Reporter responds to student-teacher sex case decision

The Washington state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a 13-year-old girl cannot be held partially responsible for having sex with her teacher, the Associated Press reported last week.

The last time I wrote a "My Turn," I asked a couple rhetorical questions and made some observations that now seem a bit more relevant in light of this recent state Supreme Court case.

Back then, I said teachers are role models and have responsibilities they accepted voluntarily when they chose their profession. While exercising young minds, I thought teachers might spend the balance of their time molding students' character or morals.

Having sex with students, consensual or not, seems to be a long ways from what I thought might be included in a teacher's job description.

The girl was an eighth-grade student in Royal City and the man she had sex with was a 26-year-old teacher.

The Royal School District and the former school principal were sued in U.S. District Court covering eastern Washington by the girl and her family for negligent supervision and hiring.

The school district and former principal argued the girl consented to the relationship and had a duty to protect herself against the abuse.

Which is probably a great argument from a legal standpoint, but seems to miss the point.

School officials said they tried to intervene in the relationship and took immediate action to prevent the abuse, but were prevented from doing so by the lies told by the student.

That might also be true, but seems to rely too much on the investigative skills of school officials.

In my last "My Turn," I wrote that some people may not be satisfied by an internal investigation by the school. An internal investigation may not assure the alleged victim or victim's family that justice has been served. The family may feel that the benefit of the doubt was given to the teacher too easily.

If nothing else, the district should learn how difficult investigating such an incident can be when this type of abuse relies on secrecy as its principal ingredient.

Thankfully, and not surprisingly, the state Supreme Court decided in favor of the girl and her family and stated, "a child under the age of 16 may not have contributory fault assessed against her for her participation in a relationship."

The high court also said the girl was too young to reasonably consent.

"The child, in our view, lacks the capacity to consent to the sexual abuse and is under no duty to protect himself or herself from being abused," the court wrote.

I would only emphasize that Chief Justice Gerry Alexander started his sentence with, "The child."

If it is true the school district feels it shouldn't be sued because the girl was partially responsible, I think it's time for a re-analysis of the entire situation by school district officials. What message are they really sending here?

David Cole is the county reporter for the Columbia Basin Herald.