Even after acknowledging it's false, CNN and Fox News continue to push smear of Jennings
CNN's Lou Dobbs and Fox News' Brian Wilson and Sean Hannity ignored their own networks' past reporting and continued to forward the discredited smear that, while working as a teacher in 1988, Department of Education official Kevin Jennings failed to report an underage student's involvement with an older man. Dobbs claimed that "Jennings admit[ed] to failing to report a sexual matter involving a minor," and Wilson claimed that Jennings admitted that "he failed to alert authorities when a 15-year-old boy told him he was involved in a sexual relationship with an older man," even though both FoxNews.com and CNN have acknowledged that the student was of legal age -- 16 years old -- at the time.
Conservative media figures persist in reporting that student was 15, "a minor"
Dobbs: "Jennings admitting to failing to report a sexual matter involving a minor ... a homosexual relationship." Dobbs stated, "There are now calls for Kevin Jennings, the so-called school safety czar, to step down. Jennings admitting to failing to report a sexual matter involving a minor when he was a public school teacher, a homosexual relationship." [CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, 10/6/09]
Wilson: Jennings "admitted" that "he failed to alert authorities when a 15-year-old boy told him he was involved in a sexual relationship with an older man." Fox News correspondent Brian Wilson stated: "School safety czar Kevin Jennings is currently under fire because he admitted that in 1988, when he was a high school teacher, he failed to alert authorities when a 15-year-old boy told him he was involved in a sexual relationship with an older man. One member of the House believes Jennings would not have his current job if czars were required to face Senate confirmation hearings." [Fox News' Special Report, 10/6/09]
Hannity: "I'm not convinced of the timeline." Hannity stated on his Fox News program that Jennings "admitted that he gave counsel and advice to a 15-year-old sophomore who came to him and said he was having sex with an adult." He added, "Now, the kid has since come out, and he said, 'No, no, I was 16 at the time.' I'm not convinced of the timeline. But that's neither here or there. Jennings is the one that said the kid was 15." [Fox News' Hannity, 10/6/09]
CNN has acknowledged that driver's license "verifies he was actually 16 at the time," "the legal age of consent'
CNN's Yellin cited student's license, statement in debunking right-wing smears. After reporting that CNN spoke to the student -- whom Jennings has referred to as "Brewster" -- and reading from the same statement Brewster had provided to Media Matters for America, CNN's Jessica Yellin reported that "the critics have also contended that Brewster was 15 at the time of this incident; the Fox News website continues to report that." Yellin then aired an image of the student's driver's license, stating that it "verifies he was actually 16 at the time, not 15, which means that if there had been sex, he was actually the legal age of consent in Massachusetts." [CNN's The Situation Room, 10/2/09]
Dobbs told that student issued statement "saying he was of age when this happened." On October 2, Salon.com's Joe Conason stated on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Media Matters "has a statement ... [f]rom the young man who was allegedly involved in this incident, absolving Kevin Jennings of any responsibility, saying he was of age when this happened, so this may turn out to be nothing." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 10/2/09]
After skipping fact-check to run with smear, Fox News has also acknowledged student was of legal age
Fox News tirelessly advanced false accusation that Jennings covered up "statutory rape." Fox News and its websites Fox Nation and FoxNews.com repeatedly advanced the falsehood that Jennings, in the words of Fox News host Bill Hemmer, knew of a "statutory rape" and "never reported it." While pushing this attack on Jennings, Fox News ignored evidence that the student was of legal age, and Media Matters has since confirmed that the student was of legal age and that Fox News' smears of Jennings were false.
Lott asked former student whether "rumor" that he was 15 is "accurate." As Media Matters exclusively reported, FoxNews.com reporter Maxim Lott sent a Facebook message to Brewster with a timestamp reading, "October 1 at 5:03pm." Lott wrote: "Please give me a call or e-mail me if you'd like to clear up any of the rumors out there. In particular, in one speech Jennings said that you were 15 when he gave you advice. Is that accurate?" In response, the student told Lott on October 2, "I was 16 when Kevin gave me the advice he gave me." Media Matters exclusively obtained the Facebook exchange between Lott and the student, which Media Matters also published on October 2.
FoxNews.com later issued "Editor's Note" confirming student was 16 at the time. Prior to the Facebook exchange, Lott had written two stories for FoxNews.com discussing Jennings' 1988 conversation with Brewster and reporting as fact that Brewster was 15 at the time -- despite the fact that significant publicly available evidence suggested that Brewster was actually 16. Lott's stories now contain an editor's note stating, "Since this story was originally published, the former student referred to as 'Brewster' has stepped forward to reveal that he was 16 years old, not 15, at the time of the incident described in this report."
Fox-promoted claim that student was 15 debunked
Jennings' attorney stated in 2004 letter that student was 16, which is -- and was -- MA age of consent. In an August 3, 2004, letter, Constance M. Boland of the law firm Nixon Peabody -- which represented the organization that Jennings ran -- wrote that the "conversation" Jennings had was with "a sixteen-year-old student" and that there "is no factual basis whatsoever for" the "claim that Mr. Jennings engaged in unethical practices, or that he was aware of any sexual victimization of any student, or that he declined to report any sexual victimization at any time." [Boland letter, 8/3/04]
Former student: "I was of legal consent at the time." The former student provided Media Matters with the following statement, which Media Matters published on October 2:
Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my "well-being" and that of America's students, they'll be relieved to know that I was not "inducted" into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.
In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation's students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings' courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I'd be the proud gay man that I am today.
- Brewster
Former student's driver's license also indicates he was at least 16 when he approached Jennings. Media Matters also exclusively obtained the Massachusetts driver's license of the student confirming that at the time of the incident he was at least 16 years of age.
Child Under Eighteen
MGL c.272, s. 4. Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse.
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.
The issue was not the age, the issue was a 'child' as self described by jennings and victim, were concerned about the sexual activity occuring. The advice given by the counselor was not to seek help, but to wear a condom. Age is not the issue, the issue is situation. Why do you allow pundits to cloud the true issues at hand?
You can't claim that Jennings didn't recommend that he "seek help" because you don't know the rest of the conversation. It's simply ignorant to suggest that Jennings told him to wear a condom and left it at that. It appears that you're allowing the pundits to cloud the facts for you.
It appears that the right-wing griping about what Jennings should have done are based on ignorance. They criticize Jennings for not reporting the incident when they don't know whether there was actually anything to report. They criticize him for the "use a condom" reply when they don't know whether it actually applied. They criticize him for not offering counseling and advice when they have no reason to believe he didn't. Basically, the right wing doesn't know what they're talking about on this matter.
It has nothing to do with our personal feelings about how old a teenager has to be in order to give legal consent to choose his or her sexual partners.
And actually, we hold teachers (and medical professionals and some others) to a higher standard, and that's the higher standard that this teacher upheld.
Teachers must protect a student's privacy except in specific instances, such as the obligation to report any sexual contact reported by a student under the age of 16. For kids between the ages of 16-18, they must report sexual abuse.
Regular citizens don't have to report that abuse or that sexual activity, but teachers do. And regular citizens don't have to protect the privacy of students, but teachers do! So, this teacher, by not disclosing the private conversation he had with this student where there was no indication of illegal sexual activity, did what he was supposed to do.
If you think that the legal age of consent needs to be changed, I suggest that you move to Massachusetts (only one of many states where the legal age of consent is 16, but you can start there) and attempt to change the law. I can tell you right now that you don't have a snowball's chance in he11 of accomplishing that goal, but until you do, you should be a loyal American who supports our system of government and stand up for the laws of our nation!!!
You should be ashamed for being so disloyal and unpatriotic that you would scoff at our laws.
I personally am disgusted by older men preying on younger (but still legal) teenagers of either sex, but we give teenagers who are 16 and older the right to choose their own partners, whatever the age of that partner. It's not my moral choice to encourage that activity, but it's surely not right for you to unfairly attack Jennings like you have done!
How old was the "older man"?
What standard do you want him held to? What was it that Jennings did not do that he should have done? I am still not clear on this. What exactly do you think the "authorities" were supposed to do in this case?
Right you are! Because when faced with a troubled child who feels they can't talk to their parents (otherwise, they already would have), the one thing we absolutely want to do is to make sure that they know that if they go to someone else such as a school counselor, whatever they say will go straight back to their parents because maintaining a confidence is an "unacceptably low standard."
No more molly-coddling troubled children with this "confidentiality" rot! Accountability, I say, accountability!
There is a balancing act that has to take place. Lawyers have to protect their client's privacy in almost every case, but they are obligated to violate that right to privacy if they know that a crime is about to be committed. Medical professionals have to keep the privacy of their patients unless there is a serious public health threat. Teachers have to be able to protect the privacy of their students in order to encourage students the feeling of freedom to come talk to them about personal issues that concern them. The greater good, that kids have someone to go to, way outweighs your desire to have all their secrets shared with someone else!!!!
You, almost certainly a Republican, the party for less government interference and more freedom, would demand this?
You should be ashamed for having looked at this in such a way. Take off your blinders, as the people who made these laws did, and realize that promising to protect the teenagers privacy is too valuable to give up so that these kinds of secrets can be shared.
I am sorry that you feel you have failed so miserably with your children, but please do not lump all children into this. My nieces and nephews and their friends and peers (as well as my own son) are doing just fine. The younger generation that I come into contact with is bright, curious, and full of energy. Once again, I am sorry that your children are not but do not assume that this is true of an entire generation.
I cannot tell you how annoyed I get when older generations make such rash generalizations about the younger generations. I had to hear all the same nonsense when I was young, and it was as incorrect then as it is today. If you want to look for a generation that seemed to fail more often then they succeeded, look to the baby boom generation - they have made plenty of messes. The rest have done just fine.
-----------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
There's one law that says that sex with someone under 16 is statutory rape, since they have not reached the age of consent. Someone under 16 can't legally consent to sex, even if they say "yes". It's not legally consent.
There's another law that says that if you "induce" someone between the ages of 16-18 to have "unlawful" sex, then you are also guilty of sexual assault. It's not statutory rape, and it's not the relevant law here, since there's no indication that the student was ever "induced" into having "unlawful" sex. If you "cause" a child to lose his or her virginity by coercion that's short of 'rape', you are guilty of this crime. If you have consensual sex with someone, there's no crime.
And for you to claim that the age is not an issue is ridiculous! Of course the age has been the issue all along, because this law you bring up isn't relevant to this discussion!!!
a teacher giving a student some important advise about using a condom in 1988..my oh my..the humanity..
You should have done a little more of that yourself. The age difference issue relates to aggravating circumstances in a case of statutory rape, which involves sexual contact with someone under 16. A person of 16 can give legal consent.
For what it's worth, according to the MA Trial Court Law Libraries, the provision you cite has been used exactly once, in the case of a man who offered a boy $5 for fellatio.
The laws regarding children under 14 are in one catagory. Between 14-16, it's called statutory rape, and between 16-18, it's only an offense if the kid is a virgin and there is some kind of coercion or inducement involved.
In the 16-18 year old category, this site could only find one conviction - for a guy who offered a kid money to perform a sex act - that's inducement.
Legal consent for 16-18 year olds does NOT also include the age difference! The age difference matters for kids under 16 - that way, they cannot punish a 15 year old boy for having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend as much as they can with "aggravating circumstances" someone who is much older who has sex with someone under 16.
All these people who think they can educate us when they don't know what they are talking about!
Seems pretty unenforceable to me. What constitutes "unlawful" if 16 is the age of consent?
That means that the only time they violate that privacy (in Massachusetts) is when a student under 16 lets them know that sexual contact happens, or when they have reasonable suspicions that abuse happened to a kid under 18. Otherwise, they have an obligation to protect the privacy of anything a 16 yr old tells them.
So Jennings didn't do anything wrong. They're still trying to pretend that there was some "abuse" that happened. Since the kid was of legal consent age, his having sex (which he says didn't happen, but it appears that Jennings thought that it easily could have) is none of our business. MYOB.
If a child tells you he jumped out of an airplane and you respond "I hoped you used a parachute" it does not mean you you are urging kids to use parachutes!!!
How dumb are these people?
It’s the gay angle they keep playing on as though the statutory rape of a minor has any thing to do with the gender involved.
But that’s why they keep mentioning it even after the minor in question came forward to prove he was of age in the state this occurred.
No, not "like Mass." Didn't you read any of the other comments?
In Massachusetts the age difference between the participants matters only if the younger one is under 16. The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16, so a 16 year-old can legally consent to sex (provided that, as DellDolly has pointed out, there is no coercion or inducement such as money involved).
By the way, why is it only "your 16 yr-old daughter" having an affair with a "24+ yr-old man/woman" about which you express concern? Why not "your 16 yr-old son/daughter?" Is it different if it's a boy? In what way?
You have to be kidding me.
In Mass, the age of consent is 16.
Man, I do NOT get why people who don't know what they are talking about feel the need to try to educate those of us who do!!!
And no, it's not about a person of authority having sex with this kid - apparently you think it was the teacher, Jennings, who had sex with the boy! It wasn't.
The teacher was a resource for this student, and it's wonderful that this kid had someone he could confide in. The student did something that was legal. The person that the student was with didn't do anything illegal either, even if they did have sex, which the student says never happened. Nothing illegal happened.
And it has nothing to do with our personal preferences. The accusation has been that something illegal happened. The student had been given the right by his state, like most states in the USA, to make his own choices about his sexual activity when he turned 16. Do we think that all kids that age are going to make great decisions? Of course not! But the fact that not all of them will make good decisions, and the fact that some older men will take advantage of younger teenagers of both sexes, is irrelevant to this discussion! Jennings didn't do anything illegal.
Technically, you are corect about the age of consent in Florida so I stand corrected. But it is a difference without substance. There are legal exemptions which swallow that rule making the technical age of consent 16 if your age is under 24.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Florida
"Florida
The age of consent in Florida is 18, but close in age exemptions exist. By law, the exception permits a person 23 years of age or younger to engage in legal sexual activity with a minor aged 16 or 17.
794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-- (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794"
It makes no difference to me whether we are talking about a daughter or son.
The student may or may not have done something that was legal. You have no idea about that because we don't know the age of the older male. Regardless, its about the student teacher relationship. Jennings at best used poor judgment and at worst committed a crime or unethical behavior making him unqualified to be the school safety czar. That's the bottom line.
It's too bad that you're such a disloyal American and you apparently are okay with FoxNews et al misleading fellow Americans. I think that Americans deserve the truth, whichever way it might lead someone.
As for this story, Jennings HIMSELF said the kid was 15. IN HIS MIND the kid was 15 therefore he was obligated to report it. Just because today the "kid" is a left wing liberal, and probably not very happy this is all coming out and throwing him in the public eye, DOES NOT CHANGE what happened then. Jennings himself, admitted he acted inappropriately.
Yes..that would be MMFA hunting Right Wing Witches
I imagine if the adult was a Catholic Priest Jennings would have reported it.
Jennings said "15", but he was talking about a high school sophomore when he said that. So we don't know if he was talking about how old a typical one is when they begin the school year or if he misspoke and meant to say 16 when he said 15. Barack Obama doesn't think that there are 57 states, but he said that - he said "57", but he never "said" that there are 57 states - he misspoke.
You have no idea if "in his mind", the kid was 15. None whatsoever.
And Jennings has not "admitted" he acted "inappropriately". He has said that he could have provided better counselling to the kid, and would do a better job today. Part of his better counselling is a result of more openness about sexuality in schools, something that Jennings is all about and something that freaks out those on the right!
Wow. Now liberalism can actually change the age of a human being? That is remarkable. Just out of curiosity, how old would this man be today if he were NOT a left wing liberal?
We have all kinds of arbitrary ceilings and floors for our laws. You are illegally driving when your blood alcohol level is .08, but you aren't when it's .07. Is your level of intoxication all that different from .07 to .08? Of course not. In my state, children up to a certain weight have to sit in a booster seat. Be one ounce heavier, you can sit in a seat belt, and be one ounce lighter, and you must sit in the booster seat. Is there a significant difference in the ability of a child's body to withstand crash pressures from a seat belt in the one ounce difference? Of course not!!!
The law in Massachusetts says that a teenager aged 16 or older is of age. They can legally consent to sex with anyone. Teenagers slightly younger than that are not supposed to have sex, but because the state of Massachusetts understands that kids do have sex with their classmates, they have laws that put much greater penalties on people who have sex with those younger kids if they are a great deal older.
Your personal opinions about how old is old enough to give consent to have sex with anyone is not relevant here. The law in Massachusetts is what controls this.
Once the kid is 16 or older, a teacher has the responsibility and the duty by law to protect the privacy of the student. We have those laws so that kids will feel free to confide in teachers. We hold teachers to these higher standards - regular citizens can tell on kids whenever they want to! This kid was 16. The teacher did legally what he was supposed to do.
Why are you so disrespectful of our laws?