Over the past several months, it appears the floodgates have opened on revelations of sexual misconduct, some reaching into the highest corridors of power.
But these are revelations only. The actual offenses have been going on, largely unreported, for longer than any of us would care to admit. And that makes it all the more important to take action whenever such allegations surface.
Some twenty years ago, during the last decade of my working career, I held three senior positions: superintendent of personnel in a large school board, and then chief executive in two different school jurisdictions. During that time, I had to deal with a dozen cases of reported sexual misconduct by employees.
The range of offenses included sexual harassment, sexual interference, sexual assault, solicitation of sexual favours, and the exploitation of students in the making and distribution of child pornography.
All the perpetrators were men, either teachers or business/operations employees. Their victims included adults and children of both genders. In all but two cases, those children were under the age of seventeen.
Of course, that number of offenders constituted but a tiny fraction of the total of dedicated and professional staff we employed. But any number is too many.
Four of the situations resulted in criminal charges being laid against the wrongdoers by police, and all went to trial. The remaining situations were dealt with internally, involving an array of sanctions ranging from formal reprimand to outright dismissal. In two cases, after investigation by police and child welfare authorities, the accusers subsequently retracted their allegations and the accused parties were absolved—although with some collateral damage to their public reputation.
In all three jurisdictions we had clear policies in place to affirm the right of every student and every employee to a safe learning and work environment. Those policies included a reporting mechanism available to any persons who felt they were victimized, or on whose behalf a report was made by a concerned third party. They also spelt out procedures by which designated managers would shepherd each case to its conclusion. In every case but two, proper procedures were followed.
Both those situations involved mistakes by two school principals (both of whom were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of their students, who were minors), who decided to investigate the reports of sexual misconduct themselves. The policy clearly stated—in accordance with provincial law—that, in such situations, it is the duty of the responsible official to contact the police or child welfare authorities, who will handle the investigation. The principals, whose performance records to that point were unsullied, erred badly. They were subsequently charged, found guilty, and fined. Duly reprimanded, they were eventually reinstated to their positions, presumably much the wiser.
One of the perpetrators in those two cases, a teacher, was subsequently cleared of wrongdoing. The other, a custodian, was eventually charged by police and found guilty at trial.
The sexual harassment situations were investigated internally by my staff, and all parties were given the right to state their cases—although not face-to-face, unless the victims so chose. In every case, the accused parties admitted to their actions, professed not to realize they had caused offense, expressed remorse, apologized, and vowed not to re-offend. I issued formal, written reprimands to them and, following a suspension, they were also reinstated. To my knowledge, there was no repeat of their behaviours.
In three of the criminal cases, one perpetrator pled guilty, two (a teacher and the aforementioned custodian) were found guilty at trial, and jail sentences were imposed on all of them. In each case, the school board terminated their employment and I reported the two teachers’ names to the ministry of education, which revoked their teaching certificates.
The fourth criminal case was dismissed by the judge at trial, where he deemed the Crown had failed to prove its case under the law. That teacher, however, was dismissed by the school board even before the trial, because we had sufficient evidence to determine that he had behaved unprofessionally, without regard for the welfare of the seventeen-year-old student with whom he had engaged in sexual relations. Whether or not the criminal justice system regarded him as a predator who should not be near vulnerable young people, the school board certainly did.
I subsequently reported that case to the provincial college of teachers (which, by then, had taken over the professional disciplinary role from the ministry). The college did not revoke the teacher’s certificate—perhaps because he had been found not guilty of a criminal offense. Those are two decisions I disagree with to this day.
In the two cases where accusers recanted—after sensitive counseling sessions with child welfare authorities—the accused teachers were returned to duty after having been assigned to a central-office work-site during the investigations. The publicity surrounding their cases, however, had the unfortunate result of leaving them unfairly tarred by the brush of public opinion.
In the wake of the recent spurt of allegations of sexual misconduct against prominent men—and based upon these experiences of mine—it strikes me that we must, indeed, pay attention to every accuser’s claims. Yes, some may be spurious, some even outright false, but there is no question that such abuses do exist in our schools and workplaces.
It seems to me, as well, that there is a difference between the exposure of such misbehaviours, with a concomitant imposition of suitable, punitive measures (call that the ethical bar, to protect the most vulnerable among us), and the higher standard required for criminal prosecution (call that the legal bar of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). Everyone is entitled to his or her day in court if charges are laid. But sadly, some predators are never charged.
Even more importantly, everyone is entitled to personal safety in their schools and workplaces. People in authority must listen and give a voice to those who feel abused and disempowered. Under my watch, some perpetrators, even if not guilty of offenses under ‘black letter’ law, were indeed guilty of sexual misconduct. And so, the employer had to act, even if the courts did not.
I’m not sure we did everything right in the situations I encountered those many years back. Despite our best intentions, people got hurt. But the one thing we did not do is ignore the pleas for help.
Nor should any of us now at this watershed moment in time.