I understand that covering up allegations of child molestation, and sexual misconduct by teachers has a long history.
It’s changing, but it’s still too much the norm. For all the attention that the Catholic Church’s protection of pedophile priests has gotten, the legal environment is still very murky. According to an AP story released today, while prosecutions and convictions are up - there are still a lot of people being fired from school districts who then have their public records kept clean. Making sure none of that splashes on the home town.
I can almost understand that, but this local story just has me going WTF.
This isn’t something that happened in the 60s or 70s. In 2000, the school district was willing to keep a sexual abuser employed, and as a deal with the parent - simply keep him out of the classroom. And then they put him back in the classroom, anyways!
Now, I’ll admit that the administrators of the Rochester City School district have shown some spectacular idiocy in the past. Prior to this I’d say that the piece de resistence was when the district racked up a $57 million dollar deficit. But this really has to take the cake.
How can anyone who’s read anything in the past ten years not see that protecting a sexual predator in one’s school district is a bad idea? And even if keeping him in an administrative position was reasonable, how fucked in the head would someone have to be to let him back into a classroom?
And just what the fuck does it say about the teacher’s union that they were willing to put that shitstain back into a classroom?
How can this still happen? Well, IMO in Heil’s case the weak link in the chain was the part where “Although the victim, now 16, came forward immediately, a criminal case was not pursued because the mother was assured Heil would no longer teach”. I mean, assured HOW? Was there any sort of actual, legally-binding, signed document? No court had convicted the man at the time, so the union and the district probably felt they had no legally-binding basis to continue enforcing some “gentleman’s agreement” to keep him out of the classroom. In this case, it may have worked but only if there existed some mechanism to take away his teaching credential permanently even in the absence of conviction, so that a latter managerial decision could not reverse the deal.
Evidently no provision was made for this. Further in the second article linked, the disctrict indicates that as the law stood in 2000, they had no obligation to go further; I can only assume that their lawyers must have studied the heck out of what they could and could not do. (That then becomes a letter vs. spirit of the law issue, I mean, that the law provides a list of some specific cases where you MUST pursue a report, does NOT mean you are barred of doing so in other cases, and usually the statute indeed makes that clear)
In the end, once again an attempt to avoid looking bad “then”, becomes a guarantee of looking worse “later”.
Given the situation of the law in 2000, my guess would be that the district wanted to avoid a defamation or libel suit from Heil when they negotiated the original situation. (That does not explain the decision to let him back into the classroom, of course.)
IF the 2000 situation was one of “He said/he said” and the prosecutor was concerned that he could not make a case, then the district was going to be damned if they fired him for cause and he was exonerated in court.
That still does not explain how he ever got back into a classroom, but it makes a slight case for the position shuffle to avoid a lot of legal expenses with no guaranteed outcome.
ETA: Did the Fr. Geoghan/Cardinal Law story break in 2001 or 2002? I’m pretty sure that this original incident occurred before all the hoopla.
**After the Catholic Church’s Example: How Could This Happen? **
The phrase that comes to mind is “Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.” In general, dealing with bad behavior ( child molestion or otherwise ) or other problems right away, and especially being seen to do so, is the best option. But it always looks easier in the short run to cover it up, to deny and obfuscate; often, it even works. People being people, they often take that option rather than make the decision that’s smarter but hurts in the short run.
It’s not only in New York that people didn’t learn from the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, as show by thisarticle about the Church of England. Yes, there are some differences, as the article points out the Church did not have the legal right to remove some of the churchwardens, but still, if this article is correct, they are looking at decades of cover-up of people they could have removed.