by The
Times Editorial Board | http://lat.ms/1miGa2C
Dec 13, 2015 :: When famed teacher Rafe Esquith was yanked from his fifth-grade classroom
and an investigation was opened into possible sexual and financial misconduct,
parents in the Los Angeles Unified School District —
and the larger education world — gasped. Esquith was as iconic as he was
iconoclastic. A winner of the National Medal of Arts and Disney's Outstanding
Teacher of the Year award, he was known for breaking down traditional walls of
elementary education, inspiring students to love and perform Shakespeare, and
teaching, as he put it in one of his books, as though his hair were on fire.
The Esquith investigation was, by necessity, secretive; most
of the public rhetoric came from Esquith's lawyers.
Students, parents and pundits rallied to his side, bolstered
by support from actor Ian McKellen, claiming that L.A. Unified
administrators simply couldn't stand the attention that such a great teacher
attracted. The circumstances under which Esquith was suspended, and then fired,
certainly raised questions. Could he really be in trouble for harmlessly joking
that his class might have to perform nude to draw a crowd to its upcoming
Shakespeare performance? For crying out loud, the joke was a literary reference
to passage in Huckleberry Finn.
It didn't help that L.A. Unified has had a recent history of
abruptly suspending popular teachers over issues that didn't affect instruction
or student safety, then reinstalling them months later with no findings of
wrongdoing. The Esquith investigation was, by necessity, secretive; most of the
public rhetoric came from Esquith's lawyers. As a result, news coverage often
raised doubts about the district's motives. One national education columnist
called the investigation a “classic witch hunt.”
Or perhaps not. Recent documents released by the district
provide a more off-putting glimpse of Esquith's behavior. Some of his comments
appear to be over-the-top remarks about nudity; others border on creepy,
especially his emails to teenage girls, former students, referring to them as
“hottie” or “sexy.” In one case, he continued to engage in sexualized banter
even after a teenager's reply evidenced her discomfort. In another case, he
told a 14-year-old girl by email that “I spank really hard” and that “your
bottom will hurt for months.” In a follow-up he wrote: “I'd love to see you
tomorrow, and maybe even try that spanking!” Esquith's attorneys say the quotes
are taken out of context. That's a possibility. Deprived of full information,
the public continues to rely on hints instead of truth.
Still, those hints show that there was more to the
district's investigation than Esquith's vocal supporters realized. Compliments
to Supt. Ramon C. Cortines for stolidly going ahead with the inquiry, refusing
to be cowed by protests and public opinion.
The Internet, especially social media, allows society to
quickly disseminate facts — as well as half-truths and ardent if sometimes
uninformed opinions. It speeds the rush to judgment. Today, it's still not
entirely clear — because the evidence is not all available — whether the
district was right to fire Esquith, but there were obviously enough disturbing
findings to have justified the investigation. When protecting children, only
the facts and a calm, deliberative process must prevail, not hasty assumptions
based on what people wish were true.
No comments:
Post a Comment