March 22, 2004
TEACHERS PET:
Sexual Abuse by Educators Is Scrutinized (Caroline Hendrie, 3/10/04, Education Week)
A draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education concludes that far too little is known about the prevalence of sexual misconduct by teachers or other school employees, but estimates that millions of children are being affected by it during their school-age years.Written in response to a requirement in the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the report by a university-based expert on schoolhouse sexual misconduct concludes that the issue "is woefully understudied" and that solid national data on its prevalence are sorely needed.
Yet despite the limitations of the existing research base, the scope of the problem appears to far exceed the priest abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, said Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report.
The best data available suggest that nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees—ranging from sexual comments to rape—at some point during their school-age years, Ms. Shakeshaft said.
"So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said.
To support her contention that many more youngsters have been sexually mistreated by school employees than by priests, Ms. Shakeshaft pointed to research conducted for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and released late last month. That study found that from 1950 to 2002, 10,667 people made allegations that priests or deacons had sexually abused them as minors. ("Report Tallies Alleged Sexual Abuse by Priests," this issue.)
Extrapolating from data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000, Ms. Shakeshaft estimated that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee from 1991 to 2000—a single decade, compared with the roughly five-decade period examined in the study of Catholic priests.
Those figures suggest that "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,"contended Ms. Shakeshaft, who is a professor of educational administration at Hofstra, in Hempstead, N.Y.
Much as folks wished it to be, the priest abuse scandals were not a function of Catholicism but of deviant men seeking access to boys. Gotta figure the other professions that offer access to children (girls as well as boys), but make far fewer demands upon practitioners, will have even bigger problems. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 22, 2004 10:21 PM
The problem was never that priests abused youngsters; As you point out, that's an unfortunately predictable part of human existence.
What was the problem, was that these priests' superiors hushed things up, and transferred the priests time and again, instead of alerting the authorities or simply giving the priests the boot.
THAT is the problem, it's a big one, and it's certainly unique to the Catholic Church.
Further, when the US Bishops wanted a zero tolerance policy, Rome told them "No way".
In other words, the Vatican values priests more than children.
THAT is a problem, and in America, it's a big one.
Although it's true that the corruption of the Church doesn't invalidate the Catholic faith, why would any moral and rational person continue to support such an organization, if those who enabled the abusers stay ?
As for sexual misconduct in schools, it would be amazing if none occured.
However, Ms Shakeshaft is obviously blowing smoke.
She has no idea how many children are being abused each year, so she plucks a number from the air, and by constantly referring to the Catholic priests' scandal, hopes to attach some validity to said number.
She "extrapolates" from a "survey", conducted by the American Association of University Women, Educational Foundation.
However, if one peruses the data from other "surveys" conducted by the American Association of University Women, it becomes clear that the AAUW is a gender-advocacy group, and that its definitions of "harm" render the data near-worthless.
For instance, in their 2001 report, 'Hostile Hallways', the AAUW claim that 80% of public school students, grades 8 - 11, boys and girls, have experienced "sexual harassment".
These figures are said to be true of all public schools, urban, suburban, and rural.
Does anyone believe that 79% of boys, grades 8 - 11, have experienced "sexual harassment" ?
Only if one redefines normal and usually unharmful behavior as "harassment", such as the near-universal experience of looking at other people in locker rooms, or commenting on someone else's body.
The problem was never that priests abused youngsters; As you point out, that's an unfortunately predictable part of human existence.
What was the problem, was that these priests' superiors hushed things up, and transferred the priests time and again, instead of alerting the authorities or simply giving the priests the boot.
THAT is the problem, it's a big one, and it's certainly unique to the Catholic Church.
Further, when the US Bishops wanted a zero tolerance policy, Rome told them "No way".
In other words, the Vatican values priests more than children.
THAT is a problem, and in America, it's a big one.
Although it's true that the corruption of the Church doesn't invalidate the Catholic faith, why would any moral and rational person continue to support such an organization, if those who enabled the abusers stay ?
As for sexual misconduct in schools, it would be amazing if none occured.
However, Ms Shakeshaft is obviously blowing smoke.
She has no idea how many children are being abused each year, so she plucks a number from the air, and by constantly referring to the Catholic priests' scandal, hopes to attach some validity to said number.
She "extrapolates" from a "survey", conducted by the American Association of University Women, Educational Foundation.
However, if one peruses the data from other "surveys" conducted by the American Association of University Women, it becomes clear that the AAUW is a gender-advocacy group, and that its definitions of "harm" render the data near-worthless.
For instance, in their 2001 report, 'Hostile Hallways', the AAUW claim that 80% of public school students, grades 8 - 11, boys and girls, have experienced "sexual harassment".
These figures are said to be true of all public schools, urban, suburban, and rural.
Does anyone believe that 79% of boys, grades 8 - 11, have experienced "sexual harassment" ?
Only if one redefines normal and usually unharmful behavior as "harassment", such as the near-universal experience of looking at other people in locker rooms, or commenting on someone else's body.
Ms. Makeshaft is either statistically, or ethically, challenged.
"the physical abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
Obviously, she is talking about quantity, not rate. But without knowing the relative quantity of public vs. parochial schools students, her citation is, even if true (her guess becomes fact), utterly worthless.
About what you would expect from a professor of educational administration.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 23, 2004 7:18 AMMichael: Golly, I seem to remember similar problems in a whole bunch of churches. And the boy scouts. And...
Organizational cameraderie is always a problem in human structured groups. Moving abusive priests around is just a variant on the blue wall of silence. It's like asking why anyone would be a cop when so often cops hide each others' misdeeds.
Not that what members of my Church did doesn't appall me; just that I know that my Church is composed of humans, and humans tend to act in fairly predictable ways.
One last point: Actually, the dispute over zero tolerance deals with a funky little doctrine called "due process." There's also this lurking suspicion -- call it an old itch -- in Christian churches, that men can rise above the muck, that they can -- wait for it -- actually make amends, get right with God, and turn out to be better people. Maybe both, or either, are bad ideas; maybe the combination is deadly. Either way, that particular dispute has nothing to do with priests v. kids.
Jeff: Based on anecdotal and direct evidence, at the schools I attended, I'd say the numbers are higher than this lady suggests. The girls' track and softball teams come right to mind. And I went to a fair share of schools in my day.
Posted by: Chris at March 23, 2004 7:55 AMChris:
It may have changed in recent years, but when we were in school everyone knew which teachers were getting jiggy with students.
Posted by: oj at March 23, 2004 8:00 AMI graduated HS in 1985. I knew of 2 cases of teachers having sex with students. 1st a male teacher with female student (16), 2nd a female teacher with male student (
Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2004 8:36 AMSo, Chris, you're appalled. Are you still a member?
How appalled were you?
Michael has it just right.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 23, 2004 1:25 PMHeh. I know a girl, last name Ashby, who's H.S. basketball coach (a woman) would congratulate a particularly good play by popping her on the butt & saying "Nice, Ashby!!"
Posted by: Twn at March 23, 2004 2:04 PMWow, dogmatic atheist Harry Eagar believes that dogmatic atheist Michael Herdegan "has it just right." How could Roman Catholic Chris not be convinced by that?
As for the problem being "certainly unique to the Catholic Church," come on, you should know better than that. Do a google search for "Marc Dutroux" and read all about coverups of child abuse.
Posted by: brian at March 23, 2004 3:03 PMHarry:
You have to quit the Church if you're appalled that gay priests diddled little boys? Do you have to quit Darwinism if a scientist gets busted?
Posted by: oj at March 23, 2004 3:35 PMThat's not what michael said. You have to quit if your bishops are running a continentwide child sex ring.
Or, if you stay in, you have to be judged by the company you're keeping.
I'd say if you stay in, you were not appalled within the meaning of the act. Disturbed maybe. Disappointed.
You don't keep giving mone to organizations that appall you.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 23, 2004 7:59 PMWho would not choose to be judged by the good that the Church does, even if there's a small taint from the pederastic priests. What organization are you a member of that's done as much good and is umarred by scandal?
Posted by: oj at March 23, 2004 8:46 PMChris:
Sure, I support the idea that redemption is possible.
Who in their right minds would allow pedophile priests to stay leaders in the Church while seeking such redemption ?
Saying that it's not priests vs kids ignores the fact that decisions have consequences. If you support the pedophile priests, even if you're also sympathetic to the kids' plight, you're ipso facto against the kids.
In this case, it's zero sum; You're either for the prey, or the predators.
brian:
Another church, faith, or youth organization decided, at the highest levels , to cover up 10,000+ cases of abuse, spanning decades ?
oj:
"[S]mall taint" ??
Small ?!?!
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 24, 2004 6:01 AMIt's a two thousand year old institution with a billion members--they made a mistake, but it's minor in the long run.
Posted by: oj at March 24, 2004 8:36 AMIt wasn't their only one.
I'm trying to think of what good Catholicism ever did anybody, net. I feel like Jack Benny facing the holdup man.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 24, 2004 2:11 PM