Church releases new policy to help prevent child abuse
This week the Church released a circular letter that reiterated certain policies that are frequently ignored and outlined several new policies for the protection of children. The new policies are to cover Primary Classes (including Nursery), Primary Activities (including Scouts) and Relief Society Nurseries:
- Classes and activities should be in rooms with windows in the doors.
- Classes and activities are to be lead by either two or more men, a married couple or a woman.
- In small branches where staffing is a problem and one individual man is required to teach Primary, a member of the Primary Presidency is required to “frequently visit and monitor†the class.
I don’t suppose the official text is available online?
It seems to me that most buildings will need to be modified if regular Sunday Primary classes are to take places in classrooms with doors. (Or did I read that wrong?)
Does #2 mean that one male cannot teach a Primary class?
Comment by Julie M. Smith — March 19, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
When my wife and I were first called to team-teach a primary class they told me to call a substitute if my wife was sick and going to miss church. They seem to treat this rule like it’s optional as soon as it becomes difficult to find a sub. Just last week the Primary President told me to keep teaching alone while my wife was out having a baby.
Comment by jjohnsen — March 19, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
So there are no women child abusers?
Comment by Kim Siever — March 19, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Women sexual abusers of children? I won’t dispute they exist, but they seem very, very infrequent, and normally target teen boys.
Comment by Mike Parker — March 19, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
I like the idea of doors with windows, but I’ve never been in an LDS church with such doors. Does this mean replacing every classroom door in every church? Now would be a good time to go into the door manufacturing business
Comment by Tanya Spackman — March 19, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
There are women child abusers. Chances are multiple times higher that a child will be abused by a male than by a female.
Every child should know if you get lost turn to a woman for help. Not the security guy, ask a woman to help you.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — March 19, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
The newer buildings have windows in the classroom doors, I understand, but I’m not positive. I wrote the stake president a letter asking him to put windows in the class room doors and he got mad at me. Well, I feel good at the moment.
Comment by annegb — March 19, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
“The newer buildings have windows in the classroom doors”
That must be _really_ new, because our building is 4/05 and only the nursery has windows.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — March 19, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Ours is the same, less than two years old and only windows in the nursary. I’m a little suprised that nobody thought of putting windows in before.
Comment by jjohnsen — March 19, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
This is great and is something we discussed in the abuse threads here in the past. Let’s hope that they start retrofitting older chapels with windows.
They don’t even necessarily need to use windows. Our nursery has the frosted windows so you can’t see much. So they put in keyholes ala what some apartments have, only bigger. Only takes a drill and less than 5 minutes to install. I’d like to see them in more rooms.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 19, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
“So they put in keyholes ala what some apartments have, only bigger. Only takes a drill and less than 5 minutes to install. I’d like to see them in more rooms.”
There are lots of benefits to this. Primary pres. can check on classes without interrupting, parents can peak without interrupting the prayer, etc. I’d have a hard time thinking of any reason NOT to put a little keyhole in each door.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — March 19, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
Hellmut, not only ask a woman, but ask another mommy.
Comment by Darren — March 19, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
This is needed (not that anyone was saying it isn’t). all one has to do is check the Utah sex offender database to see all the folks with the Gs poking out of view the or see the news stories of the offenders.
Comment by Darren — March 20, 2006 @ 12:04 am
Re point 2: “Classes and activities are to be lead by either two or more men, a married couple or a woman.”
Wasn’t this already the official policy? (I know you said there we some reiterations, but your post made this sound as if it fell into the “new” category.)
Clark, post 9: the keyholes are perfect–I couldn’t agree more.
Comment by BrianJ — March 20, 2006 @ 12:10 am
Thanks, Darren. That’s even better. I will tell my kids.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — March 20, 2006 @ 12:28 am
That already was the policy. However in practice when people are sick and there aren’t enough teachers people violate policy. I was pressured to violate policy with respect to scouts, for instance.
The most recent abuse case that got a lot of publicity actually was in a Primary class where it was a husband/wife team. When the wife wasn’t in the classroom bad things happened.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 20, 2006 @ 1:28 am
Is it that we’re becoming more aware of child abuse cases, or is it that it’s getting worse?
Comment by Craig Atkinson — March 20, 2006 @ 8:48 am
Social response to “child abuse” is largely driven by the superficial manner in which our culture currently defines and deals with “abuse”. This is a subject that in itself merits extended discussion.
To me, the revised church policy reads as a practical measure focused on limiting church-wide financial liability, not due to any increases in abuse cases or any greater internal sensitivity to such matters. In the litigation of such cases, the liberal courts have developed a remarkable willingness to entertain claims of general institutional liability on a fantastic scale. Thus the “deep-pockets” church becomes a target for lawyers and greedy litigants hoping to get rich and famous with multi-million dollar judgements against general church funds, in the litigation of local cases.
Witness the immanent collapse of the US Catholic Church over lawsuits against pedophile priests. Financial liability in the Catholic Church is localized and limited, in comparison to the LDS structure. The general funds of the LDS Church are much more vulnerable, and warrant the imposition of these protective measures.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 20, 2006 @ 9:39 am
I hope, Jim, that the safety of our children warrants rigorous protection.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — March 20, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Yeah, I wasn’t positive about that–it was something I’d heard. But I wrote the stake president a couple of months ago asking him to put windows in all the classroom doors of the stake center. I think it protects the teachers as much as the kids. He gave me grief about it and said it might be done, maybe not. He’s ex-military and he doesn’t take orders from a woman.
The window in the nursery would be great because of the nervous parents continually checking and making their kids bawl again when the door opens. It’s maddening.
The problem with the Utah sex offender database is that :
1. it’s not complete, if an offender moves from another state without letting the old state know, they don’t always register. I know at least one person who lives here who isn’t registered. The registry depends on the honesty of offenders.
2. notice how many 22 year olds are on it. A lot of these are guys arrested for statutory rape on their girlfriends. They’re not going to abuse a child.
I check it every once in awhile and there was a guy on it who lives down the street. Nobody was thrilled about that.
Comment by annegb — March 20, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Darren,
I noticed one of those news stories delt with the consensual BYU football players group sex thing from a few years back. Wasn’t rape, nor abuse and played on the worst racial stereotype Those charges were completly bogus. As annegb points out, how many other people wrongly get on these lists, via plea bargains, etc?
Windows are long overdue. The rest is overkill and implies that all men are sick pedophiles.
Comment by Steve EM — March 20, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
When you all are saying “keyholes,” do you mean the one-way eye-holes that apartment doors have? If so, then I have been in a number of buildings that already have such a thing for the nurseries. And as Clark says, a retrofit would be extremely quick and cheap–it could easily come out of the ward budget. A very worthwhile sacrifice for one year’s budget (to drop a few go-carting outings for the young men in favor of putting the eye-holes in each door.
Comment by john f. — March 20, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
Julie, to my knowledge, it is not available on line. Also, my reading of the policies was a proscription of single male instructors except in conditions of exigency (small branches) and in such cases a alternate plan is available (#3).
Comment by J. Stapley — March 20, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
An added benefit of the one-way eye-holes is that the occupants of the room would not know when they are being observed, making secret abuse even more difficult. The awareness that they could be being observed at any given moment will force people to keep their distance from the kids at all times.
Comment by john f. — March 20, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Whose responsibility is it to go around examining classes through the peepholes? Does that fall on the Primary presidency or the Ward Surveillance Specialist?
Comment by John Mansfield — March 20, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
In the meantime, couldn’t we simply invest in a set of doorstops (and a kiddie-gate or two for the younger classes) and urge more reverence in the hallways.
Comment by Deborah — March 20, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Could those of you who favor these little windows in the doors explain exactly what function you hope they will serve?
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 20, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Summary of child abuse statistics from HHS
Approximately 80 percent of perpetrators were parents. Other relatives accounted for 6 percent, and unmarried partners of parents accounted for 4 percent of perpetrators. The remaining perpetrators included persons with other (camp counselor, school employee, etc.) or unknown relationships to the child victims.
Female perpetrators, who were mostly mothers, were typically younger than male perpetrators, who were mostly fathers. Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men: 58 percent compared to 42 percent.
Of all parents who were perpetrators, fewer than 3 percent were associated with sexual abuse. More than three-quarters of perpetrators who were friends or neighbors committed sexual abuse.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 20, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
“Could those of you who favor these little windows in the doors explain exactly what function you hope they will serve?”
They may have a deterrant effect on child molesters.
They will make it possible for parents to peek in (for any reason–being sure junior is actually in class, is behaving, etc.) without disrupting the class.
The same for the primary presidency–they have to check on a variety of things, most of which can be done through a peephole without disturbing the class.
Jim, I’m not sure what use it is to lump other forms of child abuse in with sexual abuse in this discussion.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — March 20, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Which old policies were reiterated?
I like the new policies and think they will be helpful, but I’d like to see a strong reiteration of the policy that bishops must forward reports of child abuse to local authorities (and can’t keep quiet even if they think it’s not really happening.) I personally know of one case locally where a bishop violated this policy because he thought the people reporting it (the child victims, in this case) were lying. The bishop was wrong, abuse was really happening, and more damage was done in the process because of the bishop. I’m willing to bet that this happens much more often than sexual molestation in primary.
Comment by Ariel — March 20, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
Jim, even if it has nothing to do with fear of sexual abuse, windows are an easy way for parents/Primary Presidency/etc to check in on classes without actually disturbing the class.
Comment by jjohnsen — March 20, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
I’m a Sunbeam teacher, and I’m all for the policy–I only wish they would take care to enforce it. When I was called, I had a talk with the Primary President, and she was unaware of the regulations.
Back when I was an Episcopalian, I ran my parish’s children’s program; my church sent me for state- and insurance-mandated certification. Between that and the legal instruction I recieved years ago in my elementary ed program, I would never, ever be alone in a room with other people’s children and a closed door. I’m not an abuser, but the state doesn’t necessarily know that, and neither do the parents. What’s more, kids generally have a limited understanding of what is and isn’t physically dangerous behavior. A room with four or five little kids and one adult who’s occupied with a lesson plan is a recipe for a broken arm or something.
Comment by Serenity Valley — March 20, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
Now I am imagining this ludicrous video footage of a long parade snake-dancing through the halls during Primary time, frantically anxious mothers waiting for their turn at covert surveillance, diligently peeking through the keyhole, intent on saving the little sunbeam from potential salacious pedophile predator Primary teacher.
If hosting young children in contact with men is such a horrifying risk to the children, perhaps the church would do better to just ban all men from the premises during Primary. Isn’t anyone at all concerned that one of those sneaky evil predators might find some way to circumvent the surveillance?
Maybe video cameras monitored by armed guards would offer more security. After all, the safety of our children warrants rigorous protection.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 20, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
the real problem is the bathrooms. as nursery leader, i often have to escort kids to the bathroom, and we definitely don’t have enough teachers to send more than one adult out of the room at a time. are they going to put these peepholes in the bathrooms stalls as well?
church could get really interesting….
Comment by sara — March 20, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
Jim, just picture that line of frantic mothers opening the door, peeking in, and leaving. It makes for pretty hysterical two year olds. That’s my view of the efficacy of windows. The moms make the child cry by looking in. It happens every Sunday, which is why I asked the stake president for windows.
The Presbyterian church has a big two way window in their nursery. They rock. And all their classrooms have small windows in the doors.
Comment by annegb — March 21, 2006 @ 9:48 am
sara,
I know what you mean about bathrooms. I typically teach the older primary kids, and often there is a disabled child who needs toilet assistance. So I’ll assign a classmate as an ad hoc escort as needed. The kids often balk at this, even after I privately explain to them it would be inappropriate for me to assist the child, and if we wait for someone from the Primary Presidency or a parent, we’re risking a needless accident. I remember once a kid coming back to class undressed because his escort refused to help him and ran off. But the other kids so teased the faithless escort, that only happened once.
Comment by Steve EM — March 21, 2006 @ 10:13 am
Someone staring in at the class through a window in the door is a disruption on a par with opening the door and sticking a head in. Add playful children and youth who aren’t in class making faces at their friends through the glass, and the arrangement leads to greater disruption than the occasional opening door. Then the primary ends up covering the windows with paper.
Comment by John Mansfield — March 21, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Jim, one must realize that this just isn’t about frantic mothers but also about legal liability for the church.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 21, 2006 @ 11:18 am
Clark, as it happens, this time I agree with you (cf. #18).
Considering the flow of the discussion, I just naturally lapsed into cynicism.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 21, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
re 34 and 36, I believe Church policy is that male teachers cannot take children to the restroom.
re 33, plenty of buildings I attended had the keyholes in several of the classrooms and this line of watchers never happened. But I think you knew that and were just exaggerating.
Along those lines, I want to second Julie’s criticism of post 28. The numbers cited deal with all forms of abuse and neglect, not just sexual or physical abuse. In other words, those numbers are barely relevant (at best).
Comment by BrianJ — March 21, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
One of the sad things from this will likely be fewer men in Primary. Primary works so much better with a few men around (and guys, it beats Sunday School and Priesthood meeting anytime.). It’s quite common for 8-12 year old boys to develop contempt for female authority. I doubt the boys are even consciously aware of it, but it’s a common phase.
#30, why is the burden on the Bishop to report a second or third hand criminal allegation? I understand the burden on Bishop to report a confessed crime (or assure the confessor turns himself in).. But in the case of a Bishop hearing an allegation, shouldn’t the alleger have already reported the matter to the police?
Comment by Steve EM — March 21, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
QED.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — March 21, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
#41: i completely agree. i wish there were more men in primary, but most of the eligible guys in our ward are in high council. my daughter has a man teacher and absolutely LOVES primary, and i give most of the credit to him for her positive feelings about it.
and the time defnitely goes by faster in primary, as you mentioned!
Comment by sara — March 21, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
#41, Steve EM: In the US, the law is that an adult who has any reason to suspect child abuse (including 2nd or 3rd hand stories) must report it within 72 hours. In some states, including the one in which I live, clergy-penitent communications are no exception. Although I haven’t read the handbook, I have been told by several people that Church policy is along the same lines: suspicions of child abuse must be reported within a few days. The problem is, in this case and I suspect many others, the Bishop was sure that the child abuse wasn’t really happening. He thought he would save everyone a lot of trouble by not reporting it. And he was wrong.
To clarify, the information was not 2nd or 3rd hand, it was from the victims themselves to the bishop. They did this because of what True to the Faith says about abuse: “If you are a victim of abuse, seek help immediately. Talk with your priesthood leader, normally your bishop or branch president but at times a member of the stake or district presidency. He can help you know what to do.”
I think any measures taken by the Church to prevent abuse are great, and windows or peepholes in classrooms will both help prevent abuse. I’m concerned, though, that the bigger problem of teaching bishops how to respond to abuse is being neglected at the expense of less common problems. I’m not trying to steady the ark, just hoping for a statement reinforcing the policies.
Comment by Ariel — March 22, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
I’m with you, Ariel. I don’t consider it ark steadying, I consider it smart. The church is way ahead in trying to stem problems, but they still occur, because unfortunately, people lead the church. Damn, huh? Couldn’t we find something better?
Comment by annegb — March 23, 2006 @ 10:18 am
Thanks Ariel. I was thinking more of a Mom telling the Bishop her child says that Brother X is abusing him/her. One would hope the Mom would involve the authorities and then inform the Bishop as a courtesy about the criminal investigation underway. Yeah, a Bishop hearing a kid’s allegation and just sitting on it is pretty appalling.
Comment by Steve EM — March 23, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
(1) Anyone seeing a child wearing a cast has reason to suspect that that child has been abused. Thus, if the parents take this child to a BYU football game, all of the hundreds or thousands of adults who see this child are obligated to file a report. Have I got that right?
(2) If these laws mandating reporting of suspicion of child abuse are wise, why not mandate reporting suspicion of illegal activity of any sort whatsoever?
Comment by Chris Grant — March 24, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Chris, I don’t think those laws are wise at all. As an abuse survivor myself, I can attest that the law gives kids a terrible choice to make. They can keep the abuse to themselves, and try to deal with it themselves, or they can tell someone, who will call the police. There will be a visit by Children’s Protective Services, the abuser will find out that the child told, and in cases where nothing can be proven (i.e. emotional abuse, or physical abuse with no bruising, or sexual abuse, or any other situation where it’s just the child’s word against the adult’s) the abuse will probably continue after the investigation, and the child will be punished for “tattling.” It’s a heartbreaking choice.
The law does say that any suspicion must be reported. I don’t know how they define “suspicion,” but there are a LOT of calls made on families where there really is no abuse taking place. As a result, “investigatons” are often rather lax, with the people involved focused on showing the lack of evidence of abuse, rather than trying to uncover evidence of abuse. This is great, for innocent families, but as I’m sure you can imagine, it causes problems when there is actual abuse taking place.
Having said that, I support the Church’s policy of having Bishops take abuse allegations to the authorities. Hopefully a Bishop will have discernment to know what is really happening behind closed doors, and how to help the entire family, especially in the event that there is abuse happening but the investigation reveals no evidence of it. I just think that Bishops need to know that the policy isn’t a suggestion, and that it’s important to believe allegations of abuse unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, and even then, all allegations should be reported.
Comment by Ariel — March 24, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Re: windows in classroom doors. My church building has windows (frosted) in all of the classroom doors. They have been there since it was built in the mid 60′s. It should be fairly simple to replace them with clear glass.
Comment by Capt. Obsidian — March 24, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
In Chile (South america), all the classroom have windows (clear glass) and in the bishop office are frosted .
Comment by Gabriel Campos — March 26, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
My stake president just doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. I’m going to concentrate on not smiling the next time I see him. It’s very difficult for me to hide my feelings. An actress I’m not. I will have to think of very sad things.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
I mean, he attended my ward Sunday and kept glancing at me weirdly. And I tried to look very virtuous and non-blog type of person. No offense.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
And I do not feel humble like when the prophet came out against the MX missile project which I was petitioning against.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
I’m a bit late to this discussion, but I still wanted to comment in reference to #28 which has the link to child abuse statistics.
As stated above, in that article, the statistics do show that women are more likely than men to be child abuse perpetrators. However, an important distinction should be noted. Child abuse encompasses neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse. The majority of child abuse is neglect, nearly all of which is perpetrated by parents. And, really, what type of child abuse are you concerned about in the primary/nursery/church activity setting? The child abuse statistics that are relevant to this discussion are the physical or sexual abuse of a child.
My main concern in this context is sexual abuse, which constitutes about 10% of all the cases examined in that study (physical abuse is about 19%).
According to these statistics, which are pretty consistent with other sources, women are only perpetrators in 14% of all sexual abuse cases of boys and 6% of all cases against girls. The overwelming majority of sexual abuse perpetrators are male.
Comment by Cherie — April 7, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Yes, thus the inescapable logic.
Pedophiles are most likely men.
Men can be primary teachers.
Therefore men that teach primary are most likely to be pedophiles.
Doesn’t anyone see anything wrong with this picture?
Perhaps this is where such logic is leading us.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 7, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Jim, post 55: There are probably people who use the logic you cite, but I wouldn’t say it is good logic; although I think the premises are true, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Do you think that everyone who supports the Church’s policies regarding male teachers is using such bad logic?
Comment by BrianJ — April 8, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
Another thing, the presidency won’t have to go constantly checking because most buildings, at least in Utah, are constantly full and people are always in the halls. The nervous moms will love being able to watch their children in the nursery. I don’t see that as a problem.
What I see as a problem is the red tape and bureaucracy taking their sweet time to do it. Doesn’t it make you feel sorry for my stake president. I am such a pit bull.
Comment by annegb — April 10, 2006 @ 9:21 am
No, of course not everyone. But certainly a small vocal minority. Apparently it is a common enough rationale, well on its way to cultural normalization.
Imagine neurotic mommies peeping through a keyhole to keep their little sunbeam safe. What a great target market for a heavy Prozac regimen.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 10, 2006 @ 11:24 am
People regularly peep through the peepholes in nursery. I think it a good thing. Indeed I think the world would be a better place if parents would do that and see if their child is misbehaving and then come in to help if they are. Far too many parents of small kids just jaunt them off and then forget about it. For young kids having parents help them adjust and deal with discipline is important.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 10, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
My wife and I were just released from our 3 month old calling as nursery workers. She was released so she could be called as 1st counselor in the Primary. I was just unceremoniously dumped because I’m not to be trusted with small children. As we were told by the counselor an hour ago, “and you’ll be released because of policy”. He and my wife made it seem as some kind of joke. I took it as a slap in the face.
I’ve taught (as team and alone) half of the different age groups in primary, several different age groups in YM, and am a FRIGGIN TEACHER of 7-12 grade. I’ve raised my own 4 year old, some of the time as a single parent. I’m his primary caregiver and have always been there when his mother was out playing around.
Yet, I can’t be trusted to be alone with a bunch of kids at my own church. I’m worthy to hold the priesthood, heal the sick, move mountains, etc., but no worthy to be trusted with children.
I don’t think I’ll be taking any more callings involving anyone under the age of 18. I might “molest” them, since it seems to be my natural born tendency.
Comment by Jason — September 10, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
Jason, as a school teacher you are surely aware that children have made false accusations against adults with alarming frequency. Quit kvetching about the Church’s efforts to protect you from something that would destroy you, your family, and your livelihood.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 10, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Coming from a non-molestor, I can’t really say that your words count for much.
I’ve been branded as a molestor from the get-go. I’ve gotten the same crap for years as a teacher. When I tried to go into early childhood ed. I was given dirty looks and no assistance.
I guess political correctness has run aground in the church. Maybe I’ll have my son pulled out of class until they can provide a team teacher to assist his female teacher. Better safe than sorry seems to be the prevailing policy.
Comment by Jason — September 10, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
“Coming from a non-molestor, I can’t really say that your words count for much.”
I guess you still don’t get it: this isn’t about you.
I’m not sure what your background is, but I’ve worked with sexually abused children and they sometimes act out sexually. If someone walked in on a child acting this way with you, you’d be toast–not just in Church, not just in your community, but you’d never be employable as a teacher again. And sometimes children with no abuse history fake allegations for whotheheckknows what reason. I would think you would be grateful that the Church was protecting you from false allegations.
Further, you may be no threat to the children, but child molesters don’t normally wear identification tags. It is not unreasonable for the Church to take this kind of action to protect children. As someone who sends his own child(ren) to church classes, I would think that you would be grateful for the Church’s efforts to protect your own child.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 10, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
To me, this is akin to telling a woman that she’s being released from a team-teach because the man is needed elsewhere and she is too incompetent to continue alone. She doesn’t have the leadership skills, the ability to cope, etc. Starting to hit home?
This policy is denigrating to the priesthood. It protects children only by succumbing to the political correctness that infects our society. It casts a blanket of suspicion across the entire priesthood body… better to be safe (and prejudge) than sorry and have to actually deal with the occasional problem. So, I suffer the sins of some guy in SLC.
A FAIR policy would be to require team teaching for ALL classes, and not just for men. I think I will demand that of my bishop, or pull my son from his class. Come to think of it, his teacher is a professional teacher during the week, same as me. His teacher loves kids, same as me. His teacher has special programs for his behavior problems, same as I have. But SHE isn’t being outrightly accused of being a “future molestor” like I am. That’s such a huge slap in the face. It is just wrong.
Comment by Jason — September 11, 2006 @ 1:15 am
“Starting to hit home?”
No, actually, because there is a world of difference between “incompetent” and “a policy designed to protect you and other children.”
“A FAIR policy would be to require team teaching for ALL classes, and not just for men.”
No, actually, it is a rational response to the fact that sexual abusers are substantially more likely to be male than female.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 13, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
On the other hand Julie I found this story in today’s Deseret News fairly relevant.
There a five cases of sexual abuse by women going through the Utah County courts right now. When I looked up the local sexual abuse registry there were women on it. (Including an odd one of a woman who dressed up as a man to rape women and who is presently incarcerated a the mental hospital)
Comment by Clark Goble — September 13, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Whoops, hit enter too soon. I was about to say, but to be fair the article also notes that “ss of late August, there were 17 female offenders — out of 1,700 total sex offenders” in the Utah State Prison. So clearly Julie is correct. Although the fact people treat women on men sex radically different from men on women sex means things are probably underreported somewhat. Not to mention how disbelief means abuse charges aren’t heeded. (Much like abuse in general was treated before the 90′s)
Comment by Clark Goble — September 13, 2006 @ 2:06 pm