Forums | MacLife

Mr. Jennings threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the statutory rape "unethical." Mr. Jennings' defenders asserted that there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the older man.

However, the new audiotape contradicts this claim. In 2000, Mr. Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an advocacy group that promotes homosexuality in schools. On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that he told the student to make sure "to use a condom" when he was with the older man.

If he didn't know the encounters were sexual, there's no need to mention a condom.

jkahless wrote:

Strange, you would think that from it's politician's personal lives, sex with underaged boys is something the republican party could really get behind.

It matters not whether it was sex with a boy or sex with a girl, whether the adult was male or the adult was female.
He had a legal obligation to report it and he chose to ignore the law because he felt he knew better than the law.

Some laws are unjust, but I don't statutory rape involving a 15 year old is unjust - and a teacher does not have the authority to determine that, especially when teachers are required by law to report it.

Pariah wrote:

I have never supported broad laws requiring teachers and other professionals to betray the trust of youths who confide in them.

Therapists and priests are legally protected from being held liable for hearing these types of confessions. Teachers should probably fall into the same category.

Last edited by Sternum (2009-09-29 5:48 pm)

I'll take the rapists for 400, Alex.

Sternum wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I have never supported broad laws requiring teachers and other professionals to betray the trust of youths who confide in them.

Therapists and priests are legally protected from being held liable for hearing these types of confessions. Teachers should probably fall into the same category.

Depends on the state. Laws vary hugely.
Just like age of consent laws vary.

Last edited by Pariah (2009-09-29 6:25 pm)

So will Obama crumble again under the tide of public oppression?

At this rate government will shrink because nobody will be eligible to serve...

The child was protected. If he had been outed, it probably wouldn't have been good for him. Hell, it's twenty years later and most LBGT kids still won't come out in high school for fear of being beat-up and harassed by their peers.

Again, something you absolutely wouldn't understand. But of course, there are only absolutes in your world.

Here's another perspective without the right-wing editing...

Last edited by robco (2009-09-29 10:15 pm)

robco wrote:

The child was protected. If he had been outed, it probably wouldn't have been good for him. Hell, it's twenty years later and most LBGT kids still won't come out in high school for fear of being beat-up and harassed by their peers.

Again, something you absolutely wouldn't understand. But of course, there are only absolutes in your world.

Here's another perspective without the right-wing editing...

Wow, that is interesting.

It looks like their strategy is to point out that Obama chose a gay czar for schools, without saying “can you believe he picked a gay person?” It’s the same “triangulation” technique used during the election to try to imply he was a muslim, and to point out he wasn’t white, and the same technique they’re using now to imply he hates white people (which a certain someone here fell for…).

And I said, "Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?" And he said, "Well, I'm tired." And I said, "Well, we all are tired and we all got to school today." And he said, "Well, I was out late last night." And I said, "What were you doing out late on a school night?" And he said, "Well, I was in Boston." Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, "What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?" He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, "Well, I met somebody in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him." High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, 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." He said to me something I will never forget. He said "Why should I, my life isn't worth saving anyway.”

And this is pretty shameless too:

Times editorial mischaracterized what Jennings said about condom use

Jennings said he "hope[d] you knew to use a condom" -- not "make sure 'to use a condom.’ “

It looks like the right can’t make their point without blatant lying and distortion.

Last edited by mo' ron (2009-09-29 11:31 pm)

mo' ron wrote:

Times editorial mischaracterized what Jennings said about condom use

Jennings said he "hope[d] you knew to use a condom" -- not "make sure 'to use a condom.’ “

It looks like the right can’t make their point without blatant lying and distortion.

Doesn't make a damn bit of difference - point remains that he knew the encounter was sexual.

resedit wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

Times editorial mischaracterized what Jennings said about condom use

Jennings said he "hope[d] you knew to use a condom" -- not "make sure 'to use a condom.’ “

It looks like the right can’t make their point without blatant lying and distortion.

Doesn't make a damn bit of difference - point remains that he knew the encounter was sexual.

We don’t know the full scope of the situation, but it looks to me like he took the course of action that would result in the safest outcome for the student.

That's also the course of action the ACORN offices should have taken, though I don't think they were legally obligated to. Not one of them did to my knowledge.

resedit wrote:

No. The safest course of action would be to inform the authorities, as the law requires, of a case of sexual predation that he knew about.

I assume you have references to back this up?