Job Discussion Forums

Dillinger · Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 13 Location: Vientiane, Laos

OP back again.

Wow, I hadn't checked in for a couple of weeks. I'm a little surprised at the amount of responses. I'm also a little surprised by the nature of some of the posts.

1. To begin with. I wish I had never used the word paedophile in the original post, simply because the semantic and legal arguments that have occured are largely irrelevant in my opinion. The man was a teacher who had sexual relations with his pupil who was below the age of consent in his country. He clearly knew his actions were wrong because he kept them hidden. According to the record this guy was called into the principle's office (before the abuse was discovered) because of complaints from the parents' of two of his other students about sexually suggestive comments he was repeatedly making in class. The guy is a sleaze. In my time working with him I heard him make several comments that were either racist, sexist, or simply offensive. Paedophile or not, he betrayed the trust of his student, her parents, and his employer all for the purposes of satisfying his own selfish desires.

2. The comments that some have made on here suggest that he should be free to work with children and teens again as long as he doesn't seem to be repeating his past actions:

"Has this guy been doing anything to indicate that he's up to his old tricks?

Why don't you talk to the guy? Ask if he's doing ok working with kids

My advice would be to do nothing unless it is clear that the person is backsliding into the behaviors that ran him afoul of the legal system. It really is not your business.

No indication was given that he is doing anything inappropriate now."

The obvious problem is, of course, that if he is repeating his "old tricks" no one would know about it apart from him and a scared teenage girl. Crimes like sexual abuse are done in the dark, that's part of what makes them so devastating.

3. Another concept which seems to have come up in the replies is that the man is somehow being persecuted by do-gooders and "witch burners" and that his 'human rights are being violated.' I'm not sure where this comes from. Nobody has advocated lynching the man or castrating him or barring him from securing employment. The only step contemplated and so far taken, is to inform the local Ministry of Education and other language schools about this man's actions in the States so that he is not allowed to work with minors again. This hardly constitutes a violation of his rights. If I steal from a bank, serve my time in prison, and am released then I have the right to live my life and find work. I do not, however, have the right to be employed as a security guard in a bank.

There are consequences to our actions. I would say that screwing your underage students constitutes sufficient grounds for losing your teaching priviledges. Move on, find another line of work.

We all have mistakes in our past that we would perhaps not want exposed in our current lives. We all also have the right to expect some level of privacy. The problem here is that this man's previous actions raise a very legitimate concern that other inexperienced and vulnerable young people could be hurt by him. In this case I think we as teachers do carry a responsibility to try and minimize the potential for that damage to occur. In this case that means alerting the proper regional authorities.

As it happens, it probably won't result in anything being done anyway. Just today I noticed a sign for this man's new school. It looks like he's back in business and the parents of his future students will know of no reason not to entrust him with their daughters.

moonraven · Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 3094

Which is more important here, OP: Your need to play judge and jury, or the man's human rights?

I am pretty judgmental (INFJ on the Meyer-Briggs scale), but I would definitely think VERY carefully about trying to play judge in this case.

If this guy was deferred from spending time in jail, he had to go to a treatment program--and if the psychologist who treated him believes he is "cured" of his compulsive bahvior, he could even ended up suing you.

thelmadatter · Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: welfare of minors

Seems pretty obvious that the OP's real need is to protect minors.

moonraven · Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 3094

We all want to protect minors, Thelma. No need to be catty.

The problem is one of violating someone's rights in one's attempt to protect a person who may not even exist. In this case, there is no evidence--according to the OP--that anyone is really in danger.

This is very complicated, and I do not recommend the "fools rush in" approach. It could backfire on everyone involved, bigtime.

Dillinger · Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 13 Location: Vientiane, Laos

Zero Hero · Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Posts: 944

Zero Hero · Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Posts: 944

Zero Hero · Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Posts: 944

EnglishBrian · Joined: 19 May 2005 Posts: 189

Dillinger,

I think you've found out the kinds of problems that taking the moral high ground will involve. We can argue here the ins and outs of this case, the seriousness or otherwise of this guy's offence, his likelihood to reoffend and the protection of his future students, but you have to follow your conscience of course.

The reasons I advocated steering clear in my previous post, I think you're finding out. Things are different overseas! If we were dealing with the London School of Ironing, or the County Colraine Academy of Shoe Lace Tying, and if the Govt. Education Department didn't want to get involved then we could go to the local media, stand outside the school with placards and drive the guy out of town with his tail between his legs (to start up somewhere else probably). But that's not the case here. You are facing a very different scenario. If we as teachers in other, often almost alien cutures, try to pursue these kinds of agenda we're going to have to understand what we're getting into!

Like I said at the beginning, you have to follow your conscience, and I doubt any words on a forum like this would make you do otherwise. But I'd still say that beyond a letter to the Education Department, avoid getting too 'involved' in something like this in a country and system you really don't know.

None of us here know all the details of what's going on where you are - you've wisely kept that low key, but to repeat what I wrote previously: as a rule in these situations, we as TEFL teachers in foreign countries are not able to take responsibility in situations like this. I sometimes wish this wasn't the case, but I really think it is!

High Plains Drifter · Joined: 27 Jul 2004 Posts: 127 Location: Way Out There

Hey Dillinger,

Why are you using the name of a famous American outlaw for a username?

Since you're so concerned about hounding out lawbreakers, wouldn't a better username for you be J. Edgar Hoover?

Justin Trullinger · Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:52 pm Post subject:

Zero Hero:

I stand by the following: Most research indicates that sex offenders re-offend. Whether done by psychologists, psychiatrists, or simply checking how many of them repeat contact with the criminal justice system in their lives. Trashing psychology as a field is interesting (I probably agree with some of what you're saying there.) but doesn't change this tendency. Yes, I would be talking about the ones who are caught here. Do you have a reason for thinking that offenders who are not caught would be LESS likely to re-offend? Or are you just taking pot shots? If anything, I would think that those who suffer neither punishment nor shame, and are not referred for treatment, might actually be MORE likely to continue...but then, I'm certainly not an MD.

Secondly: Did I SAY that abuse of power is more evil than sexual abuse? This is a forum for free exchange of opinions, in which I offered my opinion on what was disturbing about what happened. I did not make a qualitive better/worse judgement.

Have a nice weekend,

Justin

moonraven · Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 3094

Zero Hero:

Have it in for psychologists, huh? For one who is exhorting some kind of objectivity, you sure do not have any.

You also do not know the difference between making a distinction and creating a hierarchy. Justin at no point indicated that abuse of power was worse--just that it was different.

As for your profound reply to my comment about the dangers of putting one's nose into other folks' business--thanks for correcting my typo.