Suspended without pay, then cleared?
One of the worst features of our (UFT) new contract is that teachers accused of sexual misconduct are immediately suspended (this is appropriate) without pay (this is outrageous).
Now we have a report of a teacher accused, suspended without pay, then cleared. I do not find the first report reliable, but since the teacher accused and I have common acquaintances, I may be able to verify the story next week. If anyone else can provide confirmation, please step in.
Dxxxx Txxxxxxn, a fifth grade teacher in Queens Brooklyn, was accused of sexual abuse in February, according to this story in the New York Daily News, which reads in part:
"…Fifth-grade teacher Dxxxx Txxxxxxxn, 51, allegedly accosted two of the students in a hallway at Public School 123 and a third inside a classroom on Monday…"
Yesterday a sketchy post appeared on New York Teachers Chatboard (link to site) entitled "Accused Teacher is Innocent! " It reads, in part:
"Dxxxx Txxxxxxxn, the P.S. 123K school teacher accused of groping three girls, has had the charges against him dropped The three girls made up their story after Txxxxxxxn called their parents to report their horrible behavior in class…"
————————-
Back in the fall this provision of the contract was treated to extended discussion, including on EdWize. I am providing extended quotes from this discussion (<– click there to see the whole thing). Here is what one union official had to say:
"…only a pedagogue who has been charged with a crime involving sexual misconduct or who has 3020a charges levied against him or her can be suspended without pay. That is not a ‘flimsy allegation.’ It means that an investigation of allegations has been conducted, and that the investigators found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to either lay criminal charges or to seek a teachers’ dismissal. That is a rather different standard. It is one thing to say that it does’t satisfy you; it is another thing to pretend that it means a teacher could be suspended without pay based on whim and caprice." (emphasis mine – jd2718)
I responded:
"with probable cause existing when OSI says it does, it means that innocent teachers will have their checks frozen. You are not saying that when the 3020a begins, the teacher is as good as guilty? / The presumption of innocence in court does not end with an indictment. Here we have a lower standard. OSI decides?…"
"it is not acceptable to sacrifice due process for our members along the way. / You have written about zero tolerance over and over. But to sanction a member before any finding, save OSI’s probable cause, what in the world does that have to do with zero tolerance? / Maybe we need to police ourselves better. You may have a point. But if by policing ourselves you mean handing greater power to the SCI, then we have no point of agreement…."
Usually I like being right, but not this time if the report proves correct. The insult, the damage done to this guy's reputation is irreperable. But that his own union, our union, offered up the damage of suspending his pay is unconscienable. I hope he didn't have to borrow to make his mortgage payments or his rent. I hope he didn't even have to cancel vacation, or other plans. I hope it turns out that the UFT did not kick its own member when he was down.
Two weeks ago the following was posted on EdWize. What a shame the high principles it represents were abandoned for a cheap public relations stunt in the new contract.
"…all of our members are forever competent and innocent unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt,defined in their favor and defended with ferocity and cunning. That is the perpetual cornerstone of unionism, and the reason for our members’ unyielding faith in the UFT and its leadership. Whatever we may confess to our heart of hearts, we must not concede in clash and conflict with management. When truth does not suit our purposes we must still insist that it reposes with us. Management has the lawful perk of taking morally lawless actions against our brothers and sisters. We must never grease skids unless it is to run the would-be tycoons off the road. Comment by redhog — April 12, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Comments are closed.
JD2718 
I couldn’t agree more.
And what a shame redhog, despite his impressive vocabulary, was so woefully unaware of the terms of the contract he shamelessly and continually misrepresented both before and after its passage.
Neither of us care for the way redhog voted on the contract. But you see how stubbornly loyal he is to Unity? I bet he’s even more loyal to his own members. I wish all UFTers could have chapters leaders as fierce, and as loyal. No one would mess with us.
I have been complaining about the suspension without pay since I first heard about it during the summer. Leo Casey’s response was first to evade the issue, when that didn’t work he called me a protector of perverts and pedeophiles. He knew full well that OSI only needed probable cause to have DOE suspend a teacher without pay.
It’s a pity that the Unity faction of the UFT cannot be trueful when asked pointed questions.
There’s a clear distinction between protecting pedophiles and protecting our presumption of innocence.
Redhog, in that quote, demonstrates he is plainly unacqauinted with fundamental tenets of the contract he’s written about ad nauseum. His long article, in which he changed his name and posed as “a voice from the tremches,” (rather than a bought-and-paid -for Unity loyalist) was riddled with factual errors.
Furhermore, he’s repeatedly shown himself incapable of direct argument, with a marked preference for obfuscation. Perhaps you’d be comfortable with such an advocate.
If that’s the case, I sincerely hope your significant other is prepared to wait for you.
Even most Unity people knew that this provision was indefensible, whether or not they said so.
Considering Leo’s talk of sympathy for pedophiles, that’s a pretty damning statement.
I could never unerstand how our union could allow OSI to determine probable cause. OSI’s history is to assume teachers are guilty until proved otherwise. Student accusation is probable cause according to OSI. Just ask the many teachers between 2000 – 2005 that have found themselves in the “rubber rooms” and not charged based upon a student accusation.
Jonathan:
Even if I knew the particulars, and in the case you cited, I do not, I would not discuss a member’s situation in public, or with anyone but the member, his union representative or his designated legal representative. There is nothing about a particular case which is necessary for a general discussion of the issues, and the right of a member to privacy, especially in a case where the finding was apparently in his favor, should be the guiding principle.
I know that the Post and the Daily News has no compunction about trying and finding individuals guilty in their pages — without even the right to reply, of course — but I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. They have also printed the names of victims of sexual assaults, but that does not mean that we should join with them in that sort of violation of an individual’s privacy.
It seems most likely to me that a person who was falsely accused of committing multiple acts of sexual battery on minors craves, more than anything else, a return to some sort of normal life, as much as is possible under the circumstances. I do not see him wanting to have his name the subject of continuing public discussion. Barring an indication from that person that he wants to be part of this public discussion, I think principle demands of us that we leave him in peace.
That having been said, the facts you offer here do not contradict anything which I or anyone else said on Edwize during the contract ratification. I said that suspension under this clause could not be made for minor indiscretions, such as words which could be easily interpreted in different ways, but only for serious acts, such as those which involved violations of the law. The accusations reported in the media, which you have cited here, allege clear violations of the law.
I also said that this clause required, for the first time in our contract, that a person who was found to be falsely accused would be made whole, restored to his previous position with any lost salary paid. Again, insofar as facts reported in the media and your commentary, are correct, that is what will now happen.
It is impossible, of course, to fully restore a person’s good name. It was impossible under the old contract, it remains impossible under the new contract and it would be impossible under any contract, because the damage done to a ‘good name’ can never be fully repaired. Once the false accusations are levied and, more importantly, made public, some damage is both inevitable and irreversible. But everything that can be done, should be done. Our new contract provides for that to happen.
It is very difficult to craft policy in the area of sexual abuse that judiciously balances the competing rights, both of the alleged abuser and alleged victim; it simply does not do to go to one extreme or the other, or to consider one without considering the other. For example, the revelations of widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests were accompanied by some clearly false accusations. Indeed, the widespread nature of the problem almost certainly encouraged some who would employ false accusations, as they thought their claims would be more credible in this climate. It does not follow that a clear, unambiguous ‘zero tolerance’ policy was not required to address that underlying, serious problem; it clearly was, for the damage done by sexual abuse when the abuser is a person in a position of trust and authority is life-long, deep and profound. The same, I would argue, is true regarding K-12 education.
It would be foolhardy to claim that the balance struck in this contract is necessarily a perfect one, and that we should not be closely following it to see if it requires adjustments, just as we were open to change in the previous balance. The nature of what we were attempting to do precludes such certainty, notwithstanding the absolute certitude expressed in some of these comments. But the very nature of the enterprise requires that we consider the damage done by sexual abuse as well as the damage done by false accusations.
Leo,
that our union agreed to allow our members to be punished short of a finding or admission of guilt is outrageous.
the teacher is separated from the classroom. That is an appropriate safety measure while the investigation takes place, not a punishment.
But punishment first, investigation after? That’s what we allow??
Leo, I am closing off the comments section to prevent a “comment war.” If you’d like a last word, let me know and I will open it up for you, without further response from me. – Jonathan