NY Times article ignores anti-gay bigotry and smears at heart of attacks on Jennings
An October 15 New York Times article by David Kirkpatrick about "Fifty-three House Republicans [who] have signed a letter to the Obama administration asking for the ouster of Kevin Jennings, an official charged with promoting school safety" ignored that a key claim in the letter -- that Jennings has a "history of ignoring the sexual abuse of a child" -- is false. Moreover, the article included no mention that the conservative attacks on Jennings are largely based on anti-gay smears and falsehoods.
From the New York Times article:
Fifty-three House Republicans have signed a letter to the Obama administration asking for the ouster of Kevin Jennings, an official charged with promoting school safety, because of his career as an advocate of teaching tolerance of homosexuality.
"As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools -- an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children," the lawmakers write.
They cite as evidence the foreword Mr. Jennings wrote for a book titled "Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999). [The New York Times, 10/15/09]
GOP letter falsely charges that Jennings ignored "the sexual abuse of a child"
From the October 15 letter:
Equally troubling is Mr. Jennings' self-described history of ignoring the sexual abuse of a child. In his book, One Teacher in Ten, Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings' only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the "safe schools" czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.
Claim that Jennings failed to report "sexual abuse of a child" because student he counseled was 15 has been conclusively debunked. Media Matters for America exclusively obtained the Massachusetts driver's license of the student confirming that he was 16 years of age -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts -- at the time Jennings counseled him in 1988. The student also provided Media Matters with a statement in which he said, "I was a sixteen-year-old" and "was of legal consent at the time."
Conservative media have repeatedly falsely accused Jennings of covering up sexual assault. On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely asserted that Jennings "is the guy that, the 15-year-old kid approached him, said, 'I'm having a -- an older man is forcing his way on me, sex and so forth.' " Limbaugh added, "And Jennings says, 'That's fine, are you using a condom?' and urged the 15-year-old to further the relationship." Sean Hannity repeatedly ignored evidence to falsely claim that Jennings ignored the statutory rape of a 15-year-old student, even advancing the falsehood after the claim had been widely debunked. Additionally, Media Matters has documented several conservative media figures comparing Jennings to film director Roman Polanski, who was charged with rape and pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl after allegedly plying her with drugs and alcohol.
Evidence in no way supports Limbaugh's claims that Jennings "urged" the student "to further the relationship," or that student was sexually assaulted. Neither Jennings' 2000 speech for the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), nor his 1994 book, nor the student's own statement in any way suggests that the student told Jennings that someone was "forcing his way on" him or that Jennings "urged" the student to "further the relationship."
Times ignored that other conservative smears of Jennings are also based on falsehoods
Erickson, Rove falsely claimed Jennings is a NAMBLA advocate. In an anti-gay rant posted on his blog, Erick Erickson wrote: "Kevin Jennings is a profoundly sick and immoral human being -- a proponent of statutory rape, an opponent of the Boy Scouts of America, and a zealous advocate of NAMBLA." Appearing on Fox News on October 7, Karl Rove accused Jennings of engaging in "high-profile, in-your-face advocacy of things like NAMBLA." There is no evidence that Jennings has been supportive of NAMBLA.
Hannity and Rios claim Jennings favors indoctrinating schoolchildren about homosexuality. Citing Queering Elementary Education, a book Jennings wrote the foreword to, Hannity asked on his October 8 Fox News show, "What about Christian parents that send their kids to school that don't want their kids to be indoctrinated into your belief system?" On the same program, his guest, radio talk show host Sandy Rios, distorted a passage from Queering Elementary Education to claim that "it's all about having sex with adults -- children and adults." But the passage about sexual education that Rios cited has nothing to do with children and adults having sex. [Media Matters, 10/9/09]
Washington Times, Breitbart distort Jennings comments to claim he "criticize[d] schools for promoting heterosexuality." Andrew Breitbart and The Washington Times grossly distorted comments Jennings made to a GLSEN audience in 2000 to claim he "spoke about the promotion of homosexuality in the public school curriculum" and "criticize[d] schools for promoting heterosexuality," advancing the conservative Family Research Council's attack that Jennings was "promoting a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools." In fact, in the audio files posted by the Times and Breitbart, Jennings promoted a curriculum that demands "respect [for] every human being regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender identity, regardless of race or religion or any of the arbitrary distinctions we make among people," and said that efforts to promote a specific sexual orientation through schools were ineffective.
Washington Times doctored transcript to claim Jennings called for mandatory "LGBT course" for teachers. On October 7, The Washington Times' Kerry Picket reprinted a doctored transcript of 2008 comments by Jennings to falsely claim Jennings had said he wanted teachers to be required to "take an LGBT course" -- a claim also echoed by the Fox Nation. In fact, responding to an audience member who asked about how to combat stereotypes held by teachers based on race, gender, and ethnicity as well as sexual orientation, Jennings did not call for a mandatory "LGBT course," but rather called for a mandatory course on "issues of bias in the classroom" for aspiring teachers in order for them to be aware of "how biases can influence how you interact with your students."
No sex took place.
The student was the age of consent if it had taken place.
If it had taken place, there was no crime and Jennings would have been obligated to keep the student's statements confidential.
Jennings did not just say to use a condom.
Jennings did not urge continuation of any relationship.
Jennings has never supported NAMBLA.
Jennings has never endorsed Hay's support of NAMBLA.
Jennings has never encouraged any sort of indoctrination. He has combated indoctrination.
And on and on
These &$*&@$s have no shame.
We can't be sure.
And even MMFA doesn't try to assert that no sex took place. They quote the former student in several ways, but not about that aspect of it. Because whether or not he actually had sex with the older man doesn't matter!
If the teacher thought that a 15 year old was having sex, whether or not sex actually took place, or if the teacher though that the student was being abused if he was 16 or 17, whether or not abuse happened, he had an obligation to report it.
But the kid wasn't 16, and there was never a thought that the 16 yr old was being abused by this guy he interacted with.
I also pointed out that whether there was sex or not is irrelevant. I don't know why you're so obsessed with challenging me on the matter when I'm not really disagreeing with you, nor do I understand your belligerent attitude.
However, in any event, as I said Jennings did nothing wrong. And he is just being unfairly smeared here, he is a pawn used against Obama, pure politics. Sickening actually.
As for Sue (DellDolly's) belligerent attitude, don't let that bother you. She has been around here for years under many previously banned screen names stomping around here scolding this one or that one to puff her self importance around here, I have reading it for years. She is harmless.
But it doesn't matter if sex happened or not. It's the teacher's suspicions that matter here, and you keep portraying this inaccurately. That's why I keep correcting you.
You started out with a blanket statement that no sex happened. Pointing out that whether or not there was sex, no offense happened doesn't negate your blanket statement that no sex happened, so I am not sure why you think that the later comments negate that first one!
And you are disagreeing with the facts - that why I keep challenging you to present it fairly and accurately! And that's why MMFA doesn't even try to go where you went with your assertion that no sex happened - because it doesn't matter if sex happened or not!!! For some reason, despite repeated attempts by me, you still haven't gotten that message. Until you do, I will keep correcting you whenever you make that same assertion.
The student tells of meeting the man and going home with him. Jennings' immediate reaction assumes sex. All we know after that point is that they had a conversation, the content of which has been kept confidential. I'm not aware that any of the parties involved has ever made any other reference to sex having occurred until the student stated recently that it didn't. What contemporaneous happenings am I missing?
You keep correcting me? That's funny. To be correcting me you'd have to be indicating something I'm stating is wrong. The problem is you haven't done that.
I point out that no sex happened. It's a reasonable position based on the evidence. I also point out that even if it did happen it's irrelevant. I make no suggestion that the one point negates the other. That's a figment of your imagination. Both can be accepted as facts independently.
There are no facts with which I'm disagreeing. I'm basing my position on the available facts. Whether MMFA chooses to highlight the student's statement is meaningless. It's still true that the evidence suggests there was no sex and it wouldn't matter anyway. There's nothing there to correct. You are amusing. "For some reason, despite repeated attempts by me, you still haven't gotten that message." Yet the message to which you refer is something that I have said several times. You're saying that I don't understand something that I'm saying myself?
Just hang it up and accept that we agree on the most significant point.
You don't point out that no sex happened. You categorically stated that no sex happened, but the available evidence from contemporaneous documentation is that sex did happen. We have the student's statements to the teacher and the teacher's statements, all of which strongly imply that sex happened.
Had you simply stated that it was irrelevant whether or not the teenager had sex, I'd have no issue with what you said. It was the faulty inclusion of the assertion that no sex happened that gets you in trouble here. Saying that it's irrelevant doesn't get you off the hook for that other statement - I can't imagine why you think it does, but it doesn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And yeah, you have made the suggestion that one point negates the other, you liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You saying that whether or not they have sex is irrelevant has NOTHING to do with the other comment - the ONLY reason to bring it up is to imply that it gets you off the hook if you're not correct about there being no sex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can hang it up any time you want.
However, every time you post here that there was no sex, as though that's a known fact and that it has ANYTHING to do with this issue, I will challenge you on it. You seem to miss the point that it's the suspicions of Jennings that matter - you've missed it on the last two threads.
Whether or not there was sex, the only issue regarding Kevin Jennings' obligations (or any teacher in Massachusett's obligations) is his suspicions. Actual sex is irrelevant. Yet you continue to insist that we KNOW that there wasn't sex. And we don't know that.
And no references to sex that you know of? Gosh, how about the whole comment that got this thing going? You know, the one about using a condom? What do you think that was in reference to - protecting bananas from contamination?
You haven't offered anything resembling evidence to contradict anything I've said and the carefully snipped excerpts Marcia provided don't either. I've stated from the very beginning that Jennings clearly had the initial impression that there was sex. However, with regard to the encounter from that previous night being discussed between the student and the other man, no one who was in a position to know has said that they had sex that night.
Let's look at facts. 1) The student has said there was no sex. 2) Jennings hasn't asserted that there was sex that night; he simply indicated that he believed it in his first reaction, hence the condom statement. 3) No one else has presented evidence that there was sex.
When somebody makes a claim as to his actions and there is no evidence in existence that contradicts that claim, I don't see a good reason (such as biased preconceptions) to question the assertion. I need a reason to call him a liar. Apparently, you don't.
I've consistently pointed out that whether or not there was sex was irrelevant to the larger issues. No crime occurred and Jennings had an obligation to keep the confidence of the student. We agree on that. You're simply so narrow-minded that you can't tolerate the fact that, in the absence of contradictory evidence, I'm willing to take the student at his word and you're claiming he's a liar.
Now, you may feel free to get all huffy and indignant and launch another attack. I'm still finding you pretty amusing.
So you agree with the critics of Jennings who say he should have reported it and was derelict in his duty not to? Because Jennings was clearly under the impression the kid had sex, and he did not report it.
Well, I don't agree with you, I believe Jennings acted appropriately under his circumstances, the criticisms against him are unwarranted.
I said
1. If the teacher thought a 15 year old was having sex, then one repoting action was appropriate and required
OR
2. If the teacher thought that a 16 or 17 year old was being abused, then another reporting action was appropriate and was the teacher's obligation.
But the teenager was 16, and the teacher didn't think that abuse occurred, so he has no reporting obligation.
So yeah, you do agree with me, but you just couldn't understand a compound sentence.
I mean...is that really necessary?
I think you need to take a few deep breaths and cool it.
Whose memoir did The New York Times's David Kirkpatrick read?
Kevin Jennings' "I Remember" in Kevin Jennings' 1994 One Teacher in 10, 1st edition, page 25 [Spring 1988 - when Brewster/Robertson was 16 years old]:
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.
Kevin Jennings' 2006 memoir Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son, page 162 [Spring 1988 - when Brewster/Robertson was 16 years old]:
Robertson soon told me his tale, about someone he’d met in Boston, how he thought he loved him, and how heartbroken he was that his calls never got returned. I suppressed a smile at his naiveté (this won't be the last time that happens, kid) and tried to look sympathetic about his lost true love—who, I didn’t have the heart to tell him, had probably forgotten Robertson’s name by now. Unburdened and relieved, he stood to go.
Kevin Jennings' 2006 memoir Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son, page 169 [Fall 1988 - when Brewster/Roberston was 17 years old]:
As the fall wore on, Robertson continued to drop by my office to chat, often updating me on his latest "adventures." Sometimes these startled me, and I began to underline the importance of safe sex to him. One day he snapped back, "Why should I use a condom? My life isn’t worth saving anyway."
David D. Kirkpatrick's October 15, 2009 New York Times article:
He has recalled in a memoir and speeches that as a teacher he once responded encouragingly to a teenage boy who told him of a sexual encounter with a man he met in a bus station restroom. Mr. Jennings said he advised the teenager to use a condom.
The NEW Black.
I am SOOOOO ashamed by Republicans these days.
Hmmm ... the legal age of consent is rock-solid at 16, is it? What about Chapter 272, section 4 of the Massachusetts laws?
And, yes, people have been charged under this specific statute, such as in this case in 1987!
The crime of inducing someone between the ages of 16 and 18 to have sex is evidence of some inducement (gifts, money, etc) to induce a kid to have sex who wouldn't have done it otherwise.
There was never any evidence that there was any inducement offered to this teenager that forced him to have sex that he wouldnt' have done without that inducement!
And yeah, one person apparently has been charged with that crime.
So yeah, the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16. If a person who is 16 or 17 is induced into having sex in return for money or a gift, they are not freely consenting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have debunked this lie about 3 times now. And will every time it gets put up here.