
Appreciate your defense, NDT and ILC. But I can ignore rusty for the simple reason that he’s an idiot. It’s kind of wee wee’d up the way trolls get upset over the occasional pic of a woman in a bikini, but have no trouble with middle-aged men buggering middle-school aged boys in public lavatories.
(Perhaps, the pics from Tuesday would be more to their liking.)
Comment by V the K — October 9, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - October 9, 2009
I also take his personal attacks as a de facto admission that he cannot refute my points.
Comment by V the K — October 9, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - October 9, 2009
yuppers your all right. . .just like
Coburn Aide Creates Stir With Comments About Porn, Homosexuality
Posted: Sep 22, 2009 12:33 PM PDT
Updated: Sep 23, 2009 7:32 AM PDT
Featured Video Coburn’s Chief of Staff Spark Controversy
Enlarge this picture
Sen. Tom Coburn’s chief of staff, Mike Schwartz, made controversial comments over the weekend while speaking to a group in Washington, D.C. implying pornography can lead to homosexuality.
Enlarge this picture
Mike Jestes with the Oklahoma Family Policy Council said Schwartz comments meant that porn is self-gratifying. However, he stopped short of supporting the statement that all porn leads to homosexuality.By Charles Bassett, NEWS 9
OKLAHOMA CITY — Comments made by an aide to Senator Tom Coburn are creating a stir.
Coburn’s chief of staff Mike Schwartz created quite a buzz after implying all pornography is homosexual pornography and that pornography leads to homosexuality.
Comment by rusty — October 9, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - October 9, 2009
oops cite missing. . .http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11177503
Comment by rusty — October 9, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - October 9, 2009
but all this fun was at the Values Voter Summit. . .http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/schedule
something about a recent post by Dan about False Assumption of Republican Attitudes Toward Gays
Seemed like a pretty strong lineup of BIG R types and lovely anti-gay supporters leading breakout sessions.
Comment by rusty — October 9, 2009 @ 10:54 pm - October 9, 2009
And rusty is once again trying to divert the conversation away from his and Jennings’s endorsement and support of gays having sex with underage children.
To borrow from V the K, it’s kind of wee wee’d up the way trolls get upset over the implications they come up with from statements by conservatives, but have no trouble with middle-aged men buggering middle-school aged boys in public lavatories.
I think if rusty were smart, he’d realize the fact that he endorses and supports the latter is why the former is commonly believed.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2009 @ 11:42 pm - October 9, 2009
Tony Perkins was the first to start the witch hunt. . .Tony FRC Perkins
FRC sponsors the Values Voters Summit. . .
These are the wonderful folk who . . .
Well There you go Rita-NDT-Beads.
Kevin Jennings made a mistake. That’s all. He admitted it. and made advancements to help out future teachers to help youth.
Comment by rusty — October 10, 2009 @ 12:00 am - October 10, 2009
perkins. . .http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32472
Comment by rusty — October 10, 2009 @ 12:03 am - October 10, 2009
Jody — I’ve known VtK as an online personality for years; just take my word for it that he knows a thing or two about being incredibly dishonest, and don’t get suckered into a long debate when he gets into one of these snits.
(Not that you really need to take my word for it, as you might’ve worked out for yourself that “VtK’s Razor” goes something like: Never make a plain and straightforward factual assertion when outlandishly sensationalized hyperbole will suffice.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 10, 2009 @ 12:37 am - October 10, 2009
And NDT is VtK without the redeeming intelligence and sense of humor.
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 10, 2009 @ 12:40 am - October 10, 2009
Jody, while VtK’s characterization here of the exchange between Jennings and Brewster was hyperbolic*, I can kind of understand where VtK is coming from: namely, that by failing to report Brewster’s account to school administrators and counselors, Jennings might’ve “facilitated” a future visit by Brewster to the bus station, where it could have come to pass that Brewster would be molested by an older man.
And let it be clearly understood that not doing everything possible to prevent a hypothetical man/teen liaison (in the future subjunctive) is the ONLY sense in which Jennings “facilitated” such a relationship.
It’s ridiculous, at best, to say that Jennings “facilitated” that which Brewster had already done — that which was fait accompli. But it’s not ridiculous to say that Jennings failed to discourage Brewster from making an incredibly stupid and possibly life-threatening mistake on some future bus trip; and that Jennings compounded the failure by not coming to recognize how ill-considered his advice to Brewster really was, until other people recently pointed this out to him.
* Though not as hyperbolic as writing: “[Jennings] helped a 15 year old kid get molested by an older man he met in a public bathroom,” which is how VtK (of “Jody, you incredibly dishonest person!” fame) pungently phrased it in an earlier thread about Jennings.
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 10, 2009 @ 1:38 am - October 10, 2009
I’ve never seen V or NDT be dishonest Throbert, and Ive read most of what theyve written since I started poking around here.
Perhaps thats why you want people to “take your word for it” — because you have no evidence.
And no, when a teen tells you that they have been having sex with older men in bathrooms, and all you do is tell them to make sure to use condoms, you are not only facilitating illegal sex, you are condoning it, approving it, and yes, by advising on how to do it more safely, facilitating it.
Why do liberals ALWAYS leap to the defense of anyone molesting children????
Comment by American Elephant — October 10, 2009 @ 6:36 am - October 10, 2009
#33 Envy maybe? I mean no one, including Jody, condemns him for breaking the law. So remember. EIT on admitted terrorists who aren’t covered by Geneva and are killing Americans bad. Older men buggering young kids and not reporting it to the authorities, good
Comment by The_Livewire — October 10, 2009 @ 7:57 am - October 10, 2009
No wonder rusty is trying so desperately to shift attention away from his liberal compatriots’ defense of the indefensible.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 10, 2009 @ 8:56 am - October 10, 2009
When a teen tells you that they have been having sex with older men in bathrooms, and all you do is tell them to make sure to use condoms, you are not only facilitating illegal sex, you are condoning it, approving it, and yes, by advising on how to do it more safely, facilitating it.
Yes. Thank you. Exactly.
True story: Last night, my 19 year old son and his 20 year old friend went to a concert. When they came home, I was privy to this discussion.
SON: (Girl X) was really hot, too bad she’s only 15.
SON’S FRIEND: Yeah, she wouldn’t leave me alone though.
SON: Dude, she’s 15. You don’t want that.
SON’S FRIEND: She gave me her phone number.
SON: Dude, you have to delete that number right now.
SON: I know. I will.
So, if two guys near their hormanal peaks have enough self-control to know what not to do, why is it too much to expect gay men in their 20’s/30’s/40’s to exercise the same restraint and common sense?
Comment by V the K — October 10, 2009 @ 10:36 am - October 10, 2009
I guess we can count Throbert as one of The Crocked. To consider Throbert’s claims about V the K fairly, I re-read the thread from the beginning. Here is what I found. V the K said (a):
Some said (b) Jennings should have told the kid’s parents, whereupon rusty said (c):
V responded (d):
Jody responded, senselessly (d):
V responded (e):
Now, is it *true* that V never argued that teens were helpless children? Why, yes it is. At least there is nothing about it, in this thread. So for Jody to claim that V had argued it, is either confusion on Jody’s part or dishonesty (take your pick). To clarify his own stance, V added (f):
Does “a surprisingly large percentage of gays” tend toward smearing all gays unfairly, as some others on this blog do with their reckless claims about “most gays”? Uh, maybe, but not necessarily. “Most gays” can only mean a large majority. But “a surprisingly large percentage” could mean anything. If a 20% minority of gay men had excessive tolerance for predators, that, to me, would be “a surprisingly large percentage”. Still, Throbert managed to get offended anyway, and claimed (g):
And offered *no evidence* for that statement. Throbert further claimed (hyperbolically and thus ironically) (h):
and tried to offer a bit of evidence for that, i.e., an example of what he considered V’s hyperbole. But it was a lame example (i):
Lame because it is a reasonable description of what Jennings did, as others have shown.
Not to turn this into a discussion about V (who needs no defense from me), Throbert or anybody. In fact, I’d rather not. But “claims were made”, I re-read the thread in order to test them for myself, and the above is what I found.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2009 @ 10:48 am - October 10, 2009
(aargh, I numbered two items (d) which throws off the count – sorry)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2009 @ 10:51 am - October 10, 2009
I see ILC has already posted this argument in the time it took me to type, but nevertheless, Throbert, since you are so convinced that your pal Jody honestly characterized my argument, please cite the comment of mine where I said that teens were “helpless children.”
Comment by V the K — October 10, 2009 @ 10:54 am - October 10, 2009
actually, in reading Jody’s comment it explains a lot. He believes your argument is that parents have the ‘right’ thro throw out unruly children. He’s apparently inventing rights again.
Jody is Ruth Bader Ginsburg in drag.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 10, 2009 @ 11:25 am - October 10, 2009
Jody is Ruth Bader Ginsburg in drag.
Thank you, I wasn’t planning on eating lunch anyway.
Comment by V the K — October 10, 2009 @ 11:42 am - October 10, 2009
So, if two guys near their hormanal (sic) peaks have enough self-control to know what not to do, why is it too much to expect gay men in their 20’s/30’s/40’s to exercise the same restraint and common sense?
Because Jody and his ilk have been telling them from day one that there’s no need to exercise restraint and common sense if they are “safe”.
Jennings’s response to Brewster was textbook — encourage the promiscuity as a normal part of being gay, support the continued “relationship”, assert that there was nothing wrong with a teenager having sex with older men they met in bus station restrooms, and oh, by the way, maybe “hope” they used a condom.
Why should it surprise anyone that these same people that, when they were teenagers, were taught by other gays that having sex with people much older than you were in public places was perfectly fine and normal then turn around and do the same thing when they’re older?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - October 10, 2009
#42
Indeed. And they oppose NAMBLA…….how?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 10, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - October 10, 2009
No, I think I’d rather have another glass of wine, open up the Albolene, and then jack myself senseless to some Josman comics. It’s more intellectually stimulating than arguing with you.
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 10, 2009 @ 11:10 pm - October 10, 2009
#33 Livewire, you are hilarious as always.
Comment by American Elephant — October 11, 2009 @ 1:32 am - October 11, 2009