- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have recently been asked to co-teach the 4 year old primary class with DW. I really enjoy it. Last week DW was sick and so I was asked to keep the door open to my classroom.
I get that 90 some percent of sex offenders are male so there is some actual justification behind the double standard. It still bothers me some. I’ve also been a scout master with the “2 deep” and no sharing of adult leader’s tents rules – so I understand that there is a need for such rules.
I am just hoping to understand the policy better.
Curtis or other youth teachers – do you need to keep the door open in your ward? Is there anything in the CHI? What about for Bishop’s interviews? I had asked for DW to accompany DD in her baptism interview but she was waved off at the last minute – saying that it wasn’t necessary. Is there an age where the open door policy no longer applies (like with YM and YW)? Is it up to the local Bishop or Primary president?
I am interested in your contributions to help better understand the broader context.
Keeping the door open (or having doors with small windows) is the norm for the Primary situation you described and is in the CHI as an official policy. I understand the environment in which we now live (including the legal environment), so I’m okay with that. However, given that environment, I support the same standard for youth interviews (or allowing a parent to be part of all youth interviews). Frankly, the likelihood that there will be some kind of “inappropriate” line crossing is higher with the teenagers than with the Primary kids, simply because the likelihood of some degree of attraction and/or some level of general lack of sensitivity on the part of the adult to certain issues that will be discussed is higher for that age group – as well as the simple fact that the youth interviews are one-on-one while the Primary teaching situation rarely is. The Primary teaching standard makes sense to me; not applying it to youth interviews doesn’t make sense to me.
Our ward building does have the requisite windows in the doors, but I think the policy actually came after the doors were installed. I have not been a Primary teacher since the late 80s (although it doesn’t seem like it was that long ago), but in those days men were allowed to teach Primary by themselves. Usually men only taught older classes. I also get that men are far more likely to be sexual abusers, and I believe we can’t be too careful in organizations like the church and Scouts or at day care centers, etc. However, as a certified duly finger printed and background checked teacher, I do sometimes resent the idea that just because I’m a man I can’t be a kindergarten teacher. I have subbed in kindergarten and I really like it. Yes, it is illegal not to hire me for that position because I am a man but it’s so easy to come up with another reason why they hire a 23-year-old woman. I have no problem with the windows and I almost always teach with the door open anyway (except at church where they have to be illegally propped open). I’m sure there are 54-year-old male abusers, but for every one of those there are millions of us who are not (especially among those who have been thoroughly checked).
Roy wrote:
Curtis or other youth teachers – do you need to keep the door open in your ward? Is there anything in the CHI? What about for Bishop’s interviews? I had asked for DW to accompany DD in her baptism interview but she was waved off at the last minute – saying that it wasn’t necessary. Is there an age where the open door policy no longer applies (like with YM and YW)? Is it up to the local Bishop or Primary president?You raise a really good point. If the policy applies to male Primary teachers, it should apply to male bishops as well. For that matter, as an adult woman, I feel really uncomfortable in my TRI discussing my underwear with a man I’m not married to – which would be totally inappropriate in any other context. If I wanted to close myself in an office with, say, the ward clerk or the EQP and answer questions about what underwear I wear and when, red flags would be going up all over the place.
I remember a few years ago one of my friends wanted to accompany her daughter to her baptismal interview, on the theory that no adult man needs to be alone with her 8 year old daughter. I don’t recall if she did or not. But it’s only notable because that’s the only time I’ve heard that view expressed in my 30+ years of church attendance.
When we had my son’s baptismal interview, they essentially invited me, my wife, and all our kids in from the get go. I was glad that I didn’t have to worry about trying to force my way in. Don’t take this personally, Joni, since I’m not aiming it at you. It’s just a generic soapbox issue of mine. 
There is no need to discuss underwear in a temple recommend interview. The question is whether or not someone wears the garment, and the only necessary answer is, “Yes,” or, “No” – with the interviewee being the one who interprets the question in whatever way makes the most sense to him or her personally. No discussion is required; having no discussion is completely appropriate. In the case of a “No” answer, there really shouldn’t be an interview. A temple recommend interview ought to be pretty much automatic, since members ought to know the questions and their answers before any temple recommend interview – and any discussions ought to happen outside and prior to an interview with someone with whom the person feels comfortable asking questions and discussing the issues.
I know that’s not how it always is, but it’s how it ought to be.
/end of soapbox mini-rant
😳 As a former Primary President I know that the rule for the safety of the kids was there for our teachers as well . We had some kids that came from a ROUGH upbringing and had been adopted. The one little gal told some very wild stories. She struggled with boundaries and I think the men were grateful to have a safety net- windows in the doors and a team teacher. As far as youth interviews, we have given our kids instruction of what we feel is appropriate to answer and to have asked. They are prepared to say, “my parents feel that should be a discussion they have with me”. It have been very surprised at how empowered my 15 year old son has felt with some discussion and prepared answers.
We also have the mini-windows but I can see how the door open is an added deterrent. It has been a challenge as I have one little boy with ADD and ODD (operational defiance disorder?). He tends to leave class unexpectedly so it has been necessary to construct some sort of barrier.
DarkJedi wrote:However, as a certified duly finger printed and background checked teacher, I do sometimes resent the idea that just because I’m a man I can’t be a kindergarten teacher. I have subbed in kindergarten and I really like it.
I agree – but I also understand that I might pay higher insurance premiums because of my demographic so I at least understand it conceptually.
Also on that note, I actually teach Pioneer Club for the 7-11 year olds at the local First Christian Church. They also have a “2 deep” rule regardless of gender and have always found a partner for me if my team teacher isn’t present. They also have a rule that team teachers can’t be spouses as spouses might cover for each other. They did perform a background check on me. Doing a background check seems like such a simple step – I wonder why the LDS Church does not do this for our callings/volunteer positions. What are your thoughts?
GodisLove wrote:As a former Primary President I know that the rule for the safety of the kids was there for our teachers as well .
I was told this and I believe it as far as it goes… however I also feel slightly patronized by this response. If the policy was really to protect teachers from false accusations why isn’t it implemented to protect female teachers as well?
The cynical and managerial side of me thinks that the most compelling reasons are based on litigation.
So if I had to rank the reasons for the policy it would be to protect the church from litigation first and foremost, to protect the children next, and perhaps to protect me as a distant third. I don’t necessarily disagree with this. Not getting sued is a pretty good reason for a policy in my book.
Keep the perspectives coming.
:thumbup: Roy wrote:The cynical and managerial side of me thinks that the most compelling reasons are based on litigation.
Roy, thanks for posting this interesting thread. I agree that the litigation issue is huge, but I wouldn’t say it is the only reason. Just one of several. The litigation issue might very well be what drives HOW a policy like this is implemented, but I’m pretty sure that when GBH spoke out against child abuse in Oct 2002, I believe he was completely sincere, and I suspect that a man like GBH would have been so sickened by the issue.Quote:
May I again mention a matter with which I have dealt at length in the past. I speak of the evil and despicable sin of child abuse. We cannot tolerate it. We will not tolerate it. Anyone who abuses a child may expect Church discipline as well as possible legal action. Child abuse is an affront toward God. Jesus spoke of the beauty and innocence of children.
In my view current policies are not intended specifically to protect any one interest, but all at the same time.I am on my cell and it won’t quote. In response to the open door policy…have you talked to your Primary Pres? That is unnecessary and I can see how frustrating that would be. There were several women teachers I felt needed 2 deep leadership. More so than the men I had in Primary. Sexual abuse was never my concern but some were harsh disciplinarians and though I loved them, our goal was to have every child feel love. Harsh discipline does not figure in. Our primary kind of got whomever was left as teachers and we worked with what we had.
Although the CHI is a guideline, sometimes I wonder what they have based the decision on. I have high hopes that whoever wrote it spent years in Primary or RS or whatever auxiliary. My guess is that someone was assigned in the Primary section.
While it is true most sex abusers are male, most males are not sex abusers. It is in fact sexist the way society can assume this. The irony is that the one case of inappropriate sexual contact I know of for sure amongst my friends at school, was by a female sports teacher, who initiated a relationship with an underage boy in my class. Women can and do abuse as well.
It upsets me greatly. I’m actually quite fond of children, and want my own. I do NOT have a sexual attraction to them, especially not pre-teens! It is sad that I even have to say this. I have to go out of my way not to talk to children or be seen in their company.
Sexual abuse is not just the abuse of children, it’s the abuse of society, of kindness and trust. It hurts all of us indirectly, creating the assumption that if we interact with children we’re up to no good.
On Own Now wrote:Roy wrote:The cynical and managerial side of me thinks that the most compelling reasons are based on litigation.
Roy, thanks for posting this interesting thread. I agree that the litigation issue is huge, but I wouldn’t say it is the only reason. Just one of several. The litigation issue might very well be what drives HOW a policy like this is implemented, but I’m pretty sure that when GBH spoke out against child abuse in Oct 2002, I believe he was completely sincere, and I suspect that a man like GBH would have been so sickened by the issue.Quote:
May I again mention a matter with which I have dealt at length in the past. I speak of the evil and despicable sin of child abuse. We cannot tolerate it. We will not tolerate it. Anyone who abuses a child may expect Church discipline as well as possible legal action. Child abuse is an affront toward God. Jesus spoke of the beauty and innocence of children.
In my view current policies are not intended specifically to protect any one interest, but all at the same time.I don’t disagree with you OON and I don’t think that anyone condones child abuse (I likewise believe that authorities in the BSA or the Catholic Church didn’t condone the abuse – but their driving motive seemed to be to protect the organization). I only mean that when protecting the kids also aligns with church organizational/litigation issues there is clear action. When they do not align, I believe the action is less clear.
I use the examples of why women teachers aren’t asked to likewise keep the door open. Might such a policy further protect the children? I believe that requiring all teachers to keep their doors open (even with the windows) would be a major inconvenience. Because most sexual offenders are male, I believe that the current policy would discourage many opportunities for abuse but not all. How far are we willing to go? I believe that the legal and organizational answer to that question is about “industry standards.” How far are others going to protect the kids? Are the measures that they are employing becoming so common that we would become wantonly negligent if we don’t employ them ourselves? Of course, I have already stated my bias.
I have also mentioned the Bishop’s interview issue. Are we trying to protect the children or are we not.
And finally, I have no idea why we don’t require background checks for callings/volunteer assignments around children. That one sounds like a no brainer to me and is pretty standard.
GodisLove wrote:I am on my cell and it won’t quote. In response to the open door policy…have you talked to your Primary Pres? That is unnecessary and I can see how frustrating that would be.
I really don’t mind the policy per-se. I understand the reasoning behind it and since I team teach with DW – this would really only impact me on rare occasions.
Besides – in this instance I believe that any questioning of the policy (even just for greater understanding) would just draw attention to me as a trouble maker or even worse as a potential child abuser.
I only asked here because otherwise I wouldn’t even know if this was a church policy, a ward policy, or just the policy of the particular Primary President. (ok, I also vented a little
😳 )Roy wrote:I only mean that when protecting the kids also aligns with church organizational/litigation issues there is clear action. When they do not align, I believe the action is less clear.
I certainly do agree with that, and I wish that were not the case. However, I would say this is true of far more than just the LDS Church. Organizations tend to be trusting of their people because they know them. I personally know a former police officer that was convicted on multiple counts of child abuse. I would have vouched for him before this all came out. Neighbors talked about how normal he was. I’m sure his mom thought he was innocent. I look around me and I seriously haven’t known anybody that I thought capable of such a thing, including that guy. People like that rely on trust, not just from kids, but from other adults. So, what I’m trying to get at is that any organization will fall short in self-imposed safety-measures simply because they don’t believe it will happen to them, or that it will happen by one of their own. If external regulations and litigation force organizations to act in ways that seem way over-the-top toward safety, then great.In the interests of equality, female teachers should keep the door open – anything else is sexism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.