Some thoughts on the Penn State thing: educators and administrators reporting abuse (or not)

I used to get my news via Twitter, but even that got too depressing. I've been taking a hiatus, enjoying that whole Mom thing, focusing my energies on that.

I still hear about crap that happens in the news. Like this whole Penn State thing.

When I taught (K-12, in Texas), every year we had to sit through at least one in-service meeting about reporting child abuse. If you see something, if you hear something, if you think there's abuse going on, you  have to report it. It's the law to report it. if you don't, you can be sued, go to jail, etc.

This, really, should all be a given.

But, as I hear more about the Penn State thing (a graduate assistant saw it, he reported it to his supervisor, nobody did anything), I remembered the addendum to the in-service that we were told at the elementary school where I worked.

The training said we HAD to report the abuse. They gave us the number to call. The administration, and the counselor, were there to help us, if we wanted someone to be there when we made the call to Child Protective Services (in case we were nervous about the questions they would ask, or intimidated, or whatever).

But, somehow, "the administration is there to help you make the report" somehow turned into "if you think there is something to report, you  have to go to the administration first, and they'll make the call for you." We were not allowed to call CPS directly -- we HAD to go to the administration, and/or the counselor, and they would make the call for us, I guess with us in the room. But the call had to be made by the person in authority, the school principal. Not the lowly teacher.

I was concerned about a student once, and I went to the principal. I can't remember the details, because this was years ago, but the gist is I was told not to call. The administration was familiar with the situation, they knew the family, and they were sure nothing "bad" was going on. They would "keep an eye on it," though, and if there was anything to be concerned about, they would call CPS.

Now, I went to them because I was concerned about some things the parent had said (one comment that still stands clear in my mind: "If child abuse were legal, I'm telling you, I would abuse her!", said because the girl was so "difficult" and headstrong... well, if you're saying crap like that, you're probably abusing her already, love...) and some things the girl said in class. I had no "evidence," and what I had could easily be dismissed as "parenting choice." I went to the counselor about it because she knew the family (the girl and her brothers, and the older half-sister who was now in junior high), and had known them for years. This was my first year at the school, and my first year working in elementary (which is quite different from high school).

And, yeah, calling CPS was a little intimidating. Especially when all you have to say is, "The mom is a b!tch and I don't like her. And the daughter dresses too sexy for her age, which I don't like either."

So I went to my supervisors. And they told me to not worry my pretty little head about it, just look the other way and go on about my business.

What happened at Penn State is not new. Nor is it unusual (erm, hello, Catholic Church, anyone?) It happened to be really big, and involving prominent players (fancy, well-known coach; popular football team). But, now that I think about it, the very same thing could have happened at the cozy little elementary school where I worked. Maybe it has happened, but since none of the people who work there are famous (and the parents and the district have enough money to cover it up, probably, or keep it relatively quiet), no one has found out about it.

What if a substitute teacher, or a teaching aide, or a first-year teacher actually witnessed abuse? The elementary school has students from kinder to sixth grade. What if a sixth-grader were molesting a kindergartner? The sub, or aide, or teacher would go to the administration, as she had been told. Plus, that's a pretty traumatic thing to witness, I would want to have someone "in control," someone to help me cope. Someone to hold my hand.

And then the principal does what he did to me. "Thanks for telling us. We'll take care of it."

Because they don't want to upset the parents (that was a pretty strong theme at that school). They don't want to risk a lawsuit, accusing someone of something that probably didn't happen. They don't want the negative publicity the school would get, if this got on the news. The sub/aide/teacher probably misinterpreted the situation, anyway...

So they don't call. Maybe they tell the sub/aide/teacher that they did call, maybe they tell her it's been "handled;" maybe they tell her to forget about it, or, if she asks again, even threaten her, telling her she needs to move on, forget about what she thinks she saw.

What's the policy where you work?

What's the policy where your children go to school?

What's the written, official policy, and what's the "informal" policy the administration tells the teachers?

Tweet

Abstinence-Only Driver's Ed

After the rousing success of abstinence-only sex ed programs, the only logical next step is implementing this highly successful method in other areas, such as driver's education programs. No?

It would probably look something like this:

Or, also, like this.

The ELCA and abortion, courtesy of @justsnapd8

Last night I posted a link to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's Social Statement on Abortion, since @KushielsMoon had asked me for it. I had heard a while back that the ELCA (Lutheran denomination of which I am a member) was pro-choice, but I had never looked much into it. Until last night.

Reading the statement, I was quite proud of my church. The wording, though cautious to make sure it doesn't tick off the antis, shows great respect for the woman, and an understanding of what pregnancy means for her. Every time the fetus is mentioned, the woman and her life and rights are also mentioned.

So I posted this:

@justsnapd8 decided to RT my Tweet, changing it to this:

As you can imagine, this yanked my chain. First of all, READ THE DOCUMENT. Second of all, READ THE DOCUMENT AND DON'T LIE. My church deplores the circumstances that lead a woman to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, but it understands that abortion is a morally justifiable choice.

We went back and forth on this, but she wasn't able to follow the conversation. It was too taxing to be asked to back up her claims with, you know, accurate statements and facts (those silly things we pro-choicers always go on and on about).

So, I guess after she got some sleep, she wrote this blog post. Where she spent most of her time copying and pasting Tweets between @ProChoiceGal and me, instead of talking about the ELCA's statement.

The following is my response (which I copied and pasted here because I doubted it would survive comment moderation on her blog. Alas, it did, but I was going to write about the ELCA's statement anyway, and after writing my response I realized it said most of the stuff I was going to blog. So here it is):

The ELCA's statement is a 12-page document, and you quote three paragraphs? Don't you think you're missing something?

I know you're used to taking things out of context, but the second part of my Tweet to @ProChoiceGal, where we're talking about our church choices, is kind of relevant and important. If you're interested in truth and honesty, then post the second half of my sentence.

But since you like to deal in isolated quotations, let me give you a few more from the ELCA's statement (emphasis mine):

"The language used in discussing abortion should ignore neither the value of unborn life NOR THE VALUE OF THE WOMAN AND HER OTHER RELATIONSHIPS."

"A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born..." "The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb express a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual 'pro-life' versus 'pro-choice' language in discussing abortion."

The ELCA is NOT part of your "pro-life"/anti-choice camp. Even if you only read the quotes you cherry-picked, the church clearly accepts a woman making a choice to terminate a pregnancy. It does not say abortion should be avoided or outlawed, it says "Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort." It says abortion should be an option available to women! Does that sound like an anti-choice organization to you?

Now, to clarify, if you take the time to look at your Twitter stream, you will see that you are the only who told me to look at Section III. That section says (emphasis mine):

"We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her. We are moved particularly by the anguish of women who face unintended pregnancies alone. The panic and isolation of such pregnancies, even in the best of circumstances, can be traumatic. Poverty, lack of supportive relationships, immaturity, oppressive social realities, sexism, and racism can intensify her sense of powerlessness. The prospect of having and caring for a child can seem overwhelming.

"We confess our sin as a community of faith. We often have fallen short in respecting God's gift of life and IN PROVIDING CONDITIONS MORE CONDUCIVE FOR BRINGING NEW LIFE INTO THE WORLD."

Regarding sex, it does say, "Marriage is the appropriate context for sexual intercourse." Notice it says "appropriate," not "only." And it follows that with (emphasis mine): "We affirm that the goodness of sexual intercourse GOES BEYOND ITS PROCREATIVE PURPOSE." Alas! Sex JUST FOR FUN without the intent of conceiving IS ALLOWED!

"Whenever sexual intercourse occurs apart from the intent to conceive, the use of contraceptives is the responsibility of the man and of the woman." These statements go against your "pro-life"/anti-choice beliefs in several ways:

-sex outside of marriage is acknowledged and not condemned.

-sex for fun, too; it's not solely for procreation.

-birth control is encouraged.

-the use of birth control rests on BOTH parties' shoulders (i.e., the "blame" is not placed solely on the woman, like most anti-choicers like to do).

But there's more! If we turn the page, we find this:

"Our congregations and church schools ought to provide sex education in the context of the Christian faith." Wow! Sex ed! Look at that!

"It is especially important that young men and young women be taught to exercise their sexuality responsibly." Notice it doesn't say they should be "taught abstinence-only" -- it says they would EXERCISE their sexuality. They are allowed to be sexually active, but we must teach them how to do so RESPONSIBLY.

"It is important that those who counsel persons faced with unintended pregnancies respect how deeply the woman's pregnancy involves her whole person -- body, mind and spirit -- in relation to all the commitments that comprise her stewardship of life."

"This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induces abortion." Doesn't this go against the "pro-life"/anti-choice core beliefs???

"What is determined to be a morally responsible decision in one situation may not be in another... We also need to consider the conditions under which the pregnancy occurred and THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PREGNANCY FOR THE WOMAN'S LIFE." (emphasis mine)

Regarding politics and law (emphasis mine): "What is legal is not necessarily moral, and WHAT IS MORAL SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE ENACTED INTO LAW. LAWS CANNOT ENFORCE CHRISTIAN LOVE, but in principle and application they should be just."

"In our attempts to influence the shaping of public policy, WE SHOULD NOT DISREGARD THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, but work faithfully through the public process by which justice is sought for all."

"Prevention of unintended pregnancies is crucial in lessening the number of abortions. In addition to efforts within church and home, THIS CHURCH SUPPORTS APPROPRIATE FORMS OF SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS, AND PARENTING PREPARATION CLASSES. WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR CONTRACEPTIVES TO BE AVAILABLE, FOR VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION TO BE CONSIDERED, AND FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FORMS OF CONTRACEPTION." (emphasis mine)

Again, doesn't that sound like the OPPOSITE of what the "pro-life"/anti-choice side fights for??

"Because of our conviction that BOTH the life of the woman and the life in her womb must be respectd by law, this church opposes:

-the total lack of regulation of abortion;

-LEGISLATION THAT WOULD OUTLAW ABORTION IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES;

-LAWS THAT PREVENT ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO WOMEN FACED WITH UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES;

-LAWS THAT DENY ACCESS TO SAFE AND AFFORDABLE SERVICES TO MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE ABORTIONS;

-mandatory or coerced abortion or sterilization; -laws that prevent couples from practicing contraception;

-LAWS THAT PRIMARILY INTENDED TO HARASS THOSE CONTEMPLATING OR DECIDING FOR AN ABORTION."

Again, I have a hard time hearing the "pro-life"/anti-choice argument there... because IT IS PRO-CHOICE.

It even addresses laws about spousal or parental notification or consent: "While we strongly affirm family communication and support, the law should recognize that in some cases husband or partner involvement in the decision could be unwise or dangerous (e.g., if the relationship is broken or violent). If the law requires parental consent when the woman is a minor, it should specify other trusted adults as alternatives if parental involvement is inappropriate or unsafe."

I recommend that anyone wanting to know the full story read the actual document, all of it; it can be found here. After reading the full document, can you honestly tell me the ELCA is not pro-choice?

Some thoughts on race, ethnicity and what I am: The Epilogue

I realized why the whole race/ethnicity and "Am I really 'Latina'?" thing was bugging me so much.

Too often we talk about "race" when we mean "class." We say "African-American/black" and "Hispanic/Latino" when we mean "low-income," "first-generation college students," or "limited English proficiency/English language learners."

I am Latina, but I'm not low-income. I'm not first-generation college. I'm not LEP/ELL.

When we talk about "minorities" and the "minority experience," we're talking about growing up poor, with limited resources. Parents who never went to college, and either don't value education or don't know how to show they value education, encourage you and give you the tools you need to succeed. Who don't have the resources needed to make education a priority.

That's not me. That's what made me feel like a poser. I never had to overcome those obstacles, so I feel uncomfortable claiming "minority" status because I don't deserve the credit.

Both my parents went to college. They read to me (in two languages) since birth. We bought books ALL THE TIME. My parents instilled in me a love of books and reading. We never went without. I grew up with two parents at home; even after my parents divorced (when I was on high school) they were both present in our lives.

I never had a language gap/issue in school. (I had a hard time understanding the nasaly, thick Texas accent of one of my teachers when I very first arrived in the US, but I think I was over that by the second day.)

This is why the race- and sex-based affirmative action that granted me admittance into UT-Austin offended me so much: I did not need the help. I had had all the advantages one could ask for; race- and sex-based affirmative action sends the message that you are genetically inferior, because of your race or sex, and cannot compete on a level playing field. Regardless of your background, the mere fact that you are a Hispanic female means you are not as "good" as a white male (or a white female) and therefore deserve special treatment.

Which is why we need class-based affirmative action.

I'm not saying racism and sexism no longer exist, sadly they are still alive and well, but race- and sex-based affirmative action are not an effective way to fight that beast, and they are also not addressing the problems they were created to solve (at least in education).

We need class-based affirmative action. We need to recognize the need to level the playing field based on class, socio-economic status, not race. Unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of low-SES people are racial minorities, but when we focus on race we're focusing on the wrong thing and ignoring the root of the problem, which prevents us from ever solving (or aleviating) the problem.

We don't like talking about class. And the worst part is those who have the discussions, those who make the decisions, are the priviledged, the members of the high classes. This causes two problems: A) they don't want to admit they are the priviledged (and there's always someone who's better off than you, so how can you say you are priviledged, when they guy over there had MORE advantages than you???), and B) they don't understand the problems that afflict the not-priviledged. They don't get it because they haven't been there. They don't know what it means to not have. They don't know what they don't know about how the other half lives.

I'm at the Council for Opportunity in Education's National Conference, finding out how much I didn't know. And how to fix it, for me and for you.