I re-visit this story of Kevin Jennings of GLSEN to see what current readers think of how Mr. Jennings handled Brewster in light of our conversation about reporting abuse. We have been over this article some in the past, but I thought of it again in light of the Youth Standards discussion. Should Mr. Jennings have reported the behavior Brewster told him about? If any of my readers have access to GLSEN’s youth standards, perhaps we can discuss them here.
15 thoughts on “Kevin Jennings and Brewster revisited in light of Exodus discussion”
Comments are closed.
“I am not sure I understand what difference this question makes. I see reporting a “reasonable suspicion†of child abuse as a moral obligation, not primarily a legal one.”
The question is relevent in determining what constitutes reportable abuse.
What if you were to have a 16 year-old tell you that he was having sex with a 30 year old man, he met in a chat room? Is that reportable in PA? If so why?
Michael Airhart asked: “What was the exact and complete wording of the 1987-88 era state law regarding reporting?”
I am not sure I understand what difference this question makes. I see reporting a “reasonable suspicion” of child abuse as a moral obligation, not primarily a legal one. Of course, as a mandated reporter, I am required to do it. But, as a private citizen, I would still do it, even if it was not required by law.
If my neighbor’s house were on fire, I would call the Fire Department. If a kid is in harm’s way, I don’t need exact legal wording before I report it. It’s simply the right thing to do.
George Archibald did the investigating on the 1987-88 child abuse reporting law. I also reviewed the statute but do not have the reference handy. Teachers were mandated reporters at that time. As I noted in my paper, the school officials reviewed the paper and indicated that school policy was to report such things. Those I spoke with indicated that at the least a teacher in that circumstance would have been required to report this to the school. Saying I am reporting half-truths implies you know that what I am reporting is half-false. But all you have done here is ask questions, not shown anything I have written to be false. There are several things that Mr. Jennings declined to address when asked by Mr. Archibald for his Washington Times story. In fact, I witnessed him walk away from Mr. Archibald on the floor of the NEA exhibit hall when Mr. Archibald again asked him to explain the discrepancies in his accounts.
What specific legal provisions were in place in 1987-88 to safeguard the confidentiality of a report so that Brewster would not face certain humiliation from its public disclosure?
Mike this is irrelevant. You could ask the same question now about any reporting dilemma.
As I mentioned, Mr. Jennings declined to provide details when asked by a reporter on multiple occasions and so we may never know the answers to some of these questions.
Jim said: But with one simple change, that of the gender of the younger participant, and reactions are very different. Perhaps that reaction is more appropriate, and perhaps that reaction should also be applied to the opposite sex couple, but it generally isn’t.
I am not sure, perhaps you are generally correct. I do know that in my practice, I have never taken the genders of the perps or the victims into account when making this decision. In Portsmouth, when I practiced there, I reported this stuff frequently.
What was the exact and complete wording of the 1987-88 era state law regarding reporting?
What were the rules at the school in 1987-88?
What specific legal provisions were in place in 1987-88 to safeguard the confidentiality of a report so that Brewster would not face certain humiliation from its public disclosure?
These are basic questions, and I don’t see them being researched here. What I see thus far are a series of seedy half-truths.
Q: Should Mr. Jennings have reported the behavior Brewster told him about?
A: Basic rule of thumb– when in doubt, DO.
I think I can say this publicly while protecting names and details because the incident at PHS involved a situation that happens in high schools all across the country. A classmate, either 15- or 16-years old, was sexually involved with an older man. Adults teachers knew about it, but the relationship wasn’t reported to anyone.
The difference? The student was a girl. I don’t know when the parents learned about it, but the girl and the older man very suddenly got married, and then quickly divorced, and she got a brand new car out of the deal. A lot of people were shocked and tittilated, but there were no concerns about abuse here.
As far as I can see, the only difference is the gender of the student. I think both situations are wrong, and I think in both situations, the circumstances should have been reported.
But let’s be frank here. We have a tradition of girls marrying older men. It is not common, and we all know it is generally not the healthiest setup, and I am not raising this to say that because this happens the other case should be excused. But, for example, laws are in place to allow these exceptional marriages to take place. And while society will correctly judge such relationships to be unwise and possibly exploitive, there is little inpetus to intervene. That was more true decades ago; perhaps less so now.
But with one simple change, that of the gender of the younger participant, and reactions are very different. Perhaps that reaction is more appropriate, and perhaps that reaction should also be applied to the opposite sex couple, but it generally isn’t.
Let me ask again: How old was the “older man” in the Jennings case?
Everyone is assuming he was over 18 (or beyond whatever age that MA law at the time would have consider this to be statutory rape). Nothing I’ve read on the matter proves that. He probably was, but there is still no evidence of that.
First, I am separating the comments about GLSEN because you didn’t provide any supporting links for your statements 😉 I also think it’s a separate issue, GLSEN may or may not follow closely with the alleged beliefs of Mr. Jennings. That’s another discussion, and I think it’s placement here may force an inaccurate assumption.
If you are asking if I would report such a situation were I the teacher and it happened now, there is no doubt in my mind that I would. However, I honestly don’t know what I would have done in 1987 – the issue of “outing” the boy would have been a serious one in those days and it may have prompted him to do harm to himself as Jennings says he was concerned about in the beginning. In the one account, Jennings seems to be implying that, after the relationship began, Brewster was very happy for the remaining two years. Perhaps he is trying to say that the contrast from his prior fatalistic mood outweighed the possible harm. Not an argument I would make, esp after hearing about where they met, but that seems to be part of his point.
I would like to think that I could have found a way to help Brewster while not causing his life to come crashing down around him, but I’m not sure how. Anyone that says this is a slam dunk looking backwards, I don’t think they are being honest with themselves. However, I am curious as to whether there is any evidence that Brewster ever really existed. The inconsistencies and the “neat” way the story is used to prove a point leads me to think it’s possible this was just made up and Jennings now would rather justify his actions than admit that.
There was a male teacher in my high school (about a decade before) who caressed and rubbed the thighs, backs, etc of half the guys in his classes. If you asked a question, he was going to come stoop by your desk and rub your leg or whatever. We thought it was odd, but that was about it. Everyone knew, no one did a thing. Today, he would be carried out in cuffs and rightly so.
I don’t think this says anything about GLSEN either way. What is says about Jennings is hard to determine. But if you ask for their guidelines, let’s hope they are more forthcoming that was Exodus 😉
As I see it, It is not just about an incident in 1987. If Mr. Jennings had not spoken about his actions more recently in approving terms, I would not have written about it. What I cannot understand is why he has not acknowledged that he should have reported it. When he was asked about it, he denied he needed to report it. The point of the piece is that he may not have evolved like the rest of us have. He retold the story as late as 2000 and added detail that confirmed he knew of sexual involvement with a minor. He then revisited the issue again in 2004 and denied he needed to report. If Alan Chambers was the person telling the story about a boy in an ex-gay ministry in 1987 who then said in 2004 that there was no need to report such events, then I wonder what the response would be.
Jim, you got me curious about PHS, care to email me to let me know what you are referring to?
I know there are those who believe that continuing to discuss this issue (how, when and IF suspected child abuse should be reported and by whom) is a DEFLECTION. They suspect that this is a convenient way of diverting attention away from the “more important topic” of establishing tough standards for screening and supervising youth workers.
But, it’s not as simple as “either/or”. One is not “more important” than the other. It has to be BOTH. Having “tough standards” is meaningless if people who HAVE a “reasonable suspicion of abuse” are reluctant to report what they DO know. I have been a “mandated reporter” for nearly 30 years and have come across way too many excuses for NOT reporting:
(1) Someone ELSE said they would do it.
(2) You might be sued.
(3) You don’t have all the details.
(4) The kid might be lying.
(5) The police probably won’t do anything anyway.
(6) It’s an “internal matter” for the Church to handle.
(7) The child and/or parents might get upset.
(8) I’ll just report it to the alleged abuser’s employer and let THEM handle it, etc., etc., etc….
Dr. Throckmorton is RIGHT ON when he says: “…you do not need to know all the details. You do not need to investigate it yourself, in fact you are not supposed to. You simply report.” Tough standards AND swift reporting is the best combination for protecting kids.
Warren, it seems odd to bring up an example of something that happened in 1987 at the very moment we are discussing something that apparently happened in 2005 or 2006.
If you are asking me to retroactively project how a situation that occurred twenty years ago should be handled, I’d agree that the incident should have been reported and investigated. I say that because I’m pretty smart these days, sitting here in 2007 with more than a decade’s worth of sensitization to the exploitation of young people by the Catholic Church. I think we are all much more sensitized to the seriousness of situations like these today than we would have been then.
What would my answer have been if you had asked me in 1987? It probably would have been very different. I’m pretty sure of it because I know of things that happened in your and my very own high school some six years earlier than that. Should they be dredged up as well? I certainly don’t see the point, except to point out that my reaction back then wasn’t to assume abuse. All’s well that ends well, as they say. But if I heard the same story today, my reaction would probably be different.
I haven’t been commenting because I didn’t feel there was enough information to comment on. I still don’t. But these two situations are apples and oranges, for no other reason than we are all, as individuals and a society, a whole lot smarter about these issues today than we were then. Myself included. And I suspect you too.
I’m inclined to think that reporting this would have been the appropriate thing to do.
Has he repeated this omission since 1988?
Bill – No I see why you would say that but I really just thought of that piece today since we were discussing youth standards.
Ken – He was a mandated reporter in MA and as such you do not need to know all the details. You do not need to investigate it yourself, in fact you are not supposed to. You simply report.
Warren, you claim the Jennings should have reported (either to the police and/or the parents) Brewster was having sex with an older man. What was his name? Where did he live? How old was he? In short what information did Jennings have to report besides he was older and having sex with Brewster?
What happens if Jennings reports what little he does know? Who are the authorities going to have to go after to get more information? And what happens to him if he refuses to answer? What about when his parents find out he’s gay (keep in mind this is 1988 not 2007)?
It would be easy to accuse you of bringing this up to downplay lax standards from Exodus but I do think Mr. Jennings should have reported this activity. I surely hope you didn’t raise this to take the focus of someone else.