Bob Jones University: Another Religious Institutional Failure Where Predators Are Concerned

In 1991, as a senior at UNC Charlotte, I held the position of governor of a statewide student legislature in North Carolina. At some point during my tenure, I had the opportunity to meet and briefly work with my counterpart who was the leader of a similar group in South Carolina. It was a relationship I should have been excited to forge. But I didn’t expect to like him, and for one foolish reason: He attended Bob Jones University.Bob Jones, in Greeneville, South Carolina, is among the most conservative Christian and strict, biblically-based institutions of higher learning in the country. I had no issue with its basic principles, but BJU had been known for going far beyond most other Bible-based schools. Among a few other things I found distasteful, it did not admit black students until 1971 and banned interracial dating until 2000. So I assumed my counterpart would be smug, judgmental, and perhaps even bigoted.I could not have been more wrong. He was, and remains, deeply religiously conservative. He is also among the warmest, most thoughtful, and most decent people I’ve ever met. He now lives in Maine with his wife and children, loves sailing, works as a medical professional, and continues to live a devout Christian life.My point is that Bob Jones is hardly a place that produces uniformly bad people. In fact it produces mostly decent and honorable people, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or religious thinking.But Bob Jones, like all formal institutions featuring strict religious dogma, an authoritarian structure and a generally insular environment, is especially vulnerable to exploitation by predatory people who infiltrate its community. This doesn’t mean BJU and places like it are more infested with predators than more liberal institutions. Predators are everywhere. But they tend to seek out and/or remain in favorable environments. As sad and unfair as it is, strict religious institutions are often excellent ones for predatory people, simply because predators can utilize aspects of them in mockery of what they’re designed for. Dogma, structure, and some distrust of outsiders are not in and of themselves bad things. Constricting things perhaps. The wrong choice for many, perhaps. But not destructive in essence.What is destructive, however, is when religious dogma is perverted to “blame and shame” victims. When an authoritarian structure allows those in power to abuse relatively helpless adherents. And when a mistrust of outsiders is used to discourage reporting to civil authorities or even seeking professional help. Every institution with these attributes runs the risk of both infiltration by predators and then the unwitting nurturing of them once they’re inside.It’s not what the institutions want; BJU’s leadership doubtlessly wanted its students harmed no more than the Vatican intended for there to be widespread abuse by a small but prolific percentage of its priests and nuns. Regardless, vulnerability remains because danger is always present, meaning that predatory people (who as far we know tend to appear for reasons we don’t in every imaginable situation) are always looking for places to hunt and hide. The one thing religious institutions can do to mitigate their inherent risks is to value the members of the institution more than the institution itself.This means being utterly transparent about policies to prevent abuse, and allowing an honest assessment of how much it’s happening. It means making it publicly known that it will cooperate with civil authorities and seek help from professionals outside of its sphere of influence, even if that means risking exposure to a less Godly and sometimes unfair world outside the gates.But like the Vatican (and many other religious institutions seeking to keep their reputations and authority intact), Bob Jones appears to have failed at this task, with a report released last week outlining widespread discouragement of reporting and in some cases startling victim-blaming by university officials. In many cases this treatment grossly exacerbated the harm done, and drove some victims not only away from BJU but from Christianity itself.Again, this is the last thing BJU has ever wanted. But it’s what the institution has reaped, at least in some measure, and at least in part because of its brand mattering more than its students.

The Disposability of Boys: Great Read from Goodmen Project

"If you are one of the millions of people in this world who vocalize or otherwise spread your belief that being gay is “bad” or “sinful” you are directly and actively contributing to the trauma of boys who have been sexually exploited."Cameron Conaway, "The Disposability of Boys" The Goodmen Project, February 17, 2014 

Technology in the War Against Child Exploitation

Keeping pace with predators, one dossier at a time. Good on this Dutch organization; let the world follow suit.

Hidden Webcam Captures A Common Occurrence: Child Sexual Abuse

A 14 year-old girl in France was, thankfully, able to demonstrate the reality of a horror that her account of would likely have been insufficient to bring charges. A hidden web cam captured her father sexually abusing her.  The man's attorney claims the abuse occurred- and only occurred- during a period of unemployment and the pressure of a divorce.Doubtful. More than likely this has occurred 1) about as long as the man's sexual interest in his daughter has been established, and 2) with no regard to any other stressors in his life.This is how predatory behavior works. Thank God a camera was able to make the existence of it undeniable.

Emily Yoffe, Like Most Misinformed People, Won’t Get It. Maybe Ever.

Emily Yoffe is frustrated by the backlash against her well-intentioned but ill-considered original Slate piece from last week, but apparently emboldened by the support she’s received from other well intentioned and ill-informed supporters.Yoffe, like many others, sees a reduction in drinking (on college campuses especially) as the key to reducing sexual assaults against women. Indeed, the answer seems startlingly clear to Ms. Yoffe, as if she’s sounding an alarm that those around her infuriatingly cannot hear:Women! Stop drinking! You’re making yourselves vulnerable!It seems so obvious. A woman (or a man for that matter) who decides, for whatever reckless, juvenile, or ill-advised reasons, to drink to excess, is making herself/himself vulnerable in a cruel and unpredictable world. That's the seemingly clear-as-glass conclusion at which Yoffe and many like her have arrived.My perspective is that of a former special victims prosecutor, so I suppose I must ask myself: Haven’t I seen countless cases in which objectively “bad” victim behavior (like heavy drinking) “led to victims being raped?”Here's the naked truth: I have worked with victims- male and female- who were raped during or after behavior that might have been judged unwise. But I have never seen a victim who was raped because of that behavior. I’ve only seen victims who were raped for the one, single, incontrovertible reason that all victims are raped:Because someone chose to rape them. This is where Yoffe gets lost. Granted, it’s a subtle distinction and one I also had to absorb over time. It was a brilliant and irreverent PhD psychologist (Nikki Vallerie) who finally clued me in to a simple and profound truth: There is no vulnerability without danger.A woman can skip through a big city park at midnight in a G-string made of sewn-together $100 bills. She will not be vulnerable- in other words, she won’t be at risk for the slightest victimization of any kind- even a criticism of her clothing choice- unless someone in her environment means to victimize her.Let that sink in. No one is at risk, regardless of what they do or don’t do, if no one around them means them harm.But the Yoffe’s of the world believe they've figured it all out and claim victory when it comes to policing bad or reckless behavior, believing the key to preventing most- if not all- sexual violence means the prevention of such behavior because of the “dangerous world” we all inhabit.Indeed, the world is a dangerous place. But here are two critical areas where Yoffe and her ilk fail in their analysis and admonitions.1. Women (and men) can be (and are) sexually victimized in the most “innocent” of circumstances, i.e., a day-time study group, a church function, an alcohol-free event or movie date. So warnings against “late night, drunken date rape” only protect victims from one type of rape- and could actually expose them to further harm as they’ll be unprepared for any other scenario other than what they’ve been warned against.2. Rapists thrive on and celebrate- whether or not they do so consciously- the very rules of “wise and protective behavior” that Yoffe and her compatriots have so fervently and self-righteously promulgated.The reasons are simple, and devastating.First, as I alluded to before, a laundry list of things not to do will simply clear the path for the rapist who will rape after church, on a simple, alcohol-free DVD movie date, after a study session, or pretty much whenever he can isolate a victim who believes she (or he) has protected her/himself in every imaginable way from harm.Second, the man who chooses to a rape a person who has “broken” a finger-wagging protective rule that society soberly approves of, knows full well that he’ll most likely never be accused of that crime.Why? Because, thanks to the self-satisfying proclamations of the Yoffes of the world, his victim broke a rule and “got herself raped.” Therefore, and as he well knows, she might not even be believed if she does report. But she’ll definitely be blamed even if she is. That will most likely keep her quiet. And so it goes.Want to stop rape? Focus on rapists. 

Maryville: Less Likely A Cover-up, More Likely a Prosecutor Not Up to the Challenge

A travesty of justice likely took place in 2012 in Maryville, Missouri regarding the rape of a 14 year-old girl by a high school senior. Because the defendant comes from a political family with ties to the local DA, charges of a conspiracy to scuttle charges have captured media attention as much as any aspect of the crime. While salacious and disturbing, I’m willing to bet they aren’t true.That’s not to say I don’t think the defendant, now a college student who was apparently still tweeting misogynistic messages until fairly recently, didn’t benefit from who he was and where he came from. The victim and her family were also likely disadvantaged by being “outsiders” from another community. But at this point, my guess is the reality is more mundane. I don’t think the case was derailed by a coordinated effort involving the DA and law enforcement to protect Matthew Barnett because of his ties to a former legislator and sitting Congressman.Far more likely, Robert Rice, the DA responsible for dropping first felony and then misdemeanor charges, simply felt unprepared and discouraged from taking them to trial. If so, he’s far from alone in not knowing how to make the most of good police work and common sense in a sexual abuse case involving alcohol and adolescent behavior.I’m careful here, as I am in every case I comment on, to stress that I’ve neither considered the case the way Rice has, nor am I familiar with his jury pool and legal culture.That said, it appears he had quite a bit to go on.Victim Daisy Coleman was found by her mother, freezing on her porch and still intoxicated; Barnett and the group that drove her home abandoned her outside of her house in 22 degree weather. Her mother saw signs of physical distress to her ano-genital area, and an immediate report was made, the child taken to a hospital. Seven hours after her last drink, her blood alcohol content (BAC) was .13%. Inexperienced drinkers cannot generally reach a .13 without serious signs of intoxication, and she was likely much higher at the time she was raped. Barnett admitted to sexual intercourse on Daisy. A friend apparently video-taped the act. Other witnesses, including Daisy’s 13 year-old friend who was also raped (her 15 year-old assailant confessed as much), reported that Daisy was between crying and incoherent as they left Barnett’s home, and had to be carried from the bedroom. Evidence of drinking was collected the following day.The case looks- in any legal environment in the U.S. and I have seen most of them- eminently triable. Rice was benefitted by quick and competent police work, a confession to sexual contact, and a concerned mother rightfully terrified and appalled. He dropped charges anyway. Rice says he dropped them at least in part because the Coleman’s asserted 5th Amendment privileges before a deposition, but Melinda Coleman, Daisy’s mother, insists that this was 1) only after felony charges had already been dropped and 2) a short-lived decision that she reversed the next day, agreeing to cooperate. Rice’s other reasoning involves what he calls a lack of evidence and what appeared to him as “incorrigible teenagers” drinking and having sex. If that’s truly how he feels, he has a tragic misunderstanding of the dynamics of sexual assault.First, I’m not sure what 5th Amendment privileges could have been asserted that Rice could not have proffered immunity for in order to pursue a far more serious case. Second, if Rice thinks his case was too light on evidence to bring in good faith to a jury, I can only say that myself and others- often in very challenging legal environments- have successfully taken cases forward with less.Rice has done the right thing by asking a judge to appoint a special prosecutor and re-open the case. The Colemans appear ready to cooperate, and I hope the new prosecutor views the case differently, assuming what I know is accurate and complete.Whatever happens, I believe Rice's declaration that "there wasn't any prosecuting attorney who could take that case to trial" should be publicly proven both defeatist and inaccurate. But I'm not willing at this point to believe his motivations are worse than that.

On Adolescent Sexual Exploitation: Room for Nuance, Not for Compromise

I should be more nuanced on the nettlesome issue of adolescent sexuality, I'm told. It's not cut and dry, and my tone is often unyielding. Perhaps.I limit myself to 700 words in this space out of respect for my readership and in acknowledgement of the hundreds of other demands on their time and opportunities to spend it. If I had more space, I'd be more circumspect and more exploratory of opposing points of view, at least where I thought arguments had merit. No one comes close to possessing all the answers on human sexuality, what is objectively abusive, and what should be considered punishable by law. I'm no exception.In fairness, the issue of adolescent and adult sexual contact is particularly difficult to categorize uniformly. I sat on a Huffington Post Live panel last month where I discussed the issue with three well-known psychologists, all of whom agreed (as do I) that the "age of consent" to sexual intercourse in US jurisdictions has less to do with inherent rightness and more to do with an arbitrary cut-off for various cultural, historical and political reasons. I've known 15 year-old kids who could make thoughtful, informed and logical choices about sexual contact, and 25 year-old developmentally normal adults who absolutely could not. The age of consent in most of the US hovers around the age of majority, another number we've picked to differentiate the comparatively protected world of a child from the colder and more unforgiving one navigated by adults.When it comes to sexual contact between even older minors and adults, though, there are at least a few key points that, for me, make these "relationships" exploitive and toxic far more often than my detractors who see Americans in particular as "hysterical," "Victorian", etc. In no particular order:1. The issue is usually less about age and more about power, control, and authority. I would not likely advocate for sex-offender registration or a felony conviction for an adult within a few years age of his or her minor sexual partner- assuming a relationship based on more or less equal footing. Stacey Rambold, the Montana teacher whose paltry sentence recently sparked outrage, was  [slightly] less culpable in my mind for being 35 years the senior of his victim than he was for being her educator. Teachers have power over students both in terms of what they can practically affect in their lives and superior insights about navigating adult life. We properly condemn and criminalize crossing this line. It's not wrong because it's illegal. It's illegal because it's wrong.2. The still organically forming adolescent brain should at least be a factor in how we view a minor's ability to engage equally with an especially far older adult. Nothing magical happens within the brain to end adolescence at 18. But the fact is, teenagers are more impulsive, more brash and less self-controlled and than adults. Adults should know better and act thusly. 18 is still arbitrary. But it's not baseless.3. What we have traditionally viewed as basically "harmless" where adult-child sexual contact is concerned is continually being challenged and rightfully so. The elite Horace Mann school in New York City, like countless institutions the world over, was apparently rife with sexual abuse by teachers on minor students for literally decades. To the extent people knew of it, I'm sure some considered it a quirk of the place, the price paid for such a dynamic and interesting faculty, a simple right of passage, or any number of things. Far too many of the victims of this "quirk" think differently, and are now responding in droves, decades after being seriously harmed with impunity.There is room for nuance, particularly with regard to the application of the criminal law. I was never a mindless hammer in a court of law and I have welcomed the insight of the psychological community when trying to do justice in this regard. Increasingly, I believe my still-active colleagues are doing the same thing.But I won't yield so quickly to counter-arguments on the "harmlessness" of "fuzzier" sexual boundaries between adults and children. For one, I know better. For another, I know the motives of a dangerous few who are making them. See NAMBLA for a reference.   

Common Sense for Catholicism

It’s time for a brief tutorial on the dynamics, in one regard at least, of child and adolescent sex abuse. I’ve wanted to take this up for a while. The Catholic Church- my church- has endured a still unfolding nightmare regarding the abuse of mostly boys by mostly male priests. It’s without a doubt the most heartbreaking thing I’ve ever experienced with regard to my faith. Perhaps the only thing more disturbing has been the reaction to it, both by many Catholics I know as friends and colleagues, and also by critics or downright haters of the Catholic Church, some of whom are even more off-base.Everyone seems to have an idea as to how this scandal blossomed like a cancerous flower in some sun-starved basement, and how to prevent it in the future. Unfortunately, it usually comes down to one of two options, neither of which will accomplish anything. The first is to eliminate gay men from the priesthood. The second is to change the nature of the priesthood so as to somehow reduce “sexual repression” or some such thing that has adult priests seeking out children as sexual partners. The first is complete nonsense. I’m willing to bet the second is mostly vacuous also.I want to start by saying I was raised Catholic, baptized and confirmed, and that I remain a practicing Catholic. There are many things I love, respect and admire about my Church. I believe that having a good priest as a close friend is a wonderful thing, and that having one in your home is a blessing. And I'm happy to say that priests were wonderful forces in my young life; my parents were personal friends with priests from our parish growing up, I was an altar boy for years, and I've never had a bad moment with a priest then or now. But the directions I see the Church tugged between, both by conservative groups within and other critics without, is taking it nowhere with regard to the issue of sexual abuse of children within the holy orders. And I know what I’m talking about.

Homosexuality and the Priesthood

Many Catholics, particularly conservative ones, mistakenly believe “gay priests” are to blame for the sex scandal. They believe that homosexuality simply equals sexual deviance, and therefore lends itself more readily to the abuse of children and underage adolescents.The Church is doing nothing to dispel this view. In late 2005, the year I joined the Bronx DA's Office child abuse unit, the Vatican released the Criteria for Discernment of Vocations for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies. The document draws a distinction between homosexual acts (grave sins) and homosexualtendencies. “Tendencies” are not grave sins, but are “objectively disordered.” And being saddled with these tendencies (which the document seems to acknowledge are not chosen by the affected person) disqualifies the affected from entrance to the holy orders.As it reads:“Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”There is no explanation of why, or specific examples as to how such people, if called to be priests or nuns, would bring about “negative consequences” to the Church or anyone the church touches. But even more mystifying, there’s also a restriction against supporters of “the so-called ‘gay culture.’” This confounds me. How is a supporter of the so-called gay culture even defined? I’m not about to seek entrance to a holy order, but I did give a toast at a gay wedding in San Diego last year. Am I done for?But back to the larger point, how do any of these people, 1) those who have practiced a homosexual lifestyle but are now willing to be celibate, 2) those who have never been sexually active but have tendencies, or 3) the rest of us “supporters” present a danger to the Church in any way, particularly with regard to the sex scandal within the priesthood?The answer that many buy into is the pernicious argument that “homosexuality is disordered, so homosexuals are dangerous.”Some of this is bigotry, plain and simple. These folks don’t like gay people and are happy to scapegoat them for anything remotely plausible. But much of it is also ignorance, which of course serves as bigotry’s father, mentor and biggest promoter.The more a person believes that even homosexual tendencies are a terrible sign of an “objectively disordered” mind, the easier it is to believe that such people pose a threat in various ways.Generally favoring enlightenment over ignorance, I was thus thrilled to hear that The John Jay College of Criminal Justice (a school that was catty-corner to my last apartment in NYC, btw) is shedding much needed light on the subject. The school is apparently set to release a report demonstrating that homosexuality is not a predictor of the proclivity to commit child sexual abuse.Yes, thank you. That makes perfect sense to those of us who aren’t bigoted or ignorant, or both. Still, the anti-homosexual crowd points to the apparent demographics of the perpetrators and victims. Why are the great majority of the child victims of priests male, when all priests are (of course) male? If the abuse is same sex, then how does being homosexual not explain it?First, terms need to be defined and understood: Homosexuality is not the same thing or even related to pedophilia. Pedophiles are not homo or hetero, they're pedophiles. Their sexual attraction, even if they are exclusive, is not considered to be toward 'men' or 'women' but toward prepubescent children. If a male pedophile happens to be exclusive toward male children, he’s not a 'gay pedophile.' He’s a pedophile, exclusive to males.Hebephilia (a sexual attraction to adolescents) is a little different. The more physically developed the target child, the less pathological it is for the man to be attracted to the child (and the more we can say that his attraction fits a sexual orientation, either homo or hetero. Most adult males could fairly be described as having some hebephilic traits, meaning most men will find a hot 16 y.o., well...hot. A normal and law-abiding man knows not to actually put his hands on a minor, but he’s not abnormal if he’s a straight male who finds a teenage girl to be attractive- as long as she has fully developed secondary sex characteristics (breasts, pubic hair, etc).In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense for a straight male to be attracted to an adolescent girl who is in or approaching the most fertile period of her life. What more or less defines a hebephile (a term not in the DSM but recognized as a paraphilia of sorts) is a guy who only wants teenagers, and has no sexual interest in an adult even if she's Beyonce Knowles or Jessica Alba. That guy has a problem. It's okay to be 30 and be aroused by a 16 year-old pop star as long as you know not to touch her. But if she ceases to be attractive to you upon reaching legal adulthood, you've got a deeper issue.So basically, pedophillic priests are simply pedophiles, and they go after little boys mostly because they're easier targets.Hebephillic priests who commit sexual abuse against physically developed adolescent boys, on the other hand, probably do have a basically homosexual orientation.This is where the homophobes claim victory with regard to their thinking. And sure, it begs the question: If there are many more boy victims, and a large percentage of them are adolescents, then can't we say that homosexual priests are responsible, at least for the abuse of the adolescents?The short answer is yes, but not because of anything related to their homosexuality. Having a sexual orientation toward men does not predispose a guy to sexually abuse an adolescent boy any more than having a sexual orientation toward women predisposes a guy to sexually abuse an adolescent girl. An adult male soccer coach going after his 15 year old female players is a criminal and probably a hebephile. But he hasn't crossed the line because he's straight. He's crossed it because he's immoral, irresponsible, anti-social, possibly mentally ill and God knows what else. Instead, folks, the reason we see more boys as victims from male offenders within the priesthood is for the following three reasons, all of them a product of simple common sense:1. Priests (male) have more ready access to boys and much less to girls. This is still true today, but was much more the case in preceding generations.2. Boys are even less likely to report sex abuse than girls, so they make safer targets.3. Pedophiles and hebephiles who infiltrate the priesthood are probably most often attracted to males exclusively. This is because the Church offers a better environment for men to abuse boys than other circumstances outside of the priesthood. But even pedophile priests who are non-exclusive still go after boys much more- they make more sense for the above two reasons.In a nutshell, that’s it. There’s nothing lurking inside the mind of the homosexual that’s bringing about this evil. If the Church believes differently, it’s because she is confusing an objectively disordered sexual orientation (pedophilia) with a non-disordered one (homosexuality). In so doing, the Church is preventing untold numbers of potentially holy men and women more than willing to give up their sexual lives in order to serve. Worse, they’re continuing to attract exactly what they don’t want, which are predators sneaking under the wire of scrutiny because of the diversion the church is on toward homosexuals.

“Sexual Repression” and the Priesthood

I’m a lawyer, not a psychologist, but I don’t buy what many have written about the “sexually repressive nature of the priesthood” causing priests to “turn into” predators, or the “unnatural state of human celibacy” somehow driving them to sexual deviancy with children and adolescents. There’s simply no psychological evidence that child sex abuse springs somehow from the demand of celibacy or anything related to the duties associated with being celibate clergy. Sexual deviancy and anti-social acts stem from many things, but sexual orientation isn’t one of them, and neither is the life and restrictions of a priest or nun.The darker, more complex explanations of twisted rules and antiquated standards birthing hideous desires are tempting, I’m sure. But I’m sorry to disappoint the Church haters and Dan Brown-esqe enthusiasts when I say this is mostly bunk.Again, I’m not a psychologist. Can an argument be made that an obsession with sex, driven by the denial of it to a naturally sexual being, produces negative emotional consequences? Perhaps.Could such consequences include sexual acting out of some sort?Again, perhaps. But sexual acting out either between priests or with lay adults is a much more likely option for an adult-oriented man looking to release repressed sexual desire- particularly when that desire focuses on adults in the first place.Once again, there are three simple reasons why sexually deviant men are not created by the priesthood, but far too often flock to it instead: The priesthood has, tragically, been the target of predators for centuries because for centuries the Church has unwittingly but continuously given them what all child predators need:1. Continued access to trusting and vulnerable victims (this is especially true for child predators because part of their pathology is that once the child passes out of their attraction zone and into adulthood, they are no longer attractive).2. A cover, if they have no sexual interest in adults.3. An institution that will protect them, and move them around when they are suspected of child abuse in a particular location.His Holiness John Paul II once said plainly that the sex abuse scandal was a “great evil.” He was correct about the predators and what they’ve done to countless victims who came to the Church for the opposite of what they received. But the true tragedy is the inadvertent use of the Church for their purposes.That, my friends, is the darkest evil we’ve faced in how this scandal has played out. The abuse was awful. The discovery by predators, individually and over the centuries, of how hospitable this otherwise noble and glorious institution would be to them, was worse. The great majority of priests are decent, honorable and holy men. Like many institutions that value trust, loyalty and honor, and that often involve interaction with vulnerable victims, the priesthood has been targeted by predatory infiltrators for eons.The saddest fact is how easy the Church has unwittingly made it for them.