A few weeks ago, Kevin Jennings was in trouble.
After social conservatives at the Family Research Council had opposed his nomination as director of the Education Department's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools earlier in the year, he came under a firestorm of criticism from conservative bloggers and Fox News pundits for counseling an underage student--a 15 year-old boy, it was reported--on a sexual relationship with an older man.
The student sought Jennings's advice in 1988, and, as a young teacher, and a gay man himself who had recently seen a friend die of AIDS, Jennings gave it: "I hope you knew to use a condom."
When this was discovered (from a speech Jennings gave in 2000), it set off an explosion of calls for his resignation. The Washington Times ran an editorial suggesting he was unfit for the job. He had failed to report statutory rape and, in doing so, condoned it, conservative pundits argued. It looked as if Jennings would follow in the footsteps of former green jobs czar Van Jones and former National Endowment for the Arts Communications Director Yosi Sergant--the latest administration appointee to resign amid controversy. In other words, the latest scalp for the administration's critics.
But Jennings appears to have survived. Here's why.
The liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America dug up a 2004 letter from Jennings' attorney stating that the boy was actually 16 at the time--the legal age of consent in Massachusetts, where this had taken place--although Jennings had said the boy was 15 in his speech.
According to Media Matters' timeline of events, Fox News then confirmed the boy's age (by contacting him via Facebook). The watchdog group then posted a copy of the boy's driver's license, showing that he had been over the age of consent when Jennings advised him.
Whether or not one agrees with how Jennings handled the situation--a completely separate, ethical question--the boy's age was an important fact. Had the boy been under 16, Jennings would have had different legal responsibilities.
Under state law, teachers are considered "mandated reporters" of statutory rape, required to report cases to the Department of Social Services, though not necessarily to police, according to multiple authorities on Massachusetts education law.
If the boy had been under 16, Jennings would have appeared to violate the law, and that would have placed him in a very different situation, politically. With affirmed legal high-ground, one can bet that conservative pundits, bloggers, and political groups wouldn't have backed off in the least--and that the noise surrounding Jennings wouldn't have faded as it has. And the White House would have had a much more difficult time ignoring the calls for resignation.
The boy says he had no sexual contact with the older man, after all, so it's possible the point would have been moot. But, had the "underage" label stuck, attacks on Jennings probably would have resonated louder.
Instead, criticism of Jennings has devolved into a partisan back-and-forth. Without the objective gravitas of Massachusetts law to push it beyond politics, that's where it will probably stay.
The White House has made concerted efforts to ignore Fox News of late, but, in this instance, it may not have been able to. Thanks to that one legal fact--and the efforts of Media Matters in digging it up and pushing it out--Jennings seems to have evaded the conservative attack machine, living to work another day in the Obama administration.
The White House, meanwhile, has avoided handing its critics another victory. Jennings did not become the next Van Jones, and the hated conservative attack machine was stopped. Jennings not only has kept his job, but the administration, at least so far, has avoided what would surely be a public relations nightmare--its third appointee to fall after criticism from the right, raising more questions about the vetting process.
It was a scandal the White House didn't need. Thanks to one year of difference in the boy's age, it may be over and done with soon enough.
Tali Yahalom contributed to this post.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that Jennings had violated the law if the boy actually had been 15. Mandatory reporting statutes aren't as cut and dry as you might imagine; see the various controversies with doctors who provide abortions being criticized for not reporting statutory rape.
Don't underestimate the public's boredom with "Conservatives Attack Obama Appointee, Demand Resignation!" At this point people expect some more or less randomly selected appointee to be attracting impassioned dudgeon from Glenn Beck, and it's background noise.
Or... Ken Jennings was never in much jeopardy in the first place, and Chris Good watches way too much Fox News.
No Ken Jennings won at Jeopardy and Kevin Jennings escaped jeopardy.
I was just going to say that! Ken Jennings was on Jeopardy! while Kevin Jennings was in jeopardy!
Shorter version: Kids say the darndest things. Next time, fact check them.
There's something more than a little ridiculous about this analysis. Is the implication that the attacks on Van Jones and Yosi Sergant succeeded because they both broke the law?
The attempts to ouster Kevin Jennings failed because the White House didn't let them succeed.
There are a one thing who's logic escapes me in the article....
Jennings thought the student was 15 (it makes no difference that he was really 16) which then means he should have reported the incident under the mandatory reporting laws. It made no difference how old the student was...Jennings thought he was 15 and there for obligated. Actually, if Massachusetts law is like most other states, once the reporting was done it would have gone to social services for an investigation and he likely would not have even known the results (i.e. the student was actually 16 and there was no case, there was no contact so there was no case, etc.).
It is not up to me to decide whether Mr. Jennings should stay or go, the problem I have is with the vetting that took place to get him to this position. It appears that at the time of his appointment Mr. Jennings had acknowledged that he had violated mandatory reporting. With that knowledge how could he be appointed to the position he was.
If this administration wants to avoid more of these issues they need to do a better job of clearing individuals.
A factor that I believe is/was important that Good's analysis doesn't mention is the trouble Obama is having with gay activists. While the leadership of HRC continues to politely wait for some crumbs to fall of Obama's full plate many in the gay community are fed up with the Obama administration for being all talk and no action. If they had cut Jennings loose for doing what many in the gay community believe was the right thing to do there would have been anger about it from the community. Coming right before Obama was scheduled to speak to the HRC and tens of thousands of gay activists were to march in Washington, it would have been ugly.
A factor that I believe is/was important that Good's analysis doesn't mention is the trouble Obama is having with gay activists. While the leadership of HRC continues to politely wait for some crumbs to fall of Obama's full plate many in the gay community are fed up with the Obama administration for being all talk and no action. If they had cut Jennings loose for doing what many in the gay community believe was the right thing to do there would have been anger about it from the community. Coming right before Obama was scheduled to speak to the HRC and tens of thousands of gay activists were to march in Washington, it would have been ugly.
jb,
Really, do you really believe that as a teacher, Kevin Jennings didn't have access to the student's file to verify the child's age, really?!?!??!?!
"jb October 21, 2009 12:34 PM
There are a one thing who's logic escapes me in the article....
Jennings thought the student was 15 (it makes no difference that he was really 16) which then means he should have reported the incident under the mandatory reporting laws. It made no difference how old the student was..."
Ambinder is leaving out one critical point. Even if the kid was underaged, reporting the statutory rape would also mean outing the kid. There is a strong argument to be made that this kid had a right to privacy. In the 1980s people were far less tolerant of homosexuality (not to mention the kid had confided in Jennings that he didn't think his life was worth living). Revealing this kid's sexuality to his parents could have caused unnecessary stress and possibly lead to a suicide attempt. This is a major reason why Jennings was able to weather this faux controversy.