I think it’s horseshit as well, although for different reasons than have been expressed so far.
First, let’s chase down some important detail regarding the student’s age.
From here
Diogenes has reported the student’s age as 16, over the age of consent (then and now) in Massachusetts. The account above reports the student’s age at the time as 15.
Which was it?
Bricker, did you seriously just cite the Washington Times?
OK, that seems pretty solid. The kid (well, the then-kid) was born in July 1971. The book says Jennings came to know the kid in 1987, the first year he taught at the school. So the kid turned 16 July of that year, and since school begins in September, we can assume that it was post-birthday.
We should believe the book as to the dates, because it’s from the book that the core accusation comes; there’s no reason to believe the incident happened but then doubt the dates.
Sure. They obviously lean right, but I’m not aware of any particular reason to doubt them when reporting straight facts. Are you?
For the same reason, I believe Media Matters has not Photoshopped a phony drivers license for the kid. They obviously lean left, but I have no reason to believe they’d fabricate a straight fact.
Even if the kid had been fifteen, I think there would be good reasons to suggest this act wasn’t heinous. Since he was clearly sixteen, we don’t even need to explore that ground.
The NAMBLA smear is a separate monster unrelated to the 16 year old. Jennings in a 1997 speech said something to the effect of having respect for Harry Hay as an early leader in the gay rights movement. I’m not well read on Hay but to my understanding later in life he advocated NAMBLA should have the right to match in gay parades. I do not know if HAY was a member of NAMBLA but it is pretty irrelevant in regards to Jennings. The FOX has spun it to Jennings is supportive of NAMBLA members. The equivalent of accusing anyone who praises Roman Polanski as a good director advocates raping 13 year olds
Where do we find the straight facts, Bricker? (Nice choice of words, by the way.)
End of straight talk.
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network promotes safe environments for people of differing sexualities. The purpose is to see that everyone is valued and respected. Wow. What a revolutionary idea! Respect for gays, straights, trans-sexuals, lesbians, transgendered, asexuals…I think it has to do with promoting tolerance and kindness.
Back to the Washington Times:
Well, I don’t think the evidence of a smiling student would hold up in court, do you? One happy student is evidence that the teacher actively encouraged a homosexual relationship with an older man?
This muddle of misinformation is laughable.
The smear is continuing with Seann Hannity and the Washington Times the newest information being he is a member of Act Up.
What’s wrong with ACT UP?
I like the way the Washington Times puts the word “partner” in scare quotes to describe Jennings SO.
Nothing in my opinion.
People certainly have reason to not like the organization. They use methods I am not always supportive of to get out their message. In the past these have included vandalism and public disobedience.
I like this quote from the Washington Times article too:
“ACT UP, like NAMBLA, was not even considered a mainstream group among homosexuals.”
Why the fuck would NAMBLA ever be considered a mainstream group by anyone? It’s like saying, “The Minuteman Movement, like Naziism, wasn’t embraced by all Republicans.”
I still don’t think it’s all that clear. School years span years. When Jennings refers to 1987, there is no way to tell if he is referring to the 1986/87 school year, or the 1987/88 school year.
Since Jennings initially stated that the boy was 15, it would be consistent with the boys birthday being in July, and the school year being the 1986/1987 year.
I think further evidence would be that school years are typically referred to by the nominal year in which the school year ends. IE, if you graduated in 1990, that was actually the 1989/90 school year.
Besides all that, there is is history of drug use. Surely there were candidates for ‘Safe and Drug Free Schools’ that didn’t have a history of extensive drug use.
Age is a moot point, since there was no sexual contact. It was just two people talking at a bus station.
I’m guessing the problem is that it’s full of gays.
It was the latter school year. The kid in question has already made it clear that he was 16. There are no more questions to answer on this. He was 16.
Moreover, he wasn’t having sex.
Who gives a shit about drug use? The last three Presidents have admitted to drug use. Some of the most brilliant people who ever lived have done drugs. It’s a non-issue.
Not really in the context of the job, I’d say. I mean, car ownership is a political non-issue, but that doesn’t mean that it would be fine to appoint a car owner to the Office of Car-Free Schools.
That said, i’d agree with the general notion based on time - that is, he isn’t any more, and if he repudiates past drug use, then good and fair enough.
I think it’s better to have somebody who’s actually done drugs in a position of talking to kids about them then somebody who hasn’t.
Also a reasonable argument.
