« Back to News is a Conversation | Archives: July 2008
A stunning ruling
Posted by Steven A. Smith | 31 Jul 6:00 PM
Good afternoon,
By now, I hope you have seen the story today on the Washington Supreme Court ruling protecting the names of teachers who have been accused of sexual misconduct. (Link here)
It's a pretty amazing ruling. If I read it correctly, it even provides the districts cover if officials choose not to notify police agencies of accusations even though they are so-called mandatory reporters.
In my view, this is another example of bureaucrats being given the power to hold back information critical to the public.
Some will argue the ruling protects the privacy of the accused until charges are substantiated.
But who decides the charges have been substantiated, or even properly investigated? And in cases of sexual abuse by teachers, publicity is often what brings victims forward to provide the substantiation?
If there is a balance to be struck, I believe it ought to be struck in the public interest. Read the dissent for more on that view.
In any event, this ruling, like other recent decisions against public disclosure, is sure to lead to calls for legislative action. But it will take real legislative oomph to overcome the powerful teacher lobby.
steve
There are 2 comments on this post. (XML Subscribe to comments on this post)
It is a very disturbing decision, and it seems to underscore that in a lot of ways, we adults do a very poor job protecting children.
True to form, the power-mad teacher's union has once again put the interests of children behind its self and those of teachers. Shameful, but I have come to expect that from an organization I once paid in to.
But it doesn't stop there, the majority of justices who made this ruling also effectively looked past the possible negative effects on the safety of children. And I also have to believe that, in this strong-union state, the teacher's union has imparted its tremendous reach and power all the way into the halls of justice.
And the media, they too see a bad ruling - not so much it would seem because it fails to protect children - but because the ruling is seen as another setback to its chief "pet peave" of the year - public disclosure.
How do you weigh that against the safeguarding of kids?
So again, we adults focus our squables and our energies into a sundry of partisan political posturings, when common sense dictates that there really is no higher priority than protecting those who need it most.
It really is quite a shame.
I'm glad that the Supreme Court said no to your fishing expedition, Steve.
Giving the newspapers unfettered access to even the most ridiculous, unfounded claims wouldn't have helped kids in the slightest--it would only create more fodder for the media. Trying to paint this as the big, bad union protecting predators is just scurrilous.
« Back to News is a Conversation | Comments on this post are now closed.
Steve Smith has been editor of The Spokesman- Review since July 2002. Before coming to Spokane, he served as editor of The Statesman-Journal in Salem, Ore., and The Gazette in Colorado Springs, Colo. Smith is married to Alexa Conway Smith, an independent computer consultant and has two children by a previous marriage, Sam and Alissa.