You are viewing
Volume 41, Issue 13
April 20, 2004
To return to the current issue please click
here.
|
 |
April 20, 2004
The future of light
rail now seems dark to future riders
Matt Burkett
Guest Columnist |
 |
The careers and reputations of two educators from Mountain View High
School in Mesa could be destroyed after the courts examine the blurred
line between sexual harassment and sexual abuse that was created when
a male student shoved a female student’s head into his crotch.
If the boy’s action is legally deemed sexual abuse, both educators
could face up to six months in prison and $2,500 in fines because they
failed to report the incident to police.
Those are pretty hefty punishments for two school officials with spotless
records.
There is no arguing that the male student, a varsity football player,
pushed a girl’s head into his crotch in a fourth-hour science class
on Sept. 10, 2003. Students said they saw the incident. The victim said
it occurred. The boy even admitted to doing it.
Plus, the boy has a history of harassing the victim. Disturbing stories
of him tossing the victim’s underwear into a tree and sabotaging
her science project are mentioned in the police report, which paints only
a small part of the picture. Although both the victim’s and the
accuser’s families refused to sign waivers that would allow more
details to be revealed about the incident, there is information available
that could suggest there was something more amiss here than a girl who
was forced to
endure a disgusting act.
The police report offered statements from students who had witnessed the
incident. One said the boy and girl were often seen flirting and touching
each other and that the teacher frequently had to stop them. Another said
the two students “looked more like they were laughing at each other.”
In a transcript of the victim’s statement, the girl said she had
text messaged the boy about the occurrence before she reported it to school
officials.
She had contacted the accused to give him “a second chance,”
the victim said.
In what realm of logic would contact with your sexual harasser via phone
or computer to give him “a second chance” make sense?
It is obvious that the girl had some relationship – if a bizarre
one – with the accused. She knew him. She talked to him. She either
gave him her e-mail address, screen name or phone number or she asked
him for his.
What isn’t obvious is the relationship these two students previously
shared. Did they ever date? Were they on constant flirtation streaks?
Did the girl get mad after she text messaged the boy, discovering his
insensitivity about what he did? If so, did that push her to contact one
of the educators on trial so the boy would get in trouble? Did it frustrate
her when the boy got off with a three-day suspension? Was she upset with
the educator for giving the boy what she described as “basically
no punishment?”
Of course, we don’t know and we aren’t allowed to know. But
it would be a tragedy indeed if two Mesa educators with spotless records
lost everything because of the possibility that a girl wanted to get back
at a boy she knew and flirted with, just because he made her angry.
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
|
|
|
