|
Schools Indifferent to Molesters of Boys
Even after learning about the serious injuries
to boys by Catholic priests, the schools in Massachusetts are
still not protecting the boys in their care.
Two recent examples are Lexington and Amherst.
LEXINGTON. A custodian was accused last summer of soliciting
a teenager who was assisting him. Then several small boys accused
the man in September of exposing himself. But the schools did
nothing until many parents complained. The school officials
considered the custodian's "rights" to be paramount.
The custodian finally resigned on April 1, after it became apparent
to him that the schools were becoming serious.
AMHERST. The principal of the high school was dismissed after
irate parents discovered he had asked a male student to expose
his nipple and then invited him to his house. The Amherst police
found out in a few days that the principal had, in fact, confessed
to being attracted to 14- to 16-year-old boys in his former
town in California and he had had sex with several boys. Again
the schools did nothing until the parents discovered this. The
high school has now started a "literature" course
which will proselytize the homosexual lifestyle. The officials
appear to have the same feelings toward the principal that Cardinal
Law had toward Father Geoghan. |
Public Statement from Lexington School
Committee
Officials Show No Concern for Boys
By MassNews Staff
May 2002
In September 2001, the Lexington Schools received charges that an
employee of the school district had made inappropriate comments
to two students. The district viewed the charges as serious and
warranting an investigation.
The Superintendent has kept the School Committee advised of the
status of this matter at all times, and the School Committee unanimously
supports the actions and judgment of the Superintendent. The employee
who is the subject of the charges has been placed on administrative
leave.
Pursuant to the district's sexual harassment policy, the initial
charges were referred to a team consisting of the building principal
and the district's human resources director for investigation and
a recommendation for appropriate action. The team interviewed witnesses
and reviewed district records, and based on that investigation,
made a finding and recommended a disposition to the Superintendent.
The Superintendent accepted those findings and recommendations.
Consistent with the findings and recommendation of the investigative
team, the employee was permitted to return to work, and was notified
by letter that should substantiated evidence of similar conduct
come to the attention of the district, such conduct would be grounds
for appropriate discipline, up to and including discharge.
Some of the parents of the children involved filed criminal charges
with the Lexington Police Department. Both some of the parents and
Lexington Public Schools, as a mandated reporter, filed reports
of the charges with DSS (Department of Social Services). Both the
Lexington Police Department and DSS have conducted independent investigations
into these charges. At all times, Lexington Public Schools and its
employees have cooperated with these investigations; the school
district has no control over the timing or conduct of these investigations,
or of any independent agency's findings, conclusions, or actions.
Subsequently, additional charges, of a similar nature to the September
charges, were made concerning the school employee. After the additional
charges were made, the employee was immediately placed, and remains,
on administrative leave. The school department, and specifically
the Superintendent, was fully prepared to conduct an investigation
into these additional charges, and their bearing on the original
charges, and to take appropriate action. However, the independent
agencies requested that the school district hold its investigation
in abeyance so that the investigations of the independent authorities
would not be compromised. The Superintendent accordingly deferred
the district's internal investigation.
On March 1, 2002, the Middlesex District Attorney's office released
the school department to resume its own investigation into these
charges. The Superintendent has directed that the investigation
resume, and the school department is working closely with its own
legal counsel and the Middlesex District Attorney on these charges.
The district will take appropriate action, based on the results
of its continuing investigation.
The District Attorney for Middlesex County has advised the district
that her investigation into these charges remains open. All personnel
of Lexington Public Schools will cooperate fully in any investigation
of these matters. At the same time, the Superintendent has directed
that the district's internal investigation into these charges recommence.
The School Committee and the Superintendent place student safety
as their single highest priority. The School Committee and the Superintendent
recognize the serious nature of the charges that have been filed
and our responsibility to protect children in our public schools.
Concurrently, Lexington Public Schools has a moral and legal obligation
to act solely on the basis of substantiated facts, and not accusations
or innuendo. Until the various investigations into these matters
are concluded, all parties involved in these charges are entitled
to privacy.
With the support of the School Committee, the administration will
vigorously protect the safety of the district's children. At the
same time, it will conduct its investigation of these charges with
sensitivity and a sense of fairness.
- For the Lexington School Comm.,
Scott Burson, Chair
March 8, 2002
Lexington Parents Reply with the Truth
We write in response to the School Committee's public statement
of March 8, which was issued in reaction to the Boston Globe's article
printed earlier that day.
In the statement, [School Committee Chair] Scott Burson asserts
that the School Administration and the School Committee are dedicated
to "vigorously protect(ing) the safety of the district's school
children," and that they "place student safety as their
single highest priority."
As parents who filed a grievance against the employee in question
on September 7 and then had to somehow explain to their eleven year-old
son why the person who spoke to him in sexually graphic language
was returning to work without so much as a reprimand or a written
notice to our family, we wish we could say that our painful personal
experience at the hands of the School Administration proved that
safety was indeed their "single highest priority." Sadly,
our family learned first-hand that, in the Lexington Public Schools,
an employee's job security apparently holds greater value than the
safety of school children.
The School Committee's statement contains several other specific
items which we feel we must address publicly:
1. Burson states that "some of the parents involved filed criminal
charges with the Lexington Police Department." At no time have
we or any of the other parents involved filed criminal charges with
the Lexington Police Department. On October 16, acting alone, we
brought the matter to the attention of the Middlesex County District
Attorney's office and the Lexington Police. We did so after a meeting
with the Superintendent the day before in which we asked why the
employee in question had been allowed to return to work without
any disciplinary action. The response was that the employee had
"suffered enough" (on ten days' paid leave), making it
clear to us that the Lexington School Administration had no intention
of acting meaningfully on this matter. We therefore felt we had
no choice but to turn to the District Attorney and Police Department
and ask their help in protecting our child and all Lexington Public
School students.
2. Burson refers to "inappropriate comments" which were
investigated in September "pursuant to the district's sexual
harassment policy." The district's policy defines sexual harassment
as including "verbal conduct of a sexual nature (which) creates
an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment."
The sexually graphic and disturbing remarks directed at our son
and his friend certainly constitute sexual harassment as defined
by the Lexington Public Schools. Furthermore, the employee in question
has directed astonishingly similar language at many of the fourteen
children who have come forward since September! It is therefore
indeed a dangerous distortion to dismiss these graphic remarks as
being merely "inappropriate," as now both the Superintendent
and Scott Burson have done.
3. Burson states that "the Superintendent has kept the School
Committee advised of the status of this matter at all times."
On September 26, I called [School Committee member] Tony Close to
ask for his help one week after the employee had been allowed to
return to Fiske School. He asked if he could meet with us personally
in our home. Two days later, Tony Close sat in my living room and
asked me to tell him what exactly had happened to our son, and how
our grievance had been handled by the School Department. It was
clearly the first he had heard of this matter. I'm therefore confused
by Scott Burson's statement, and I honestly don't know which is
worse: a School Committee who was informed "at all times"
and yet remained silent for six months, or a Superintendent who
kept her School Committee members in the dark about a public school
employee who was directing sexually graphic remarks to young children.
Tony Close, by the way, said that the employee "should never
work in any building in the Lexington Public Schools" and that
he would call me in "a few days." He never called. Despite
numerous letters, phone calls, and emails, not one member of the
School Committee has ever called me or any of the aggrieved families
to express their concern or offer assistance during this terribly
difficult time.
Over the past six months, the parents involved have asked that,
while the investigation might proceed in a fair and forthright manner,
we parents not be treated as opponents, but rather as ordinary people,
concerned for the safety of our own children and of all Lexington
school children.
The response we have received is silence from the School Committee,
and a letter from our Superintendent threatening that "without
your commitment to make (your child) available as a witness in the
event of an arbitration hearing, I have no alternative but to return
(the employee) to active duty." Is our Superintendent acting
in a spirit of "sensitivity and fairness," as Scott Burson
asserts?
After six months of silence, we have to ask ourselves: would the
citizens of Lexington have ever heard from our school leaders if
the Boston Globe hadn't printed its article on Friday?
- Ann and George Kane
|
