Just Because It’s on Internet, Doesn’t Mean It’s True
The suspension, Bostic said, was really for “disruptive” behavior during a quiet reading time in a room with about 150 children at the end of the school day. He took the disciplinary step after hearing of the “unusual” incident from more than one teacher. The handbook permits a one to three-day suspension for such offenses.
In addition, Bostic heard a second-hand account, from a group of teachers, that the student had made remarks about an unidentified substitute teacher. Bostic didn’t learn her identity until after he had filed his report on the disruption incident. During his conversation with the boy’s mother, in addition to explaining the suspension, Bostic mentioned his concerns about some other behavior and used the term “sexual harassment,” intending to nip it in the bud. He also wanted to make sure Mom was clued in, so that if something like it happened again she wouldn’t be taken by surprise.
Bostic told me that his years as a principal at the middle and high-school levels have made him an advocate of early intervention. He’s seen some terrible things happen among older children. Nevertheless, he said the suspension was not for sexual harassment, but for the disruptive behavior. If he had the chance to do it over, he would have kept his remarks to the mother “more general” and avoided the term sexual harassment.
In the wake of inaccurate news stories, Bostic said he has been besieged with media phone calls, and angry emails from people who found the story online. He’s also been forced out of a 43-year career that he clearly loves. But that’s not what disturbs him most. His teachers have received nasty, personally-insulting emails from all over the country, often making reference to the teachers’ physical appearance in degrading ways.
Meanwhile, up in Massachusetts, Matt Wilder, spokesman for the Boston public school system, also could not tell me about the incident in which a seven-year-old boy kicked a bully in the groin and got suspended for sexual harassment. What he did say repeatedly was: “Keep in mind that you’re only hearing one side of the story.”
Equal justice, fairness, and due diligence demand that journalists and their readers/viewers take greater care when disseminating information, especially such inflammatory charges. As eager as we are to prove our case that the public schools have run amok, we must do it with careful documentation to build credibility. Every false, or overblown, report diminishes the argument.
As a Dad, I’m particularly concerned about how the images and names of these children have been spread around the globe. The Internet is forever, and so these stories will follow them into adulthood.
Just as first reports from battle are usually wrong, initial accounts, relayed second-hand via aggrieved mothers, must be handled with care. It’s better for a journalist to hold a story, or for a reader to refrain from “sharing” on Facebook or Twitter, than to become an accomplice to inaccuracy that can damage a person’s reputation, or scuttle the credibility of the case against government-run schooling.
While Jerry Bostic didn’t say this, it’s hard to imagine he would have been shown the door by his superiors if not for the deluge of media attention and abusive emails.
Can we include open anonymous letters from a supposed ATF agent to Eric Holder, or stories about a cleric/sheikh about forbidden Islamic fruit? Anyone who calls the same person a cleric and sheikh is plainly making up stuff and probably hasn’t got much beyond Rudolf Valentino. How about anonymous essays at the U. of Chicago supposedly espousing a balanced view of anti-Semitism falsely put forward as academics? How about anonymous unsourced emails about racist attacks in France?
“Please pass this on.” You know what, if I knew who the heck to reply to I’d say “No, thanks.” And I’d add something about winning the Irish Sweepstakes or helping fund blind Nigerian pole vaulters.
“It’s clear that something happened here that has not been reported, something more serious than a childish compliment to a woman’s beauty.”
No, that isn’t clear at all. You have presented the predictable obfuscations of a man who ultimately falls backs on the excuse that he made a poor word choice, and then insists there is more to it than he can say. He would say that, wouldn’t he? Unless you can say what those details are, you’ve told us nothing exculpatory. He is a member of the educational establishment and unless you can present evidence this person has never held or has long discarded the idiotic plethora of “Zero Tolerance” concepts infecting the schools today, I will and should presume he is in the wrong.
Tom,
My contention in this piece is not that Bostic did nothing wrong. He acknowledges he would have done things differently in hindsight. However, many of us on the right eagerly posted and shared a single-source story, without scrutiny, because it fit our narrative. It’s an accusation often made by those on the right about the leftists in the mainstream media. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
What do you make of the “zero tolerance” policy of the school administration that forces a 43-year principal out of his job for one alleged infraction? (Even if he had suspended the child for sexual harassment for calling a teacher ‘cute’, which he says he did not.) Are all employees of the public school system guilty until proved innocent? Should our righteous indignation at tax-funded government-run schooling fuel rage at each individual in it, no matter his motives, or track-record?
Thanks for reading the column and for stating your opinion. I’m glad you’re here.
Live the Freedom,
Scott
“Should our righteous indignation at tax-funded government-run schooling fuel rage at each individual in it, no matter his motives, or track-record?”
no, but in your enthusiasm to defend these principle against uninformed attacks you malign the mothers by chastising everyone for taking the word of the “aggrieved” mothers. you make the mothers sound ignorant and malicious
It was not my intention to insult the mothers, only to suggest that naturally-protective mothers have a point of view, as do school administrators and we were only getting one side of the story.
Live the Freedom,
Scott
Scott, I followed your link;
School officials investigated the matter and determined the principal overreacted.
“After a thorough investigation by school officials involving the suspension of a fourth grade student at one of our elementary schools, it has been determined there was no sexual harassment,” the district said in a statement.
“We regret this situation happened,” the district said. “The superintendent has attempted to contact the family to offer an apology to the parents and student. The school system is also sending an official letter of apology to the parents and student.”
So, it kind of looks like we have heard both sides of the story, and they are in substantial agreement. Also, he wasn’t fired, he was offered a choice of demotion or retirement, and decided to take the money.
Also, it certainly looks as if the district can and will discuss the matter, when they aren’t covering up. Somebody seems to have decided the confidentiality rules don’t apply.
Please don’t ever serve on a jury.
I have seen some of these “aggrieved mothers” on TV
proclaiming their child is a wonderful person who
has been falsely accused. Said child has a criminal
record longer than they are tall and is in jail waiting
trial for their third felony.
As the mother of a son, only after I knew both sides
did I decide if he deserved my defense of him or my
wrath.
This is a tricky issue. If school districts are (perhaps understandably) always going to fall back on privacy concerns in not divulging the nature of these incidents, perhaps the only responsible thing to do is not publish the allegations of the parents?
What recourse does this man have this at this point? I suppose if he sued the district for wrongful termination, the judge would allow the details of this to come out, privacy concerns or no.
Thanks for the story Mr. Ott. I found it a good reminder of quick to hear, slow to speak. I am glad though that there are outlets that don’t filter any story like this out, even if they may not always be unvarnished objective truth.
How is it possible that his mind even conceived the idea of sexual harassment of an adult by a nine year old?
This can’t simply be a matter of a poor choice of words. It speaks to a mindset that has been years in developing in the closed institutional environment that passes for schools these days.
Considering the sexually charged media most 9 year old boys are exposed to in this day and age, I find it ABSOLUTELY conceivable that this boy made inappropriate remarks to a female teacher that the principal had every right and obligation to address with this boy’s mother.
Unfortunately, in the era of permissive parenting, Mommy firmly believes that Little Johnny can do no wrong and blames every other adult in authority over Little Johnny for his errors rather than accepting responsibility- or making Little Johnny accept responsibility- for his actions.
This narrative is far more believable to me than that of the original story.
This is an excellent article- an important reminder for us not to become what we despise.
Again, for those whose miss the point.
Although a nine year old’s capacity to be annoying is infinite, his ability to “sexually harass” an adult is nil.
You don’t have any further information yet you jump to the conclusion that the school action was appropriate. You base your justification on the statement “Keep in mind that you’re only hearing one side of the story.”?
I have not assumed the principal’s actions were justified, only that the media (and many in their audience) leaped to conclusions based on an ideological predisposition, before gathering enough facts.
This column does present the further information, contrary to initial reports, that the Brookside principal claims he never suspended anyone for calling someone ‘cute’ and that if the suspension were for sexual harassment, it would have been for a longer term.
In other words, in neither case do we have enough information to conclude that the administrators acted improperly, and in the Brookside case, the accused (the principal) asserts facts contrary to the story.
Thank you for reading this, and engaging in the conversation.
Live the Freedom,
Scott Ott
The reason we only heard one side of the story is that only one side was willing to discuss the matter. The other side hid behind “confidentiality” rules. Which is what they always do, when they know they are in the wrong. What precisely are you suggesting? That no one should discuss the actions of school administrators, unless said administrators are willing to defend themselves? That is certainly convenient for the administrators, but I don’t really see how you can claim that it is responsible journalism.
Look, if the Penn State officials said they could not discuss the allegations against Jerry Sandusky, because of “confidentiality”, would that mean the story should not be published? What should be published? Nothing but football scores?
I am confused. So, what he is saying is that the reason for suspension was NOT sexual harassment, right? Lets say, for a sake of argument, that I buy that.
They are not allowed to say what the true reason was, I can understand that. Can they at least officially deny that it was sexual harassment? Anything?
Instead we get innuendo and suggestions, which is in my book is much worse than nothing.
So, lets lay out what we know -
1. Mother says her son was suspended for sexual harassment. Under pressure, school district reverses their decision, forces principal out, and allows student back to school.
2. Principal, now unemployed, says it was not a sexual harassment, but something very, very different.
I do not see how these 2 versions can have any common ground. It means one of them (or both) are seriously lying – i.e. completely distorting the facts.
It is possible that mother had made up the reason for suspension to punish the school. It is also possible that the principal obfuscates and hides behind child protection laws and suggesting some other reason. Given the consequences they are facing as a result of this suspension, I’d trust principal lot less than the mother. Given what I know about schools, I’d trust principal even less.
No. Nothing. They literally cannot say anything without risking their jobs.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Why is it so hard to understand that taking only one side of a story and running with it is really a bad idea?
Pardon me for pointing the obvious, but he does not have a job anymore.
Now, you may said that he did say it was not a sexual harassment. I’d say he did no such thing. What he did, say, can be summarized (based on the article) as follows:
1. I have never suspended a child for saying anyone was cute.
2. Sexual harassment suspensions he gave out before were for 5 days, not 3
3. He also said that those 5 day suspensions were given out to MIDDLE and HIGH schoolers. THe boy in question is ELEMENTARY school student.
He did not elaborate that elementary school has identical policies or anything like that. I am surprised that Scott didn’t ask him a follow-up question, like, for example,
“Is 5 days a mandatory minimum?”
“Are there discretion in amount of punishment, could it be changed to 3 days instead of 5?”
“Is it possible to suspend student in elementary school for 3 days for sexual harassment?”
Or something simple like
“What is your definition of IS is?”
In short, the answer principal gave is a classical non-answer redirect that politicians and criminal give to avoid perjuring themselves. Whether he intended to do that or not, the person doing the interview should have stayed with it and did not allowed him to get away with it.
I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the school administrators in situations like these. I’ve seen far too many disgruntled parents who will say or do anything to defend their spawn–I mean kids. It seems to me that once the moms in question started blabbing to the media, they gave up their right to privacy. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves against outrageous accusations. I suspect the fact that the retired principal isn’t defending himself probably indicates a largish severance. The real political-correctness-run-amok story here is the senior school administrators immediately bending over backward for the parents and media and refusing to let the facts come to light. Finally, for those who think 9-year-olds can’t exhibit gross sexual misconduct, keep on living in fantasy land. This ain’t 1950.
Can someone please explain to me what are all the so called privacy issues in ‘PUBLIC’ schools. What’s with all the secrecy? As a property owner I would like to know what I’m buying.
Privacy issues with my doctor I understand, (which by the way will soon be public, unless that’s bad reporting too).
Mr. Bostic was acting on his thought police instincts and applied the drug abuse theory that if he’s saying cute today he’ll be what, raping tomorrow. For Mr. Bostic to conclude that, your premise is to assume little boys are little monsters.
From Mr. Bostic’s point of view can I assume he’s actually referring to himself?
What’s in your closet Mr. Bostic?
Hey chief, the only one saying that the kid was suspended for saying a teacher was cute is the kid’s parent. You don’t know what the kid really did. Don’t automatically assume that another parent has the same morals as you. While you or I might not exaggerate a story or outright lie to try to clean up our kids’ school records, that doesn’t mean other parents won’t. I agree with you that privacy should not be an issue here. Privacy is destroying the credibility of this school and distorting justice. The mother made this a public matter and the school should release a synopsis of what really happened.
At some point with the mother, Bostic brought up the idea of sexual harassment and this cannot be blithely dismissed out of hand as a poorly chosen phrase.
In no context could a nine year old ever be said to have sexually harassed an adult, no way no how.
Yes, and we have HIS side of it in the story above, and HIS version of it makes a whole lot more sense than the mother’s version.
Okay, so his side of the story is that a nine year sexually harassed a teacher.
Now don’t you feel silly buying into that?
Tolbert, read it again. S l o w l y.
He did NOT say that the kid sexually harrassed ANYONE. He DID say all he could to make it clear that that is NOT what happened and that the suspension was for OTHER behaviour.
Thanks for your reply spastictoad, I embrace the idea of having my thinking challenged. Suspension for disruptive behavior not the cute thing, I got that.
Mr. Bostic pointed out that he heard from the informal line of communication (gossip)and decided to weigh in on that. Why? Because he’s seen a lot of terrible things with older students.
Problem is– he didn’t get to observe their 4th grade behavior to “nip it in the bud” as he sees it. His line of thinking is some 4th grade comment will translate into some kind of high school assault. And that premise I do challenge.
Forgot to say: I think the fact that conservatives have reacted to this story the way we have is that we are down on teachers unions, school curriculum choices, and public schools in general these days. However, I–in the beginning of these stories at least–forget about respect for authority, rule of law, and letting managers do their job. No doubt school principals make stupid decisions on a regular basis, but we used to give them the benefit of the doubt until it’s proven–not alleged–that they don’t deserve it.
True. Another issue is probably age. Schools do things differently now. Back “in my day,” you used to have to work pretty damn hard to get kicked out of school. Now suspension seems to be the favored punishment for a wide range of offenses, many of them not especially serious by the old standards. When we read these stories, I think our first impression is that the punishment is already way out of proportion to the crime. That primes us for additional outrage when we read the apparently bizarre details of each case.
Maybe our rule of thumb should be, “If a headline sounds too ‘bad’ to be true, it probably isn’t.”
Point taken. Of course, back in my day it was permissible for my teachers to smack my backside with a sawn off piece of 1×4. And that wasn’t considered serious or extreme. Shoot, I don’t consider it serious or extreme today. Schools these days have a lot fewer “tools” at their disposal to enforce discipline.
To add further clarity and an example to the reasons for suspension:
My sister, who was tardy to one class 3 times, received a 3 day suspension. She has also been told in no uncertain terms that the class period assigned to the teacher is for -only- the teacher; not to use the restroom, not to use the library, not for any reason on Earth should a student be allowed to exit the classroom during class.
Or, for another example, the teacher wrote her up for leaving class for her dental appointment, which she had a note and proof of. I ended up having words with the principal, who then promised me, “It will never happen again.” Yet the same teacher still does the exact same thing to other children, with no repercussions.
Regarding the story at hand, thank you Scott for waiting for legitimate information prior to blasting this across cyberspace.
Thanks, Scott. Your gentle reminder makes an important point.
If we desire journalism to be something more than propaganda, we must protect it from deteriorating from our side of the fence…because, heaven knows…it has completely disintegrated on the other side of the fence.
Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron these days in leftist circles. Not only do they not cherish the truth, they are often on a mission to intentionally distort it, cover it up or betray it…by any means necessary.
An overbearing parent relaying a “situation” in which their little darling was suspended from school…justifies a bit of caution before accepting their “version” of a story. It may turn out to be true…but on OUR side of the fence…that shouldn’t be enough to simply run with a “narrative” without more investigation into facts, evidence and corroboration.
If we want truth from our information stream…then we must cherish truth, not become slaves to a “message” we want delivered.
We have had quite enough of that type of “journOlism” to last us a lifetime.
Thank you again for the gentle reminder. It will serve us well for the trying days to come.
While it’s common sense indeed to ignore sensationalist appeals to pass on the unsubstantiated outrage du jour, ultimately stories like these are about whose politico-cultural narrative you subscribe to and want to see spread. Journalists may claim to be members of the 4th Estate who are under obligation to arrive at some semblance of objective truth in service to public discourse but we all know that ideal is very much defunct. Likewise an “unbiased” standard can’t be expected in the underlying agenda of memes disseminated by certain segments of the online populace. It falls to the reader to use good judgment in considering the source and to what end (and for whom)does the message of the information serve.
As Scott said in the Trifecta episode, “We don’t convict people for hearsay evidence, even if it seems politically advantageous.” Indeed we hope that many are savvy enough to question just who’s conducting the cross-examination and just what are they trying to sell to the jury in the vaunted “court of public opinion.” However, for better or worse, conjecture is all too admissible in that virtual venue where verdicts prematurely reached that have political repercussions.
In the recent example of Presidential candidate Herman Cain, we saw right-leaning news consumers (irregardless of whether they were his supporters) seemingly resisted buy-in to the allegations against him for quite a while. They considered the suspect source and detected untruth in its agenda —i.e. the leftist MSM (effectively this Administration’s propaganda dept as proven by JournoList et al.) and the political weapon that sexual harassment has become for certain unprincipled opportunists (or, as Coulter “proved,” political operatives like Axelrod).
Conversely, certain other stories in the right-wing blogosphere are taken at face value because they don’t seem implausible given existing evidence that supports certain narratives. Hence the Bostic case is prejudiced by the “fact” that hyper-sensitive PC (not to mention the influence of hyper-sexualized culture) has been projected onto innocents by education officials who are notoriously progressive in their outlook and goals.
The fall-out in both cases is no doubt unfair but a consequence of the info-culture war we all find ourselves in and, as old friend of mine who was in a psy-ops unit once said, “we need to be careful not to believe all of our own propaganda.”
In our rush to complain about the hated government run schools, thank you for exhibiting some logical thinking. It seems to be that some salient points were made in this post including:
Something else must have happened because a principle with over 40 years of experience found it necessary to suspend the child for 3 days.
It seems to me that those of us who leaped to the conclusion that this was cut and dried did so out of a desire to “poke the beast” not to mention completing the mantra “schools are horrible”, “education workers are the devil”. As for the mothers, I have been one for over 30 years and have run into more than my share of “my child wouldn’t do that” deniers.
Many parents never see their children as they are, which explains the drug abuse, immorality, criminality and sheer unadulterated laziness exhibited by children today. Parents refuse to be parents allowing the government, the media and the entertainment cabal to raise the little sociopaths. Thus it is left to teachers and administrators and the law enforcement system to deal with them.
In the end, one side of the story is never enough on which to base judgement. No matter whether it’s due to privacy policy or incompetent reporting, actual professional (there isn’t much of this left) journalism demands verification. Unfortunately thanks to the discarding of journalistic integrity, the internet with it’s unfiltered, unsubstantiated reports are what we have to base our judgements on. Very sad.