“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Obama Education Appointee: The Fox Guarding the Hen House

(Source: Creative Commons)

(Source: Creative Commons)

A few months ago I wrote about Kevin Jennings, the homosexual activists appointed to a high position within the Department of Education.

Jennings is the the founder and former head of the pro-homosexual Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) organization, a group that pushes the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality despite the moral and health pitfalls of this practice.

This is not someone who should in any way, shape, form or fashion be involved in crafting education policy for America’s children.

Now more information about Jennings’ troubled past is coming to light.

This Fox News article cites several disturbing facts about Jennings (all dutifully denied as “smears,” of course).

Consider his past drug use–apparently without regret–in relation to his leadership of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools:

Jennings’ detractors note that he made four references to his personal drug abuse in his 2007 autobiography, “Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir.” On page 103, discussing his high school years in Hawaii in the early 1980s, Jennings wrote:

“I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned.”

Sprigg said that quote is particularly unacceptable for someone who has been named to lead America’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

“It would be nice to hear from Mr. Jennings … that he regrets the drug use he engaged in when he was in school,” Sprigg said. “But in this autobiography, which Mr. Jennings wrote only recently, he never expresses any regret about his youthful drug use.”

Jennings past drug use could indeed serve to educate young people to the dangers of drug use…if he were to indicate regret for this activity and strongly condemn his past behavior. However, according to this article, there is a disturbing lack of regret from Jennings on this issue.

Also, some 12 years ago, Jennings made it clear he wanted to promote homosexuality to school children, and expected a day to come when the people were lulled into complacency and would consider it “normal.”

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

Then comes perhaps the most disturbing item: allegations that Jennings covered up a student’s underage homosexual encounter with an older man.

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’” [Audio is available on the professor's Web site.]

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

Anyone with their eyes open knew before the election we would be getting an ultra-Left, Marxist, social-engineering, pro-homosexual radical if we elected Barack Obama to the presidency–and we did it anyway.  We can’t say we didn’t know.

But the fact remains that our children are in the cross hairs of his dangerous, extremist agenda, and we need to demand that threats like Jennings be removed from anything remotely associated with our nation’s children.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.


  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Share/Bookmark
  • WXRGina

    Here's yet another extra-constitutional “czar” to deal with. And, this one's a whopper. The Washington Times and World Net Daily are also taking this guy on. Hopefully, enough outrage will erupt over this pervert being in such a position of influence over the schools that he will be forced out. He admits that the “safe schools” title is just a cover for homosexual indoctrination.

    These radicals in this administration are like cockroaches. When one is squashed, ten more appear in its place. We need a massive purge. Please hurry, November 2010!

    Gina Miller

  • DCM

    “…someday [this might] mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad…”

    Just something to think about: People who accept lies often believe that all, or most, of the world will also accept those lies. But people who accept the truth are always aware that only so many people will also accept it. The former don't like it that people have a choice of what to think; the latter know that people have to have a choice, even if it means many will choose wrong.

  • Sonya

    Here is a fuller quotation of Jennings's conversation with the 15-year-old, who may or may not have had sexual relations with the older man: “'Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.' High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people….Knew I should say something quickly so I finally said, 'My best friend had just died of AIDS the week before.' I looked at Brewster and said, 'You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.' He said to me something I will never forget, He said 'Why should I, my life isn’t worth saving anyway.'” Jennings was obviously appalled that the boy had met someone in a bus station bathroom. The boy felt pushed into such risky, disgusting activity because he was under the impression that he would be despised if he let his homosexuality show closer to home, and apparantly also felt that, as a homosexual, his life was worthless anyway, because he had picked up the idea from people around him that a homosexual was a terrible thing to be. Jennings appears to have been appalled partly because if the boy were having sex, his life might be in danger, and he said something to try to save the boy's life. Am I missing something? Isn't a teacher who tries to say something to get a child not to want to die doing a good deed? If the boy had admitted to having sex with the older man, then there might–might–be an infraction involved. But the boy made no such admission. And even if there were an infraction, how does that sit in the balance with an expression of concern that might have saved the boy's life? John 8:7.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    How many fellow underage boys have their own home for Brewster and him to go to and have sex?

    It seems pretty clear that Brewster went home with an adult male and had homosexual sex with him, and I have not heard Jennings or any of his apologists deny that.

    A true expression of concern would have been to report this statutory rape to the authority and to counsel the boy to get some help so he could stop having unnatural, unhealthy and immoral sex.

    Encouraging someone to continue engaging in behavior that is immoral, unhealthy and quite possibly illegal (whether the encouragement is active or passive) is not an act of concern but one of laziness, self-centeredness and disdain for the person's well being.

    And since you brought up John 8:7 and did so through ignorance about the type of judgment discussed here (i.e. that done from an attitude of moral superiority rather than discerning judgment which, based on the clear instruction of God, identifies immoral behavior), allow me to enlighten you regarding what God has to say about the kind of behavior Jennings encourages in young people:

    “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” – Genesis 2:24 Where God outlined his design for human sexuality

    “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” – Leviticus 18:22

    “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” – Leviticus 20:13

    “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.” – Mark 10:6-8 Jesus reaffirms God’s design for human sexuality

    “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” – Romans 1:26-27

    “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 where many habitual behaviors are listed that if unrepented of will separate us eternally from God, including homosexual behavior…but also includes the fact that, like some in the Corinthian church did, homosexual behavior can be repented of and left behind.

    “…for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…” – 1 Timothy 1:9-10 where we again see this behavior condemned

    “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” – Jude 1:7, where we see the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah condemned as a behavior which, if unreptented of, can leave one eternally separated from God

    Of course, if you don't believe the Bible in the first place, then none of this will mean anything to you, anyway. But you did bring up John 8:7.

    Even if you don't believe God, you should take heed of the monumental health risks associated with this behavior. Even health organizations like the Massachusetts Department of Health and the CDC have published information which demonstrates the deadly consequences of homosexual behavior.

    No one in their right mind would ignore such terrible health hazards, and no one who even remotely gave a rip about their fellow human beings would fail to warn them about these dangers.

  • Sonya

    There would be three ways to get the boy to avoid health hazards. One would be to get him to stop being a homosexual. Unfortunately, Massachusetts social workers and medical professionals do not offer that counselling, and in fact say that homosexuality is a permanent condition. Another way would be to get the boy never to have sex again, and accept the Lord's yoke and be celibate. But this isn't for everyone. The third and to my mind least desirable would be to get the boy to start caring about whether he lived or died, and to let the boy know that at least one person (in this case, the teacher) did care about whether he lived or died. Jennings may have saved the boy's life.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    Anyone who says homosexual behavior is a permanent condition is a liar, just as anyone who says a person must always be a drunk, a liar, a thief must always be a drunk, or a liar, or a thief is lying to you. How sad that you feel you are a slave to your lusts.

    All human beings are created by God, and all human beings are under God's standard for behavior. It doesn't matter whether you believe it's “for you;” the fact that you are a human being means it's “for you.”

    If you get the boy away from this immoral and unhealthy lifestyle and into a good relationship with his Creator, he will begin to understand the infinite value of his life and how much God wants a better life for him.

    The best way to avoid health and spiritual hazards is to avoid them, not to figure out ways to get as close to them as possible without being burned.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    I'm sorry but there is simply no other way to enlighten you than to enlighten you. I am not perfect (and the Good Lord knows that), but your statements made it obvious you don't know what you're talking about; we must learn of and accept our ignorance before we can begin to understand, and we've all been there at some point. My hope is that you will understand how gravely mistaken you are here.

    The Bible is quite clear when you study this issue that we are not to judge other people as if we were without sin (none of us are), but that discerning judgment is absolutely essential. Were that not the case, parents could not correct their children, policemen could not bring criminals to justice, and judges could not judge them.

    Consider these statements about discerning judgment of what is right and wrong:

    1 Corinthians 6:2 – Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

    1 Corinthians 6:3 – Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

    1 Corinthians 10:15 – I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.

    And you will find throughout the Bible instructions to those who have accepted God's truth to share that truth with others. Ezekiel 3:18 is one of many such instructions.

    I have had the benefit of instruction through many good Christian teachers and friends. I hope you will accept this help that I'm trying to give you right now and choose to stop being an apologist for immorality. Your soul and the souls of others like this boy hang in the balance.

  • Sonya

    P.S. I did appreciate the humor of your saying that the Lord didn’t like people to act all morally superior, and then right away said, as a joke, “allow me to enlighten you,” like a holier-than-thou person would. But I can’t find the phrase “discerning judgment” in my Bible. Is that the word of the Lord, or is that explanation of John 8:7 one that has been made by men on earth? Because the problem with human made theories is that they can be clouded by sin, even if the person interpreting really means well. I know that I don’t understand the Word of God perfectly, but I try. But I also believe that God can speak directly to a person and give him a message, although it has never happened to me. Maybe it has to you.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    Thanks for seeking and asking for clarification here.

    You will notice that Christ did condemn the woman's behavior; he told her to “go and sin no more.” He didn't whitewash it or pretend it didn't exist. He acknowledged it and told the woman to walk away from it.

    But examine the context of this confrontation. The men who brought this woman to Jesus were not doing so because they were concerned that God's standard for sexual conduct wasn't being upheld. The woman and the circumstances in which they found here were nothing but tools they hoped to use to put Jesus in a bind.

    They were living not so much by God's standard but by their own humanly devised standard of “wisdom,” and Christ was upsetting their applecart by pointing that out. So they were looking for anything they could find to discredit him.

    The Mosaic Law of the Old Testament said to stone someone caught in adultery, because God is very serious about purity and upholding the sanctity of the marriage relationship (it is, after all, a picture of Christ's relationship with the Church, and of God's relationship with his people). But with Israel under Roman dominion, the Romans didn't allow for the Jews to enforce their code of capital punishment. So they intended to put Jesus in a bind here: either say God's standard wasn't important, or to bring the wrath of the Roman Empire down on him.

    But Jesus (being God, of course) outsmarted them and upheld the standard of what is right and what is wrong without doing anything that would bring Roman punishment. God has not changed his standard of what is wrong, but he has changed how that wrong is dealt with and punished. The Old Testament system of harsh punishment was designed to illustrate to the Jewish people (and to all humans) how seriously God takes full obedience to his standard of right and wrong. But Christ came and established grace for our sins–not that our sins are no longer wrong, but that if we admit our wrong, repent of our wrong and trust in Christ's redemptive work, we can receive forgiveness for our wrongs.

    Adultery is still wrong. Homosexual behavior is still wrong. All the moral behaviors God said were wrong in the Ten Commandments and elsewhere are still wrong. But thankfully now we can receive Christ's pardon for those wrongs, if we'll only admit we were wrong and turn from those habits and toward Christ.

    Unfortunately if we don't do that, our wrongs are still on our account, and if we die in that state and end up facing eternal judgment, we will be eternally separated from God in Hell.

    That is what I hope you, Brewster, Jennings and as many others as possible can avoid. My sins have been many, and I lived a depraved life before turning my life over to God, but thanks to Christ's pardon, I can now avoid that eternal judgment.

    So when someone lies to you and tells you God's standard cannot be stated because of John 8:7, or lies to you and tells you that wrong behavior isn't wrong, my hope is that you'll reject those lies and turn to Christ and his grace.

  • Sonya

    P.P.S. Sorry to write so much, but the points you make are very important, and if the Lord has provided you to me as a teacher, I want to understand. But I’m having trouble with John 8:7. Since the Lord said that those without sin should cast the first stone when he was talking about the woman taken in adultery, I don’t really understand the difference you’re talking about. The Ten Commandments forbid adultery very clearly. So according to what you say, as I understand it, Jesus should have exercised discerning judgment which, “based on clear instruction from God, identifies immoral behavior,” and Jesus should have condemned the woman. But he let her go, without calling in the authorities, sending her to a social worker, sending her to counselling, or any of that. I know I must be misunderstanding you, but could you help me out?

  • Sonya

    Thank you for your comment. But I don't understand why the Lord should have been interested in avoiding Roman punishment. The command of the Lord is the command of the Lord. Disobeying the command of God is a sin. To be punished by an earthly power is painful, but it is not a sin. And to be punished for following the Law, and to know that following the Law will result in punishment, is a glorious thing. God has not commanded us to follow his word, but only as long as no one punishes us for doing so, has He? And Jesus had not yet paid the price and redeemed mankind yet, when this event happened, so the rule of grace hadn't yet started, had it? Thank you for your teaching, but the contradictions in what you say just make the Lord's words seem more glorious and mysterious than ever. I think that both of us need to think about our ideas again.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    He wasn't interested in avoiding Roman punishment, per se. He could have held off the entire Roman army if that had been his purpose. But as I said, that was the purpose of his opponents, to try and trap him between one or the other.

    Christ had other plans and purposes, and they didn't involve displays of force or guile. In the simple way he handled this incident, he illustrated truths to us on several levels (e.g. not to substitute human wisdom for God's wisdom, not to use human beings as pawns and playthings, that Christ came to offer pardon and forgiveness for those who will accept it, etc.)

    I can see that you are still desperately trying to avoid God's truth and the reality that you are making excuses for evil. I can only hope that the work of God's Spirit will eventually help you see that so you can accept his pardon before it's too late.

  • Sonya

    I am so thankful to find out so much of this was based on mistaken reporting! The boy has come forward to say that at the time referred to he was not having sex with anybody. Close reading of the tapes by Jennings and his book also shows he did not ever hear the boy say that he was having sex, only that he went to the home of a man and that he had an “involvement” with him. All this fuss about a misunderstanding and jumping to conclusions we'd like to see. (Because I must admit that I like to see that the President appoints bad men and women to positions of power–I do not like the President and it makes me glad when I find he does bad things!) Perhaps the Lord has arranged for this whole affair to chastise both sides–the Obamaites for not holding themselves always to the very highest standards (the ones given by the Lord), and us for our pride in being absolutely sure that we are right and they are wrong.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    So the boy is a liar, then? Okay, so the boy is a liar, because I think any reasonable person can grasp that the boy didn't go home from the bus station with this guy to play checkers or talk about literature.

    Jennings apparently believed the boy went home with the guy to have homosexual relations with him; why else would he mention a condom? Did Jennings want them to use condoms as party balloons?

    So obviously, unless Jennings is the total moron you want people to think he is (and if he's such a moron, he shouldn't be helping run our country), he should have counseled the boy to get out of this dangerous and immoral lifestyle.

    He didn't.

    The only question I'm left with by your spin job, Sonya, is this: are you really this big of an idiot, or do you think the rest of us who might believe this bunk are?

  • Sonya

    Sometimes people go to people's houses without having sex with them, and it may be that that is what happened here. I believe Jennings thought that the boy might have had sex with the man, and so let him know that if he had done so, then he, Jennings, wouldn't hate him. We both agree, though, that Jennings did not want the boy to contract a deadly disease, and was trying to help him. I think our Lord teaches us that intention matters, but perhaps that is a teaching you see differently.

    Why did you call me names (are you really this big of an idiot, etc.)? I am just trying to tell you the good news.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    I told you I wasn't sure whether you were a big enough idiot to actually believe the crap you peddled, or whether you didn't believe it and just thought people like me were big enough idiots to believe it.

    Well, I can tell you I'm NOT that big of an idiot, but I'm still uncertain about things on your end: idiot or attempted deceiver. Because it's one or the other.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    I owe you an apology, Sonya. I was wrong when I said you were either a deceiver or an idiot.

    The excuse for Jennings that you passed along (which I'm sure you picked up at some liberal website) was intellectually sloppy as an excuse for what Jennings did, and I should have said it was “intellectually sloppy” instead of saying you were an idiot if you believed it.

    I become very irritated when someone tries to excuse morally reprehensible behavior–whether the attempt to excuse it is motivated by a deliberate attempt to deceive, or whether it is through intellectual sloppiness (i.e. not thinking through and rebutting illogical information that is presented), because either way the result is the same: people are deceived into embracing dangerous lies.

    I allowed my irritation at that–and the inherent expectation that I would also be intellectually sloppy enough to accept that explantation–to entice me to be intellectually sloppy myself, mislabeling your intellectual sloppiness with idiocy (which is defined as defined as “extreme mental retardation” or “a foolish or stupid person). I apologize for my sloppiness and hope you will forgive me.

    But the fact remains that the excuse you passed on in no way legitimizes Jennings' actions.

    Whether this kid had sex with the guy he went home with from the bus station or not (and any reasonable person would believe that he did) is irrelevant to the wisdom and morality of how Jennings reacted to it. Jennings obviously believed the kid had a homosexual liaiason with the man because he mentioned condom use.

    Since Jennings believed the kid had a sexual liaison with this man, the proper and responsible reaction for an authority such as Jennings would have been to counsel the youth not to engage in dangerous and immoral sexual behavior. Rather than provide that counsel, Jennings failed to notify authorities of an underage sexual contact, and merely counseled the youth to take greater efforts to avoid the otherwise natural consequences of his dangerous and immoral behavior.

    Adults and authority figures have a responsibility to point young people toward the right moral and healthy behaviors. Jennings failed miserably in that, and since he has recounted that story several times over the years with no apparent regret (until the last week or so, now that his dereliction has been publicly exposed while he is in a high appointment in the Education Department).

    That poor judgment back then, coupled with an apparenlty failure to learn from that in the intervening years, indicates that Jennings is not fit to function as a leader in the Education Department–a department whose primary goal is the proper education and guidance of America's youth.

    I hope this more clearly explains why these excuses for Jennings' behavior fall far short of any reasonable standard of credibility, logic or acceptability, and is deceptive as to the nature and depth of his moral failure.

  • Sonya

    Sometimes people go to people's houses without having sex with them, and it may be that that is what happened here. I believe Jennings thought that the boy might have had sex with the man, and so let him know that if he had done so, then he, Jennings, wouldn't hate him. We both agree, though, that Jennings did not want the boy to contract a deadly disease, and was trying to help him. I think our Lord teaches us that intention matters, but perhaps that is a teaching you see differently.

    Why did you call me names (are you really this big of an idiot, etc.)? I am just trying to tell you the good news.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    I told you I wasn't sure whether you were a big enough idiot to actually believe the crap you peddled, or whether you didn't believe it and just thought people like me were big enough idiots to believe it.

    Well, I can tell you I'm NOT that big of an idiot, but I'm still uncertain about things on your end: idiot or attempted deceiver. Because it's one or the other.

  • http://www.dakotavoice.com Bob Ellis

    I owe you an apology, Sonya. I was wrong when I said you were either a deceiver or an idiot.

    The excuse for Jennings that you passed along (which I'm sure you picked up at some liberal website) was intellectually sloppy as an excuse for what Jennings did, and I should have said it was “intellectually sloppy” instead of saying you were an idiot if you believed it.

    I become very irritated when someone tries to excuse morally reprehensible behavior–whether the attempt to excuse it is motivated by a deliberate attempt to deceive, or whether it is through intellectual sloppiness (i.e. not thinking through and rebutting illogical information that is presented), because either way the result is the same: people are deceived into embracing dangerous lies.

    I allowed my irritation at that–and the inherent expectation that I would also be intellectually sloppy enough to accept that explantation–to entice me to be intellectually sloppy myself, mislabeling your intellectual sloppiness with idiocy (which is defined as defined as “extreme mental retardation” or “a foolish or stupid person). I apologize for my sloppiness and hope you will forgive me.

    But the fact remains that the excuse you passed on in no way legitimizes Jennings' actions.

    Whether this kid had sex with the guy he went home with from the bus station or not (and any reasonable person would believe that he did) is irrelevant to the wisdom and morality of how Jennings reacted to it. Jennings obviously believed the kid had a homosexual liaiason with the man because he mentioned condom use.

    Since Jennings believed the kid had a sexual liaison with this man, the proper and responsible reaction for an authority such as Jennings would have been to counsel the youth not to engage in dangerous and immoral sexual behavior. Rather than provide that counsel, Jennings failed to notify authorities of an underage sexual contact, and merely counseled the youth to take greater efforts to avoid the otherwise natural consequences of his dangerous and immoral behavior.

    Adults and authority figures have a responsibility to point young people toward the right moral and healthy behaviors. Jennings failed miserably in that, and since he has recounted that story several times over the years with no apparent regret (until the last week or so, now that his dereliction has been publicly exposed while he is in a high appointment in the Education Department).

    That poor judgment back then, coupled with an apparenlty failure to learn from that in the intervening years, indicates that Jennings is not fit to function as a leader in the Education Department–a department whose primary goal is the proper education and guidance of America's youth.

    I hope this more clearly explains why these excuses for Jennings' behavior fall far short of any reasonable standard of credibility, logic or acceptability, and is deceptive as to the nature and depth of his moral failure.

blog comments powered by Disqus