About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

WND's new Jennings smear: He "counseled a 15-year-old to keep quiet" about relationship with older man

October 22, 2009 7:02 pm ET — 10 Comments

In recent days, the conservative website WorldNetDaily has in three separate articles falsely claimed that Education Department official Kevin Jennings "counseled a 15-year-old student to keep quiet about being seduced by an older man." In fact, the student Jennings counseled was 16 -- the legal age of consent -- and there is no evidence that Jennings told the student to "keep quiet."

WND: Jennings "counseled a 15-year-old student to keep quiet"

From an October 10 WND article:

WND revelations about Kevin Jennings, the safe schools czar, and Chai Feldblum, his EEOC nominee, have resulted in criticism in Congress and from group's concerned about their actions and statements from the past.

A dozen members of Congress demanded Friday that Obama dismiss Jennings following WND disclosures about his past, including an incident in which he counseled a 15-year-old student to keep quiet about being seduced by an older man.

From an October 15 WND article:

Members of Congress have written to Obama demanding he dismiss Jennings following WND disclosures about his past, including an incident in which he counseled a 15-year-old student to keep quiet about being seduced by an older man.

Jennings says now he should have handled the situation while he was a teacher involving the sexually active student "differently," but the statement from Jennings failed to express "regret."

From an October 21 WND article:

Members of Congress have written to Obama demanding he dismiss Jennings following WND disclosures about his past, including an incident in which he counseled a 15-year-old student to keep quiet about being seduced by an older man.

Jennings says now he should have handled the situation while he was a teacher involving the sexually active student "differently," but the statement from Jennings failed to express "regret."

No evidence Jennings told student "to keep quiet"

Accounts of the conversation provide no evidence that Jennings urged the student "to keep quiet." In a 2000 speech to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Jennings said that after the student told him, "I met somebody in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him," Jennings "didn't know what to say. Knew I should say something quickly, so I finally -- my best friend had just died of AIDS the week before -- I looked at Brewster and said, 'You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.' " In his 1994 book, Jennings wrote that when the student told him the "story about his involvement with an older man," Jennings "listened, sympathized, and offered advice." None of this supports WND's repeated claim that Jennings encouraged Brewster "to keep quiet" about the incident."

Claim that student was 15 has been conclusively 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 for America 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.

WND smears follow Limbaugh's baseless claims that Jennings "urged," "facilitated" the relationship

Limbaugh: Jennings "urged" the "15-year-old" to "further the relationship" with "older man ... forcing his way" on him. Rush Limbaugh advanced the thoroughly debunked smear that Jennings encouraged an illegal sexual relationship between a male high school student and an older man, taking the attack even further to baselessly assert that the student -- who Limbaugh falsely claimed was 15 years old at the time -- told Jennings that "an older man is forcing his way on me, sex and so forth," and that in response, Jennings "urged the 15-year-old to further the relationship." In fact, the student was of legal age at the time, and the accounts of the conversation Limbaugh used to advance the smear provide no evidence that the student said he was assaulted or that Jennings encouraged the student "to further the relationship."

Limbaugh accused Jennings of having "encouraged" and "facilitated" a sexual relationship between student and an older man. Limbaugh stated on his radio show that "Obama's safe school czar is a guy promoting homosexuality in the schools and encouraged a 15-year-old kid to have a homosexual relationship with an older man, and even facilitated it." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/28/09]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (October 22, 2009 7:07 pm ET)
      2 3
      It's a shame lies arn't illegal.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bad News (October 22, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
          5
        "A Phone Preditor" I never heard of this until Bill-O the Clown.
        The first time i Heard this phrase i just sat in my Chair & Frowned.
        How do you attack a woman with a Phone?
        What did you do to Andrea Mackris Mr. O'Reilly? Why couldn't you just leave that poor Woman Alone?

        Speak truth to power.


        Mr. News
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (October 22, 2009 7:45 pm ET)
      1 3
      Seriously, people. As I said, these idiots are what is driving moderates and independents [the majority of the country] away from the Republican Party. There is NOTHING conservative about this BS.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (October 23, 2009 11:52 am ET)
         
      Libel is actionable. I don't understand why people don't sue WND or FOX.
      Even though the standard is very low, their defense would have to be that this is all made-up and satire and NOT being presented as news and/or admit that it's false, but that at the time they didn't know it was false.


      "...those who hold governmental office may recover for injury to reputation only on clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth."

      Burnett v. National Enquirer
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 23, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
           
        They have to prove both malice and financial damages.

        Malice is hard to prove. Really hard. Not only do you have to know that it was false, you have to PROVE that they did it with malice. Divining someone's motives is not easy - you have to provide documentation of that malice, like witnesses or documentation. It's almost an impossible hurdle.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jmille426471 (October 23, 2009 6:25 pm ET)
        1
      Yep, this is all the repukes have left. Obsessive guilt-by-association attacks on relatively insignificant individuals who are accused of imaginary crimes. Aren't you repubs proud of what your party has become?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (October 23, 2009 8:58 pm ET)
      1 2
      Ahh, yes ... the dishonesty at Media Matters.

      Is the age of consent in Massachusetts really 16? What about this?

      Chapter 272: Section 4. Inducing person under eighteen to have sexual intercourse

      Section 4. 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.
      Then there's this one:

      Chapter 265: Section 23. Rape and abuse of child.

      Section 23. Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years.
      Section 23 was amended in 2008. I've printed the previous version.

      So is the age of consent 16 or 18?

      MM is too dishonest to reveal that it could very well be 18.

      )
      Report Abuse
      • Author by the7sticks3363 (October 24, 2009 1:47 am ET)
        1 1
        Sorry, but it was sixteen at the time. Maybe it was changed to eighteen after the alleged cover-up occurred, or perhaps in response to this incident, but from what I have researched, it was definitely sixteen at the time. Why people are obsessed with an apparent child-rape epidemic I do not know because I have yet to see any evidence beyond several high profile cases that there is a pedophile epidemic. After all, WND also kept claiming that the Hate Crimes bill was the "Pedophile Protection Act" (sorry, but if some vigilante went on a pedophile killing spree, well, that's a hate crime.) I cannot understand why anyone would be this obsessed over pedophilia unless they themselves have felt the urge to be compelled to commit pedophilia. But I digress.
        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.

  • WorldNetDaily
    PO Box 1087
    Grants Pass, OR 97528
    (541) 474-1776
    FAX: (541) 474-1770