Conservative media backtrack, alter thoroughly debunked claim that Jennings failed to report "statutory rape"
After falsely accusing Department of Education official Kevin Jennings of violating the law for failing to report the "statutory rape" or "child molestation" of a "15-year-old boy" in 1988, several conservative media figures have backtracked from that thoroughly debunked allegation, acknowledging that the student was, in fact, 16 years old and of legal age at the time. These media figures have since altered their attacks on Jennings to argue that the student's actual age is irrelevant, asserting instead -- in the words of The Washington Times -- that a 16-year-old student's involvement with an older man still should have "raised alarm," and advancing the baseless claim that -- as The American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord stated -- Jennings "thought" the student was 15 at the time of their conversation.
Washington Times backtrack: Regardless of age, conversation "should have raised alarm"
Allegation: Student was "15-year-old," Jennings "failed to do what the law required." In a September 28 editorial, The Washington Times wrote, "A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an 'older man.' At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse." The editorial further stated that Jennings "not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship." In a September 29 editorial, The Washington Times compared Jennings to Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and stated that "the Jennings case brings a lot more: A 'safe schools czar' who failed to report a statutory rape? An education leader who encouraged a 15-year-old student to be comfortable with sexual abuse? A federal official who ignored a law requiring him to report even the possibility of a crime?" The editorial further characterized Jennings as "an appointee who thinks sex between an adult and a 15-year-old is no big deal."
Backtrack: Whether student was 15 or 16, "sophomore" involved with older man should have "raised alarm." In an October 8 editorial, The Washington Times wrote, "Whether Brewster was 15 years old or just turned 16, a sophomore having sex with an older man he met at a bus station bathroom should have raised alarm." The editorial also stated, "There are still many unanswered questions about how he handled a high-school sophomore who he said confessed to a homosexual relationship with an older man." [The Washington Times, 10/8/09]
Sean Hannity backtrack: unconvinced of student's confirmed age, which is "neither here nor there"
Allegation: "[S]tatutory rape occurred. And he didn't report it." Hannity stated on the September 30 edition of his Fox News program, "We have the safe schools czar, a guy by the name of Kevin Jennings, OK? And he -- he writes this book, and he gives information to a 15-year-old. ABC News and Jake Tapper write about this tonight. A 15-year-old sophomore. And his advice to him when he -- when he's having a gay relationship is, you know, 'Did you use a condom?' He knew it was an older adult. Now, as The Washington Times said, at the very least, statutory rape occurred. And he didn't report it." Hannity, who has called for Jennings to be fired, later stated, "Actions have consequences. If you don't report a crime against a child that is having sex with an adult. I thought actions had consequences" (transcript accessed via Nexis).
Backtrack: Noting student confirmed he was 16, Hannity said, "I'm not convinced of the timeline. But that's neither here or there." On October 5, Hannity said, "Jennings admitted that he was aware of a sexual relationship between a high school sophomore who now claims he was 16 at the time and an older man. It was Jennings who originally said the boy was 15." Hannity added on the October 6 edition of his show, "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. And he spoke about it and spoke about it extensively."
Kirsten Powers backtrack: "[T]he kid was 16 and not 15? What's the difference?"
Allegation: "[H]e had a responsibility to report it." During the October 1 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist Kirsten Powers asserted that Jennings should be fired and that "[t]hese are children, and he was in a position of authority and this kid confided in him, and he had a responsibility to report it" (transcript accessed via Nexis).
Backtrack: "[S]o the kid was 16 and not 15? What's the difference? I don't really see the difference frankly." Appearing on Hannity on October 7, Powers stated that "[t]he argument in defense of Obama and Jennings is that the kid was actually 16 years old," adding, "My response to that is so what? And so the kid was 16 and not 15? What's the difference? I don't really see the difference frankly. And if we were talking about a 16-year-old involved with an 18-year-old or something, that's a little different. But, you know, when we talk about a much older man and a 16-year-old, 15-year-old coming to a counselor and saying, 'I'm having sex with this older man,' I really -- I don't think the appropriate response is 'I hope you're wearing a condom.' "
American Spectator backtrack: "[T]he issue here is not Brewster's actual age at the time"
Allegation: Student was "15-year-old boy" who told Jennings about "what in fact was a case of child molestation." In an October 6 commentary, Lord wrote that Jennings has "admitted that when, as a teacher, he was sought out by a 15-year-old boy asking for advice about an affair with an older adult male, Jennings suggested wearing a condom." Noting Harry Hay's praise of NAMBLA, Lord added that "Hay was advocating precisely the mindset that Kevin Jennings appears to have exhibited when he, Jennings, advised a 15-year-old boy the way to deal with a child molester was wear a condom." Lord further wrote, "Jennings, by his own admission, when face to face with a boy (let's say that again -- a boy) who came to him and revealed what in fact was a case of child molestation -- suggested a condom!" [The American Spectator, 10/6/09]
Backtrack: "[T]he issue here is not Brewster's actual age at the time." In an October 7 blog post, Lord wrote that "the issue here is not Brewster's actual age at the time. The issue is what Mr. Jennings thought his age was -- and thinking that thought, how did he respond? More to the point, is he carrying around these thoughts today and trying in some fashion to make them the official policy of the U.S. Department of Education?" [The American Spectator blog, 10/7/09]
Both things, the age and the reality of what occurred, should be considered here. I fully agree with you that the student was of the legal age of consent and, because of that, Jennings responsibility stopped at giving him advice. I also agree that, given that Brewster was 16, that advice is no one else's business.
But that's all on a theoretical level, based on principle. What I'm pointing out are the facts as they relate to this specific case. And those facts are that no sex took place so there is absolutely nothing to legitimately criticize Jennings for EVEN IF someone disagreed with our points of principle.
We have no idea if Jennings found out that there was no sex, as the kid is now claiming.
By ignoring the lack of sex, they're able to at least ATTEMPT to shift gears and say that the issue isn't the legality. However, their substitute cases all rely on there being a sexual relationship. You and I agree that even if there were sex, the legality of it and Jennings' obligation of confidentiality were on his side. But that's all "what if," not "what was."
We know that Brewster and Jennings had a discussion after the bit of conversation Jennings has revealed. Brewster has said there was no sex and there is no one better placed to know. It strains my sense of credulity to believe that Brewster wouldn't have mentioned the fact in their conversation. So, while that falls short of iron-clad proof, it gives a strong indication that goes beyond having "no idea" if there was sex.
And we don't know that no sex happened. It seems pretty clear by Jennings comments that he always thought that sex happened.
The burden is on Jennings to act upon what he thinks happened, not what really happened. If a under 16 yr old student goes to a teacher, and denies sex, but the teacher really thinks that sex happened, then that teacher should report it.
They're saying that the teacher should have reported his suspicions, but he shouldn't have, because he had an obligation to protect the privacy of the student. It's that point that they're missing now, it's that hole in their argument that sinks them now. It's not that no sex actually happened that sinks their argument over the teacher's suspicions.
No, we don't know absolutely that no sex took place, but we have zero evidence that it did. The only evidence that exists is the testimony of the person involved and he says no. In the absence of any other evidence I don't see a reason to doubt him. Any argument that there was sex is based one completely evidenceless speculation.
As for the thing that "sinks their argument," it's not an either/or situation. BOTH the case you lay out and the lack of sex sink them. The fact that both are true doesn't weaken either point.
No, we don't know absolutely that no sex took place, but we have zero evidence that it did. The only evidence that exists is the testimony of the person involved and he says no. In the absence of any other evidence I don't see a reason to doubt him. Any argument that there was sex is based one completely evidenceless speculation.
As for the thing that "sinks their argument," it's not an either/or situation. BOTH the case you lay out and the lack of sex sink them. The fact that both are true doesn't weaken either point.
And yeah, it isn't an 'either/or' situation, that much is true. One thing, my argument, sinks theirs. Your argument doesn't. If your argument worked, then BOTH arguments work, but yours doesn't. It's all about whether or not Jennings THOUGHT there was sex for their argument to work. There doesn't have to have been any sex at all for him to have thought that.
The problem Jennings faces is why would he claim that Brewster had sex when Brewster claims that he didn't. The Brewster story was one he used over the years to show how difficult it was to be a young homosexual in school (the suicide issue is discussed here regarding the condom) and if Jennings made up this story that he has used many times, it raises real questions about Jennings.
Got it.
And although the voting age is 18, we really shouldn't let anyone vote until they're around 20-ish.
What exactly is the window for these things? If the legal age is 16 or 18 or 21, do we wait an extra two or three years before we consider the person truly "of legal age"?
How does that work?
I think that I misunderstood your meaning the first time I read your post. You're criticizing the pundits in the article for suggesting that age boundaries established in law really shouldn't be strictly adhered to, aren't you? On my first reading I thought you were supporting their points. Assuming I understand you now, I apologize for the initial misunderstanding.
No need to apologize.
My sarcasm doesn't come across very well in print!
We have arbitrary limits on things like the age at which one can drink, or the blood alcohol level that is illegal, or the weight a child must be to not have to ride in a booster seat. Just a little under these limits comes with one judgment, a little over comes with another.
But to hear these people talk, you'd think that it was a new concept to have an age at which we give teenagers the right to choose to have sex with whatever legal person they want to.
Which makes it clear that the issue isn't this at all, but is really all about the fact that the student had, or at least was suspected of having gay sex. Which drives the righty's crazy.
Oh, right. Hannity wouldn't have any reaction at all, because hetero sex is "normal."
The teenager's privacy had to be protected. It's shameful that the above commentators think it's okay, nay, imperative, to violate the student's privacy to expose possible legal sexual activity.
Calling Jennings a pedophile is idiotic on your part. There is nothing to support that charge.
Did that dead horse move a little? Quick, beat it some more!!
But there's no reason to believe that Jennings thought the teenager was 16.
Jennings is not a pervert in any case. Jennings didn't do anything to any prepubescent children (kids who haven't reached puberty, no hair, etc) and so even if he did like 16 year old boys, he wouldn't be a pedophile.
So, every statement you made was 100% false and misguided. I don't understand why people like you who haven't even bothered to educate yourself on this topic come here thinking you can educate us!
It may have of course I believe nothing coming from the sewer that is Hannity's mouth but this is a easy one to make liberal's look bad. The age isn't the point and we should either admit it or find out that the guy actually did do something and find out nothing was going on anyway
So, if the kid is 15, and having consensual sex, a teacher is obligated by the law to tell the authorities.
If a 16 yr old comes to a teacher, and he has reason to believe that sexual contact may have occurred, unless he suspects sexual abuse, he should keep the privacy of the student and not tell anyone.
Those people who are saying that the teacher should have reported the suspected sexual contact when the 16 yr old and the teacher talked are wrong. We hold teachers to higher standards - they have to report some stuff and they have to protect the privacy of students unless there's a reporting requirement. Civilians don't have those same constraints or freedoms.