About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Times continues to smear Jennings with false claim that he failed to report "sexual abuse" of student

October 04, 2009 4:37 pm ET — 19 Comments

In an October 4 editorial, The Washington Times advanced the discredited falsehood that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings "violated Massachusetts law" over 20 years ago by "covering up" the "sexual abuse" of one of his students and also advanced the manufactured link between Jennings and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) because of Jennings' past praise of gay rights activist Harry Hay. In fact, the student in question has confirmed that he was, indeed, 16 years old at the time of the incident, which is -- and was -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts, and in the 1997 speech in which Jennings mentioned Hay, Jennings' praise was of Hay's work as an early gay rights activist and had nothing to do with NAMBLA.

Wash. Times: Jennings had "knowledge about the sexual abuse of a high school sophomore"

From the October 4 Washington Times editorial:

For more than a 1 1/2 weeks [sic] now, The Washington Times has tried unsuccessfully to get the Obama administration to answer questions about the controversies surrounding Kevin Jennings, the president's "safe schools czar." On Wednesday, Mr. Jennings released a five-sentence statement regarding his knowledge about the sexual abuse of a high school sophomore named Brewster when he was a teacher at the teenager's school. After repeated denials and backpedaling, Mr. Jennings finally halfheartedly admitted this week that perhaps covering up sex between an adult and a high school student might not have been totally appropriate. "I can see how I should have handled this situation differently," he said.

This week's meager statement answered no important questions, and the evidence we have reported indicates that Mr. Jennings' behavior violated Massachusetts law. The teacher was obligated to report suspected abuse. That he didn't in at least one case reveals outrageous judgment on Mr. Jennings' part.

The student has confirmed that he was 16, which is -- and was -- MA age of consent

Student: I "was of legal consent at the time." The former student at the center of the Fox News-fueled Jennings controversy, whom Jennings has referred to as "Brewster," provided Media Matters for America with the following statement:

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

The student's license shows he was 16 at the time. Media Matters obtained a copy of the student's driver's license, which appears edited below in order to protect his identity:

Jennings' attorney: Conversation was "with a sixteen-year-old student"; "no factual basis" that Jennings was "aware of any sexual victimization of any student." 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]

Massachusetts age of consent is -- and was at the time -- 16. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Massachusetts law then and now provides that the age of consent is 16.

Wash. Times claimed: "[T]he evidence ... indicates that Mr. Jennings violated Massachusetts law" by not reporting "sex between an adult and a high school student"

Massachusetts law required reporting by those with reason to believe child "is suffering serious physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse." According to a footnote in a 1990 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case, in 1988, chapter 119, section 51A, of the General Laws of Massachusetts provided:

[Any] public or private school teacher ... who, in his professional capacity shall have reasonable cause to believe that a child under the age of eighteen years is suffering serious physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse inflicted upon him including sexual abuse ... shall immediately report such condition to the department by oral communication and by making a written report within forty-eight hours after such oral communication ...

Jennings' attorney: Book passage does not indicate that Jennings had reason to believe student was being abused. In the letter, Boland stated, "Nowhere in the book does Mr. Jennings state that he understood the student was being abused of victimized, or that he suffered injury from any abuse." Boland added, "Based on the plain meaning of the words in the book, it is clear that Mr. Jennings had no 'reasonable cause to believe' that the student was being abused in any way. Because there was no abuse and no 'sexual victimization,' the statute does not apply." [Boland letter, 8/3/04]

Wash. Times advanced manufactured Jennings-NAMBLA link

From the October 4 Washington Times editorial:

The tale gets even more troubling. On Oct. 25, 1997, at a conference for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Mr. Jennings stated, "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay." The late Hay was a "gay-rights" activist most notorious for supporting the North American Man Boy Love Association. In 1983, speaking in support of NAMBLA, Hay claimed: "[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

Jennings' 1997 speech: Nothing to do with NAMBLA

Jennings reportedly said he was inspired by Hay, "who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America ... the Mattachine Society." Peter LaBarbera, president of a group that seeks to "expos[e] and counter the homosexual activist agenda," published a transcript of Jennings' 1997 remarks at the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network's (GLSEN) mid-Atlantic conference that LaBarbera said was reprinted from the Lambda Report. In that speech, Jennings said, "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society." Jennings' remarks include no mentions of NAMBLA.

Hay broadly recognized as gay rights pioneer. Upon Hay's death in October 2002, numerous obituaries (retrieved from Nexis) noted that Hay was a pioneer of the American gay rights movement -- just as Jennings noted in his 1997 speech. The New York Times noted that Hay "founded a secret organization six decades ago that proved to be the catalyst for the American gay rights movement." The Associated Press called Hay "a pioneering activist in the gay rights movement" who founded "the Mattachine Society." The San Francisco Chronicle stated that Hay was "considered by many to be the founder of the modern American gay rights movement." None of the obituaries mentioned NAMBLA.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by clams casino (October 04, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
      9  
      "I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time..."

      This point should also be stressed. Not only was he of legal age, but--not that's anyone's business--there was no sex. This makes the right wing lies even more blatant.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 04, 2009 7:06 pm ET)
        6  
        In the real world, not all sexual contact by a 16 yr old is sexual abuse being imposed upon that 16 yr old.

        I guess that in their view, it all is. I don't know if they were all abused and they can't separate their personal horror stories from their examination of another's, or if they think that any sexual contact at all by a 16 yr old can be nothing but sexual abuse, but in either case, they're wrong.

        This kid was of the age of consent. That means he gets to decide if he's going to have sex. The simple act of this student having sex with anyone isn't necessarily abuse.

        But at least they apparently now believe that he was 16.

        I am still waiting for the next business day tomorrow (Monday) for all the other news sources to admit that they stated the kid was 15 in error to properly educate their viewers. But no, I am not holding my breath. And yeah, I know that there was conflicting info about his adge, and the problem is that FoxNews viewers didn't know that because FoxNews personalities didn't tell their viewers that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pointofview (October 05, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
          1 4
          You are so full of it Dell

          Jenings himself said the boy was 15. Jennings believed he was 15. The fact that his real age was 16 is irrelevant. He believed he was 15, which made the act a felony, and he did NOT report it. He is a disgrace and he needs to go.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (October 05, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
            3  
            Which made what act a felony? Who are you accusing of committing a crime, and what was the crime?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (October 05, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
              6  
              Come on clams, it's the imaginary crime of statutory rape.

              The REAL crime is to even TALK about homosexual relations even though no sexual relations took place in the perverted nutjob universe.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 05, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
                3 1
                And everybody knows how well that "I thought she was 18" defense always works for guys caught with underage girls.
                He believed he was 15, which made the act a felony... He is a disgrace and he needs to go.

                Wasn't there another thought-crime recently, another where all of the dittobots "knew" that the people "believed" a couple of ridiculous scammers were a real pimp & ho, and they "had to go" as well?

                They oughtta just put a rotisserie in Orwell's coffin the way the right is convicting by mind-reading these days.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 05, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
            3  
            We have no reason to believe that Jennings himself believed the kid was 15. Several years after the incident occurred, the teacher did say something about this incident, and did say something about sophomores being 15. That doesn't mean that he believed this kid was 15. It could mean that, or it could mean that he misspoke, or it could mean that he was simply setting the stage for his listeners to get his drift about how old sophomores typically are at the beginning of the school year. This particular sophomore was atypical though, and was 16 at the start. Most sophomores are going to be 16 by springtime, which is when this incident occurred.

            In a legal 'cease and desist' document, Jennings's lawyer said that the boy was 16. She said that because Jennings told her to say that - she didn't create that letter all on her own without his input. If he 'thought' that the kid was 15, he wouldn't have had her represent the kid's age as 16.

            There is no evidence that he thought that the kid was 15. There's only evidence that he said "15" at one point in time, but that is not evidence that he thought the kid was 15.

            You lose once again.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (October 05, 2009 12:45 pm ET)
        6  
        The age of consent business is a smoke screen. If Jennings had said, "So a male sophomore came to me and said that he met someone and was considering having sex with her and I responded by stressing the importance of protection" there would be no story. Jennings isn't being attacked because he didn't report "suspected abuse": he's being attacked because he didn't report homosexuality to the authorities.

        This is about nothing more than the ugly and desperate myth about a gay agenda to infiltrate and homosexualize children. Jennings wasn't faced with a case of statutory rape, and he certainly had no reason to suspect abuse. From all available evidence I've seen, Jennings not only did nothing wrong, but handled the situation remarkably well for a 20-something teacher who was still reeling from the death of a friend to AIDS. But according to conservative newsmedia and pundits, the facts don't matter: the student expressed a homosexual thought aloud, and Jennings' failure to call the police or counselors or social workers or the student's parents is threatening to them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (October 05, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
          5  
          I recall back in Junior High that I (not proudly) and a rather large group of kids demeaned an effeminate-appearing boy as being a homosexual. Never knew if he was (not that it matters), but his school life was minserable due to the constant harrassment. I bet it would have helped him to have a counselor/teacher like Jennings to talk to.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by archae (October 04, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
      8  
      This is the Moonie Times, people.

      A fake newspaper owned by a fake prophet and fake messiah, who is a sexual pervert.
      'Nuff said.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (October 04, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
      4 1
      So the words of the guy in question from 21 years ago are not enough for the Fox Noise propaganda machine to leave this non-story alone...

      "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."

      etc, etc, etc...

      If I remember right... when these circus clowns kept going after Barack Obama during the presidential race by claiming him to be a socialist or a Muslim, or what ever other disparaging remark they could make up, his poll numbers would climb higher and higher and the corporate owned media was hated more and more...

      If these idiots keep pushing this garbage they will only find themselves on the losing end of a raising tide of WE the People!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SkeeterVT1 (October 05, 2009 3:07 am ET)
      1 1
      Indeed Jennings remarks about the late gay activist Harry hay made no mention of NAMBLA. But according to Wikipedia, Hay was a strong supporter of the pedophile group.

      Specifically, according to Wikipedia, "Hay joined other early gay rights activists protesting the exclusion of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) from participation in LGBT social movements, most noticeably the annual Pride parades –- arguably the most visible signs of LGBT culture –- on the grounds that such exclusions constituted a betrayal by the gay community."

      NAMBLA had been banned from gay-pride celebrations from coast to coast after the pedophilic, rather than gay, sexual orientation of its adult members was exposed by a series of law-enforcement busts of NAMBLA members around the world in a crackdown on child pornography.

      The Wikipedia article goes on to say: "In 1983, at a New York University forum, sponsored by an on-campus gay organization, Hay remarked 'If the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.'

      "In 1986," the article continues, "Hay was confronted by police when he attempted to march in the Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, from which NAMBLA had been banned, with a sign reading 'NAMBLA walks with me.' Hay refused to participate in the official 1994 parade in New York City commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall riots because of its exclusionary policies. Instead he joined an alternate parade called 'The Spirit of Stonewall'."

      Harry Hay had become a pariah in many sectors of the gay community in his latter years because of his defense of NAMBLA.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (October 05, 2009 8:38 am ET)
      6  
      "GAY" is what the right wing is offened by...everything else is just background noise. It doesn't matter if the kid was 18, 12 or 34...he's GAY. It doesn't matter if Jennings supported NAMBLA or the Baptist Church...he's GAY.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (October 05, 2009 9:08 am ET)
      3  
      So, the young man was of legal age of consent, no sex took place anyway and the conversation went beyond "Use a condom." Jennings' comments relative to Hay never mentioned NAMBLA.

      Of course, the presentation of facts will never stand in the way of talking points.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (October 05, 2009 9:33 am ET)
      2 8
      Jennings should have asked the boy how old he was. How can you know for sure when a man is 16 and not 15 just by looking at him? Did the boy produce ID? Nothing illegal, but very bad judgment.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (October 05, 2009 9:38 am ET)
        3  
        How do you know he didn't ask? Perhaps he already knew as it was a student of his. You're making an unwarranted assumption. We know that a conversation took place and the parties involved have pointed out, quite rightly, that the body of that conversation is none of our business.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (October 05, 2009 11:59 am ET)
        5  
        What are you talking about? Did you read the words of the boy in question:

        "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."


        So if the kid had been 15, then Jennings shouldn't have counseled him? That's ridiculous. Why is everyone debating this as if the kid had sex with the older man? "[N]o sexual contact." The kid had questions and Jennings gave him advice.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (October 05, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
        3  
        How do you know Jennings didn't ask the student how old he was? We're talking about a fifteen minute conversation that took place over 20 years ago.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.