Posted on 06/29/2004 4:39:55 PM PDT by frnk
By AFA Journal
June 25, 2004
(AgapePress) - Most of the media covered the sex abuse scandal within the U.S. Catholic Church with diligence and zest -- and rightfully so. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found in its report on the scandal that nearly 11,000 cases of sexual abuse occurred by priests and deacons over a 50-year period.
So why has the media been nearly silent over a draft report commissioned for the U.S. Department of Education, which states that between 6 percent and 10 percent of the nation's school children have been sexually abused or sexually harassed by school employees and teachers?
That question was raised by an article on NewsMax.com, which cited the report's author, Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, professor of policy studies at Hofstra University, as saying the number of abuse cases in schools might even be higher.
Shakeshaft said she estimated that roughly 290,000 students were sexually abused by a school employee between 1991 and 2000. She said in her report that "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests," and took place over one decade, rather than five.
"Yet, media coverage of the Catholic priest abuse scandal was nearly wall-to-wall," said Newsmax.com's Jon Dougherty. "[E]very major television news program, every major newspaper and wire service, and most mass market magazines covered the scandal relentlessly."
Dougherty said online searches for media references to the Shakeshaft report turned up virtually nothing. "Catholic leaders especially are wondering why more coverage of the issue, as well as more action by government education officials, hasn't been forthcoming," he said.
--------------------------------------------------
This article appeared in the June 2004 issue of AFA Journal, a monthly publication of the American Family Association.
"290,000 students were sexually abused by a school employee between 1991 and 2000. She said in her report that the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests, and took place over one decade, rather than five."
______________________
I know that pointing out who is the "worse criminal" makes no sense from the Catholic Church's point of view but I posted this article to expose the dubious integrity of the "free" press.
Nice work.
Well, if the report is anything like this story, the numbers are suspect.
She says 290,000 were abused in the schools which was 100 times the number abused in the church over a 50 year period. That would mean 2,900 for the church. But wait, the first paragraph gives a number of 11,000 for the church. Does 2,900 now equal 11,000?
I am also concerned by the terminology used. One place they say "abused or harassed", another place they say "abused". Are the two quoted phrases used interchangeably, or not.
Finally, she "estimated" the number of abuse cases. That means she picked out a number to use. Some estimates are arrived at by projecting from known, scientifically solid data; some are pulled out of thin air. It's not clear upon what what she based her estimate.
When the report is finalized, then her estimates can be tested for validity, although I would still like to see the mathematical proof for 2,900 = 11,000.
Has comprehending the written word always given you problems?
Yes, isn't it amazing that ABCNNBCBS seem to have missed the teacher abuse story but concentrated so heavily on the priest abuse story?
The report was "commissioned for the U.S. Department of Education" so the numbers are correct. They could probably double or triple if schools underwent the level of scrutiny comparable to that of the Catholic Church.
Now, here is the math,
~ 11,000 in 50 years equals average 220 abuses per year in the Catholic Church,
~ 290,000 abuses in 9 years equals average 32222 per year in schools
32222 is ~146 times~ greater than 220, so the "sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests," indeed.
The peak of the sexual abuse of minors took place in the 1960-1970 decade, but the numbers in the schools' report cover only the 1991-2000 period. But.... in that very period (1991-2000) the priests' abuses virtually disappeared.
It would be very interesting to see and compare what was going on in the schools 1960-1970.
Again, I'd hate to talk "who's the greater villain," I'm only demonstrating gross lack of integrity and general anti-Catholic bigotry in the American press.
Only this one little example presents it very clearly.
"ABCNNBCBS seem to have missed the teacher abuse story but concentrated so heavily on the priest abuse story"
______________________
That's because their goal was NOT to "protect the children" but to assault the Church.
It is pretty simple. The Christian Church in general, and the Roman Catholic own in particular is a target. The teachers and the schools are not, since they also by in large support the same agenda as the media.
I'll give you a hint: The Teachers Union. Friends don't (Democ)rat on friends.
~ "First… the breakouts on sexually harassed vs. sexually abused."
When attacking the Church for the "priests' scandals" EVERYTHING became sexual abuse in the press. Gaughan in Boston got ten-years prison sentence plus early death from the hand of a jail-mate for touching a boy's buttock in a public swimming pool.
~ "Second, teachers don't portray themselves as Jesus' representatives…"
Very true, and this is why I'd hate to talk "who is the bigger sinner." But, is the press pretending to protect the children or attack "Catholic hypocrisy"? So far, they say they do it "for the good of the little children," and if so, the question remains why is the press dead silent on the current abuses regardless in what institution they take place? Who's the hypocrite?
~ "Third, I don't believe that the schools covering up these abuses and transferring teachers to other districts."
No one bothers them about abuses so the schools don't have to do anything. Transfer of abusive priests backfired. It was done in the faith that they were rehabilitated and would not abuse again, according to the 1970's psychobabble. Teacher is an exchangeable employee but a priest is "forever," and so it must be more difficult for a bishop to assess if the priest's crime deserves the ultimate punishment or should he be given another chance. This type of decision is not a problem anymore.
Again, the reported sexual abuses in the schools took place in the recent years in time when abuses in the Catholic Church were practically taken care of, yet the press is dead silent about them. Like it is dead silent about NAMBLA.
The Salt Lake City Tribune just ran an article entitled "Report says 1 in 10 students faces sex misconduct by school workers" http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07012004/nation_w/180239.asp?display=print
In that article, the NEA's spokesperson made the same argument raised here: "Lumping harassment together with serious sexual misconduct does more harm than good by creating unjustified alarm and undermining confidence in public schools," said Michael Pons, spokesman for the NEA.
Oh, sure, harassment of students by educators always causes unjustified alarm.
Second, teachers don't portray themselves as Jesus' representatives on Earth. Perhaps this has something to do with the way it is treated in the press.
You couldn't be more right there!
Third, I don't believe that the schools covering up these abuses and transferring teachers to other districts. The Church's poor response to the problem and the covering up of the abuse cases for all those years is why I think it got so much play in the press.
The SLC Trib article added: "The American Federation of Teachers took issue with the report's definition of misconduct, and the Education Department expressed reservations. Deputy Education Secretary Eugene Hickok said the findings could be considered "insufficiently focused." But those officials did nothing to downplay the importance of the problem.
How do we reconcile this last sentence w/the issue-taking AFT & the reservation-minded Ed Dept? Isn't this like the Catholic church, which could also have been said to have officials who "did nothing to downplay the importance of the problem?" [oh sure, all Catholic bishops would say that child abuse is wrong and is an important problem to address]
Isn't downplaying the extent of the problem, trying to redefine abuse and harassment, and trying to refocus the issue of educator-student abuse and harassment similar things to what Catholic bishops did?
"Isn't downplaying the extent of the problem, trying to redefine abuse and harassment"
_________________________
It would be CLARIFYING rather than 'downplaying' or 'redefining.'
Today I went to a local police station and saw the pictures of neighborhood "sex offenders." Evildoers and at least one silly prankster: all lumped together. No distinction whatsoever. Not helpful.
By the way, isn't B. J. Clinton a sex offender?
Redefining = Deputy Education Secretary Eugene Hickok said the findings could be considered "insufficiently focused." "Insufficiently focused" is saying there was a need to refocus the findings. To refocus the findings means to redefine the findings.
Downplaying = "The American Federation of Teachers took issue with the report's definition of misconduct"... Since when is a teacher harassing a student not misconduct?
You can quibble all you want whether a given educators' act was actually abuse, or only harassment, and "clarify away" as to ensuring that proper folks distinguish between the two, but misconduct is misconduct. And union folks and educrats not willing to call for reform are more a part of the problem than any kind of redemptive solution [as were the Catholic bishops].
A universally renowned one; yet not by legal standards. Of course, educators support Democratic candidates vs. other in financial contributions by a 2 to 1 margin (65 vs. 35%); so we can be thankful to the ed community for putting sex offenders in office.
Distinctions are essential. They were purposefully blurred in the 'Catholic scandals' (see the Gaughan sentencing example earlier in my post). The most obvious instance of lumping it all together was the term 'pedophilia' notoriously used by the press. It was used not to "help the children" but to cause maximum damage to the Catholic Church and, of course, to conceal the evidently homosexual nature of the misdeeds.
There are clear distinctions between outright sodomy and touching of one's buttock, between sexual attraction to a 17 year old and to a 9 year old, between 'appetite' for young women and for young men, between a two decades old single allegation of misconduct and serial rape.
"Clinton a sex offender ... yet not by legal standards."
___________________
One of the situations when sex between consenting adults becomes criminal offense in the US is when one party involved is in a "position of power," i.e. employer vs. employee, priest vs. parishioner, teacher vs. students, doctor vs. patient.
For the good of the country no one pursued his prosecution from that angle, nonetheless I do think that B. J. would qualify with his presidential 'improper relations' with a White House intern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.