Obama Education Czar: failed to report homosexual statutory rape

The very last line...

 

obviously that was a typo

are you saying that the OPED made a typo when they write 15 and really meant 16?

so what's Jenning's supposed duties? you cannot accuse him of not doing his duties if you cannot cite his official duties first..

 

But it is interesting because you don't think there is a case even if a state statute were broken. You were rushing to Jennings' defense even when the common understanding was that the boy was underage.

Send me a handbook and I'll review....

Unless you discuss and/or investigate, how can you make the pronouncement that they have no merit? Your modus operandi is to cut-off any discussion...

You try to cut off discussion of abortion debate by citing the legality of the procedure. You try to cut off discussion of Jennings suitability for his post by insisting on citations of 20 year-old Massachussetts law from people who don't work with Massachussetts law... maybe if this were a Celtics board....

While rule of law is important, the sun doesn't rise and set on it.

How do schools across America prevent (at least when I was a kid) students from chewing gum in school when it is not against the law to chew gum? They limit cell phone use these days when it is not against the law to have a cell phone. See my point? I would consider Brewster's reckless behavior (at the peak of the AIDS crisis) to be of far greater concern than anyone's gum-chewing habit or cell phone habits.

 

No of course not. I'm just pointing out the ludicrousness of calling someone a liar because a mistake was made. That's all. The discovery that this kid was 16 not 15 was apparently made just yesterday... yet you called the writer of an article from several days ago a liar because he mis-reported the age as 15. Maybe he mis-reported it intentionally. Maybe not. There has been no suggestion of that nor is there any evidence. It just seemed to be in the ether...

Why limit it to official duties? I taught middle and high school for about 7 years. I did all kinds of things that were not official duties.

Was it an official duty to express a wish that a kid who had not engaged in sexual activity had the wisdom to use a condom when he didn't engage in sexual activity?!

 

wrong! that's what you call an unproven/unconfirmed speculation. both the regarding the age and what the boy acvtually said. everyone was waiting for the boy to speak out and get the fact on his actual age at the time, which trumps pretty much everything asserted by Faux news, the Op-ed, the right wing.

 

It's not the kid just suddenly became 16 at the time instead of 15. Truth is he was always have been 16 at the time. Did the writer even try to verify the kids age first before hurling wrong accusations?

I have no problem for a Faux news/oped writer to make a mistaking someone's age. But if you start hurling accusations based on a mistake which you can avoid by verifying someone's age then that's irresponsible journalism.

 

Are you saying that the op-ed writer plucked an age out of the air and went with 15? BTW, what the boy says also trumps what Jennings has claimed -- about having or not having sexual relations. Talk about your unsolicited advice!

 

What if you think a mistake was made regardless of whether or not any law were broken. This is one of those "serves at the pleasure of" situations. People are going to have opinions about that whether or not any law was broken.

 

so where did the op-ed writer get it from?

yeah the boy had first-hand experience of what happened and Jennings only had second hand information do you agree?

 

but the mistake on the AGE determines if a law was broken or not

 

I have no idea. As I said it must have been in the ether...

Jennings had first-hand information from one of the participants. It's just that know that participant is telling us that Jennings' version of events is not accurate. Our hearing it from Jennings is second-hand.

 

This is not just about whether or not a law was broken. As citizens we certainly have the right to express our opinion about the fitness to serve of someone who holds a post by appointment of the president.

 

because he failed to report an of legal age of consent male having a relationship with someone older?

 

It has nothing to do with reporting anything to anyone. Some see Jennings off-handed treatment of this situation as reckless. The facts are murky. Jennings says he learned that Brewster had had sexual relations with someone older while Brewster just talks about meeting another gay "person" on the bus and having no sexual relation with him or anyone. Why then did Jennings say he told Brewster that ~"he hoped he used a condom."

Something doesn't add up.

Did you go to school? Did teachers have some "say" over your behavior even if you were perfectly within your "rights" and completely legal-- offenses such as chewing gum or talking outloud or talking on the phone...

 

so you're saying jennings shouldn't have condoned a legal age of consent student having a sexual relationship with someone older?

 

Why not? Are you countering that at the height of the AIDS scare, all 16 YO gay males should have been encouraged to go find an anonymous sexual partner to have sex with every Friday and Saturday night... as long as they used a condom?

If all you have to say as a friend/counselor/teacher to young people is "I hope you used a condom" then you loudly indicated tacit approval of a reckless choice.

What year did most of the gay bath houses go out of business?

 

did Jennings say something remotely similar to this?

 

No, he didn't say it but he did communicate it...

 

he encouraged the kid to do what he did? did they have another converation prior to that?

 

I was "rushing to Jennings' defense" because there was NEVER a citation of the law or policy that was broken as a result of Jennings' conversation with the boy.

This would be the duty of the people making the accusations.

There was no need to discuss because there was never a citation of a rule or a law that Jennings broke. If there is no rule- or lawbreaking involved, the discussion is all about people with an agenda smearing a man because they don't like his politics.

If someone is going to insist that Jennings did something wrong, it is up to the accuser to cite the relevant law or policy that was broken. Until this happens, I will continue to insust on such a citation as the basis for even having a discussion about whether Jennings broke it. If there is no law or rule, there can be no transgression, and the accuser are left with only empty accusations.

The original article in this case said that "statutory rape occurred" and that Jennings "violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse." This accusation was entirely about the "rule of law," except that the boy was of age and there is no law that has been produced regarding the mythical requirement that Jennings report on the boy's behavior.

They have policies and procedures to deal with behavior that is not illegal. They have written policies regarding gum chewing, cell phone usage, passing notes, etc. Brewster may have engaged in reckless behavior (or maybe not, he is denying that such behavior never took place), but it was not up to Jennings to report on the consentual activities between two people over the age of consent.