Every Teacher's Nightmare, Part II

There was an extremely important article in the Seattle Times over the weekend. Their excellent series from 2003, Coaches Who Prey, blew the lid off the old system where perverts could shuffle under the radar, from school to school, abusing kids the same way every time before making secret agreements to move on and do it again.

It was very Chris Hansen. It was also compelling and brought about needed changes to the system. The Times has continued to press the issue, to their credit, but where they're going now should concern us all:

The state Public Records Act makes clear that all public records and documents are available to the public unless specifically exempted in the act itself. One exemption concerns the private information of public employees when the information is not of legitimate concern to the public.

The WEA argued that unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct are exempt from disclosure, and that the public has no legitimate interest in allegations of misconduct unless the government agency takes a formal action beyond what is called a "letter of direction," which the union contended isn't discipline.

The Times argued that the on-the-job conduct of a public employee is not a private matter. It also argued that investigations of sexual misconduct involving teachers and children are of legitimate public interest, and that what the school knows about allegations of misconduct should be disclosed.

On the surface, the WEA argument seems reasonable. There is a question of fairness in releasing the name of someone who is accused if the accusation isn't substantiated. But there is more to the story that turns the argument on its head.

This is the paradox of being a union advocate.

We shouldn't be in the business of protecting people who shouldn't be around children, but in their zeal to keep personnel files private that's exactly the impression the WEA gives. On the other hand, look at the Linda Cawley case, where a false allegation got a teacher thrown out of the classroom and investigated by the police. The goal of transparency is laudable, but what would your reaction be if a false allegation of sexual misconduct was made, quickly disproven, and ended up on the front page of the local paper anyways?

The Times is after the story; they're journalists, and that's what they do, but this reeks of the tabloids. Even if the story says:

Mr. Grant was accused of sexual abuse, but later exonerated.

What most people are going to read is this:

Mr. Grant was accused of sexual abuse,

but later exonerated.

....and that's unfair, no matter what the prinicples of journalism say.

It's a case to keep an eye on.