Monday, February 01, 2016
In Defense Of A Discontinued Teacher
In yesterday's New York Post there was a story about a teacher accused of sexually abusing students who ended up being discontinued by the DOE. Before I go into the story let me tell you that there should be "zero tolerance" of proven sexual misconduct between a teacher and a student and they should be arrested and terminated while losing their teaching license. However, as I have previously written, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) will almost always substantiate sexual misconduct charges if a student complains that the teacher touched him or her inappropriately. I should know because SCI substantiated such a complaint against me only to have the 3020-a arbitrator, faced with real and relevant evidence and an ever-changing story by the student involved, rightly ruled that no sexual misconduct happened.
Back to the story, the discontinued teacher was accused by four different students (both boys and girls) of touching them inappropriately and sexually. If the charges were remotely true then why wasn't the teacher arrested by the NYPD sex crimes unit? Obviously, an adult accused of sexually touching a minor gives the police "probable cause" to arrest the adult. Especially, as one boy claimed he engaged in oral sex with the teacher. Could the reason be that the NYPD looked into the accusations and decided the students were not credible? I certainly think this might be the case. However, since the default by OSI and SCI is that the teacher is guilty of the allegation, they didn't need "probable cause" to substantiate the accusations, despite the questionable credibility of the students.
According to the teacher, who was not tenured and teaching Special Education students, the four students complained after he called their homes to tell their parents about their unruly behavior. Could the four students have conspired to make up the sexual abuse allegations as revenge? Maybe, and I wouldn't discount that possibility. The fact the teacher was not arrested tells me that the NYPD did not believe the student allegations makes me question the student's accusations.
The New York Post article also claimed one boy was crying when telling his story to the SCI investigators. Was he crying because he was alone with two strange detectives and was stressed and scared of being caught in a lie? Or was he crying due to the alleged abuse? I don't know the answer to this but again, why didn't the NYPD arrest the teacher, even if it was to simply arraign him? When the male teacher from Brooklyn Tech was found to have committed sexual misconduct, he went to jail. So did the female gym teacher at Grover Cleveland. Yet, the NYPD did not arrest this teacher?
Being a recipient of SCI's flawed and corrupt investigations, I am highly suspicious of the SCI report on the discontinued Special Education teacher since the NYPD chose not to arrest the teacher, despite the allegations lodged against him. If he really did it, he should count his lucky stars that he is not in jail but my own experience tells me that he was simply an unfortunate example of the overzealous SCI investigative process.