Another sign of the impending apocalypse:
I’d say that you could hear smug yankees inserting “hillbilly” jokes here, but as soon as they realizes this helps advance the agenda of people like former “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings, teacher recruiting should go through the roof in Arkansas.
Not everyone on the Arkansas Supreme Court has lost their minds.
In a dissent, Justice Robert Brown said that the majority’s opinion will cause disruption in high schools because there will be nothing to prevent teachers from having sex with students who are 18 or older.
“This will cause significant disruption in our high schools and have a deleterious impact on education in general and the teacher-student dynamic in particular,” wrote Brown.
Can I get a “DUH.”????
The Left, which is always finding something positive in sexualizing our children, will put the best spin possible on this. I can just see the arguments now.
“With all those possibilities for “extra credit”, the students’ grades are bound to rise!” (I bet that isn’t all that rises either.)
“This should make recruiting of teachers much easier, and think of all the quality teachers that they will be able to get from places like Los Angeles!”
If I sound angry, it’s because I am. There is a HUGE elephant in the room here that the “consenting adults” crowd will conveniently ignore, even if it becomes blatantly obvious, and the state’s attorney’s argued it.
Attorneys for the state argued the law protects high school students from sexual advances of teachers who are in positions of authority. But the high court found the law was unconstitutional because it criminalized sexual conduct between consenting adults.
Ignoring this was silly, as it ignores a long-standing legal concept in our jurisprudence. (It also glosses over the fact that not only is this a matter where the ability of one party to “consent” is questionable, as they are hardly in a position to “negotiate at arms’ length”.) That concept is “In Loco Parentis”, which means “In the position or place of a parent.”
To understand the application of “In Loco Parentis“, I found this brief explanation:
Through the legal doctrine of in loco parentis, courts upheld the right of schools to discipline students, to enforce rules, and to maintain order.3 Rooted in the English common law, in loco parentis originally governed the legal rights and obligations of tutors and private schools. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 441 (1765) (“[A parent] may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that of restraint and correction, as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he is employed”). Chancellor James Kent noted the acceptance of the doctrine as part of American law in the early 19th century. 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *205, *206–*207 (“So the power allowed by law to the parent over the person of the child may be delegated to a tutor or instructor, the better to accomplish the purpose of education”).
As early as 1837, state courts applied the in loco parentis principle to public schools:
“One of the most sacred duties of parents, is to train up and qualify their children, for becoming useful and virtuous members of society; this duty cannot be effectually performed without the ability to command obedience, to control stubbornness, to quicken diligence, and *414 to reform bad habits …. The teacher is the substitute of the parent; … and in the exercise of these delegated duties, **2632 is invested with his power.” State v. Pendergrass, 19 N.C. 365, 365–366 (1837).
—Morse v. Fredrick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)
“In the position or place of a parent.”
Yeah, I’m not sure that I’m digging the image that evokes. Call me crazy…
This is a judicial sanction of a predatory betrayal of trust. And sadly, I think it is a reflection of “modern” morals and values. And you can keep them.
Seems that many in positions of authority are quite simply stuck on stupid.
I have to side with you on this one BiW,the key being the in loco parentis bit. I think if a teacher is so bent on getting some action they are willing to cross the line they need to be drummed out. I also think that a student no matter being adult @ 18 needs to be looked on as an immature idiot if bedding a teacher comes off as a good idea.
“But the high court found the law was unconstitutional because it criminalized sexual conduct between consenting adults.”
BiW, what case brought this issue before the Arkansas Supreme Court? Now who has to prove “consenting” either in a homosexual or heterosexual situation. Why would they open such a can of worms?
Raji, this was a case that involved a state staute that banned teachers from having sex with students younger than 21.
In this particuar case, the defendant, David Paschal, was a 38 year old history and psychology teacher who was convicted of sexual assault under the law for an affair with an 18 year old student.
He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
The issue hinged on whether the Defendant had a fundamental right to engage in a consensual sexual relationship with an adult.
The Reuters article has some additional information to it.
It seems to me if the take is on the defendant’s “rights” without any emphasis on who the defendant is (what role they fulfill) then you simply give license to this kind of predatory behavior, because if the standard is only whether the student is 18, and not whether actual consent was given, you’re telling the teachers this is ok.
I would also think from an academic point of view, this damages the integrity of the system because you don’t know if the student’s really earned the grades because they were smart, or because they were good in bed.
BiW, damn the integrity, it is giving license to predatory behavior. They might as well do away with the law. Before the current law went into effect the age of consensual sex was 16 so changing it to 18 will not protect the student from a predatory faculty member. Verbal foreplay will go into effect before the age of 18 so that consensual sex at age 18 will be the culmination.
I have some personal experience with this type of situation that occurred before the current law. That teacher would be spending more than 60 years in prison today if he got 10 years for each molested student. He was smart as he tantalized his prey until they turned 16 and yes, by that point it was consensual.
Raji, I share your outrage. The ruling puts us in a position where those with authority may now take advantage of their charges, and I fear that it is going to take a generation of victimized students before it is set right.
You’d think that if the teacher’s union actually gave a damn about the kids, they’d be working to change this themselves.
And the flip side is that I was thinking how this law put everyone on notice that this particular “right” wasn’t going to be available to those in the profession. It isn’t as unusual as it sounds, and other professions not only tolerate but require the curtailing of some constitutional rights as a condition of the job.
As an attorney, I have to be very careful what I say about judges, moreso the local ones than say, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, because I can be professionally sanctioned if I criticize a judge in a way that diminishes the integrity of the profession. Hell, we had an attorney get in trouble with the bar association a handful of years ago for telling an off-color joke while at work. And the military has its “contemptuous words” doctrines, that prevent serving servicemen and women from speaking contemptuously in public about civilian authorities. Based on these examples, it seems to me that the state shouldn’t have any problem with saying “You may touch all of these nubile lovelies EXCEPT the ones in your school.” without it being an intolerable imposition upon the pervert’s rights.
We had that pesky “Fraternization” policy, in the military, for starters. Yeah that LT might be very hot (and quite possibly willing), but if you were enlisted, the officer ranks were out of bounds (not to say it didn’t happen, cause it did) but the ramifications were such that it could cost the officer in question their career, and the enlisted party quite possibly the same thing. Perhaps a bit closer to the point, if you were a senior enlisted, it was putting yourself at risk if you got involved with one of the junior personel in your work-center/division. For much the same reason you have with the student teacher or boss subordinate rules on the civilian side of the street. (Again, not that it isn’t done, but that it corrodes the morale in the work place, and makes a lot of folks wonder just what [if any[ favoritism is going on.) You also run the risk of potential sexual harassment charges should the relationship go south (not arguing for or against that particular bug-a-boo, just that it is a real concern) and sexual power trips once started, are a messy situation to get rid of. As of the late 90′s if you were an instructor at any of the military service/training facilities (civilian or military) you were forbidden to have any relations with your students. If such a thing was found out, your career was at risk, as well as that of the student. Again for the same reasons you mention above, As a teacher/shop supervisor/division officer/ department head…you are in a position of power…and co-habitation with subordinates or your students, is, at the end of the day, a misuse of that power (or a perceived misuse…which ends up being almost, if not at times, worse situation.).
“other professions not only tolerate but require the curtailing of some constitutional rights as a condition of the job.”
As Guy S stated, the military has had the no fraternization in effect and I don’t think we’ve seen any military personnel screaming for their “sexual” constitution rights.
I was under the impression that Supreme Court justices could determine what cases they would take and would have used “good judge-ment” and avoided ruling on this issue. If an 18 year old can vote and join the military, of course they should be able to have consensual sex.
Maybe the only good that can come from this is rewriting the existing statute to prohibit fraternization between students and faculty but that won’t happen until as you said “I fear that it is going to take a generation of victimized students before it is set right”.
Thanks for sharing my outrage which is still raging!!!