I don't find it fun at all to see a demonstration of how young people are more mature and thoughtful in their response to a situation than the president of the school board that is empowered to see to those young people's education. It's disgusting, not fun.
Sounds like Mr. Heft-Luthy held out the hand of compromise and President Peaslee slapped with all the authority of a British headmistress.

However, the issue of education can be worked on.

What exactly is the current curriculum on sex ed relating to Consent, Rape, Dating, Relationships, Male/Female Behavioral Differences (these being personality as well as body types)?

What do the laws of Washington State -- if any -- say about Rape, Consent and Sexual Violence?

Where could it be made better?

Consulting contract for Dan Savage?

Apparently we want SPS to set up kangaroo courts.
@3 (and 4) that whooshing sound was The Point flying over your head.
Sam Heft-Luthy's letter was great, and her response ludicrous.

P.S. He did really good and prolific work for Capitol Hill Seattle blog last year:…

See Chapter 9A.44 RCW for WA state law on sex offenses. In particular, see RCW 9A.44.060 which describes rape in the 3rd degree which I believe would describe this incident. It is a Class C felony.

The sex ed curriculum (called FLASH) does have some information on sexual violence. However, FLASH does not seem to be consistently implemented across the schools, and many kids end up taking their health class online (choice of online class can also vary).

There are plenty of local experts in all of these issues with whom the district could consult if they were so inclined.
Sharon Peaslee and the rest of the Seattle School Board need to be first in line for a class on Title IX requirements, which state:

"Police investigations may be useful for fact-gathering; but because the standards for criminal investigations are different, police investigations or reports are not determinative of whether sexual harassment or violence violates Title IX. Conduct may constitute unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX even if the police do not have sufficient evidence of a criminal violation. In addition, a criminal investigation into allegations of sexual violence does not relieve the school of its duty under Title IX to resolve complaints promptly and equitably."

RCW 9A.44.010

(7) "Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse or sexual contact there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.


Exactly. Neither her words nor her conduct indicated freely given agreement to engage in anal intercourse. Therefore, rape in the third degree.
@3: fun fact, you can't have a charge WITHOUT an accusation, so she's completely off the mark. Also, different situations call for different standards of presumption and proof. A school necessarily has a lower bar to clear in proving misdeeds than a court of law.
She still doesn't understand that the protests were not about the boy's actions but about the district's actions.

Is she so blind to the district's failures here?
Like many a Board before her, Peaslee seems more interested in diverting attention than accepting responsibility. (I note that Director McLaren was the only one to admit sincere regret for all that happened.)

The district says that the Summer Leadership Institute for principals (a one-day event) included updates/training on this but (1) they allotted a whole 15 minutes and (2) the lead counsel's log indicates it is unclear if it DID happen.

It's very easy to say "we did A, B, C" but what's the proof?

What's the proof that the principal and teachers involved in this incident have had the appropriate retraining?

Where's the proof that the district has a trained Title IX officer? They say they do but really, if they are as good as their word, that's not solid ground.

Peaslee could have just done the duck and cover but apparently couldn't resist the lecture on criminal law (I witnessed the entire thing and kept thinking, "shut up, shut up, while you can." She didn't.)

Lack of a charge does not mean a crime was not committed. The Parks Service even said that in their report.
I think Sharon Peaslee is dismissing logical statements. The person that is accused of having committed the rape has admitted to having done it. There is no need to say that a criminal case would need to be proved to say that rape occurred on a SPS field trip and that SPS did not take appropriate action afterwards. Does the School Board President have any children?
@20: If you had 75% certainty that the boy raped the girl, would that not be enough for you to act? 80%? Reasonable doubt is a very high threshold.
@20, It doesn't fucking matter. The protests were not about holding the boy accountable. The protests were not about the boy's actions.

Try to pay attention: the protests were about the district's failure to follow the law and their own policies and procedures in response to the incident.

All of this talk about whether a rape actually occurred or whether the boy's guilt can be proven in court is a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real issue: the district's failure.
To all those that don't get it:
It's not about the past incident. It's about what actions the district needs to take to prevent a future incident.
@19 - President Peaslee has two teenaged students in SPS. (She has mentioned them repeatedly at Board meetings.)

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.