My legislation refocuses federal priorities on connecting vulnerable youth with caring, permanent families and limits federal reimbursement for very young children and, after a certain duration, for older youth.
really young sex video
Bob Levey: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to this special edition of "Levey Live: Speaking Freely." For the next hour, we'll be taking your questions about -- and only about -- my April 25 column, which reported on the sex video controversy at St. Paul's School near Baltimore. A link to that column appears at the top of today's discussion.To say the least, it touched off a ton of response -- more than 400 e-mails so far, and enough phone calls to keep Verizon stock afloat for the next month. Without further ado, let's get to your questions.....Washington, D.C.: Bob,So where were the parents when this was going on? Growing up, my mother was home pretty soon after I got back from school. Lord knows I wouldn't have tried anything like that knowing she was right downstairs.And whatever made the kid decide that he was going to videotape it? Geez, when I was 16 that thought wouldn't have even crossed my mind!Bob Levey: No parents were anywhere to be be seen or found when the video was played. As for what went through the mind of the 16-year-old, I can only speculate. But I would bet it was an attempt to be cool in front of his peers, and to be one of the boys.Alexandria, Va.: I was a high school athlete, and so I can understand what a blow it was for the St. Paul boys to have their season cancelled. That said, I also admire the St. Paul's administration for taking the action they did. People are too inclined that let serious actions slide. I'm glad to see that these boys have to face real consequences for their actions. They will be better men for it.I do agree with your son, Bob, that 99.9 percent of boys wouldn't have left the room or reported what went on. However, that doesn't make what they did right. It was a serious matter, and St. Paul's took it seriously.Bob Levey: As I said at the top of today's show, I've spent the better part of the last two days reading reactions to the St. Paul's controversy. Only a handful of readers think the principal was wrong to expel the filmmaker. But the readership is split pretty close to down the middle about whether the lacrosse season should have been cancelled.Many readers say that a school has no business trying to regulate what goes on after school shuts down for the day. Others point out that this was a gathering of a school team -- which surely makes it a school event, where the school's honor code applied. I'm firmly in the second camp.A Comment: I really wish I could smash these pigs in their faces and teach them a lesson. The ones who watched and said nothing are more to blame than the one who made the video. The reason they said nothing is because they knew it was wrong and didn't want to get in trouble (cowards). At least the pig who made the video got the punishment he deserves, which was being expelled. The thing I worry about is that they will brush it off as no big deal when it is a VERY big deal. Is this something else the schools have to teach -- basic respect for one another? Whatever happened to "do unto others"? Young women are not toys to be played with, for God's sake and the world does not revolve around these jackasses. Thank you.Bob Levey: It's a very, very big deal, as you say, and for the reason you say.As the father of a daughter, it amazes and frightens me to see how young boys can dehumanize a woman, and think very little of it. There's about a mile of real estate between joking about "chicks" (which we did all the time when I was a high-school athlete) and watching (or making!) a videotape like this one. Alexandria, Va.: Bob,I went to a private school in Baltimore (not St. Paul's) 25 years ago. My impression that the private school community in the Baltimore area hasn't changed very much; it has only grown a bit over the years. The videotape incident doesn't surprise me. Things like this went on in the Baltimore suburbs 25 years ago. Jocks would "score" at parties, during study hall and the like, and then recount their exploits in vivid detail in the locker room, often with the coach's tacit acceptance. The only difference today is that we didn't have video cameras readily available. When you put a group of extremely affluent high school students in an unsupervised environment and then add jock entitlement in for some flavoring situations like this are not surprising. Adolescents don't make very good judgement calls when surrounded by their peers. Affluent adolescents, when given the the enhanced freedom that wealth can buy, can make very dramatic stupid decisions. Needless to say, I am not going to my 25th reunion next weekend. The incident at St. Paul's tells me that the climate that made me uncomfortable as a teenager still persists. Bob Levey: But those bragging orgies of 25 years ago were often embellished, or outright false. A video is a documentary record. So I don't see much comparison between the two.I'm not saying that actual sex didn't happen between teenagers 25 years ago. Of course it did. But humiliating a 15-year-old girl for all to see? That would have been less likely to have happened 25 years ago, I think, even if video cameras DID exist then. Herndon, Va.: Mr. L: This was not a "boys will be boys," but, let's face it, if one member of a group of male teens shows up with a porno film/tape, whatever, unless at least one person takes a stand against it -- everyone is going to watch. As far as the punishment -- I'd say it's fair. For those who worry about lost scholarships -- best to learn fairly early in life that bad decisions have bad consequences. Better to worry about the poor girl and what she faces. The boy who taped the encounter -- expel him from school at the least, and some kind of legal action should be taken by the juvenile justice system.Bob Levey: Yes, thanks for raising the point about the girl's future. That is central to this discussion.The punishments against the boys have been laid down, and the suspensions have been served. For them, in some way, the case is over.But the girl will pay a price for years, maybe forever. Can she ever trust a man again? Will she ever have a healthy attitude toward sex again? Not even years of psychotherapy could assure yesses to those questions.Georgia: I think the school did the right thing. Every time I turn around, I'm being told that "the only place kids learn morals is in the school." While I don't believe that teachers should take full responsibility for a person to grow up well, I believe that there are far too many instances that prove that these kids aren't getting character education at home. You've got to draw some lines somewhere -- and I think the school did a fine job drawing them.This is all in addition to the fact that this girl was hurt in the process, just for the fact that she didn't know she was being taped.Even though "Boys will be Boys," they have to know that their bad actions will have consequences. I hope they have learned that from this.Bob Levey: I hope they learned from it, too. I can assure you that the rest of the world has. Coaches of boys' high school teams all over the country are meeting with their players to warn them about such behavior. So a lesson is being taught. Is it being learned? I hope so, although I do think many teenage boys would say that the biggest thing wrong with the St. Paul's story is that the kids got caught. Mt. Rainier, Md.: I guess my opinion is going to be very redundant, but for my two cents: The boy who had sex with a 15-year-old girl and videotaped it is a nasty bit of work, and at minimum should be bounced out of school. What he did was probably illegal and should be giving his parents all sorts of red flags. The 15-year-old needs counseling though she's probably figured out by experience that having sex is potentially dangerous. The teammates? Canceling the whole lacrosse season was probably more drastic than necessary, yet they are certainly of an age to find out there are real consequences for their behavior and that there are moral implications in tolerating ugly behavior. I might have just gone for canceling a few games, which would have been painful enough since they were high in the standings. But I like the school's priorities for sure. Bob Levey: Thanks for weighing in. I'd be very interested to know whether the 15-year-old girl has figured out that sex is "potentially dangerous." In one way, she must have known that already. In another way, that might have contributed to its allure. But for sure, she has now learned that sex is dynamite, and not just because of the possibility of pregnancy and STDs.Laurel, Md.: I think I'm going to have to disagree with you, Bob. Just because the lacrosse team got together after school doesn't necessarily make it a school event. Could just be that the team is a tight-knit circle of friends that got together after school to view this video.I think I'd also like to add that this certainly shoots down the notion that going to a private school makes for more moral students. Bob Levey: One more factor to throw into the mix: the lacrosse team gathered on the night that the video was shown because they thought they were going to watch film of an upcoming opponent. Doesn't that make the get-together a team meeting, in effect? I think it clearly does.Somerville, Mass.: I don't think I've seen the answer to this critical question: Did the players know that the girl wasn't a willing participant in the recording? The severity of the earned discipline strongly depends on the answer.On an unrelated note, is the sex act itself considered statutory rape in this case? I always thought 18-year-olds could only legally have sex with persons aged 17 and above. If so, this kid should be heading for jail.Bob Levey: They were made aware very early on the night of the showing that the girl had been filmed without her knowledge.The filmmaker isn't heading for jail because the Baltimore County state's attorney, Sandra A. O'Connor, has declined to bring charges. She said a trial could further traumatize the victim. Reston, Va., 20190: Bob,What did the parents of the boy who made the tape, and the ones who watched it, think of, and do about, the actions of their sons? What would you do?Doesn't taping sex acts involving minors violate several state and federal laws? What, if anything, are the police doing about it?Bob Levey: Not clear what action(s) the parents of the film-viewers have taken. The publicity lid has been clamped on this case very tightly. No one involved is saying a thing, and most have said nothing at any point since the story broke a month ago.If it were my son, he'd be "grounded" for a very long time, he'd be placed in counseling and he'd be attending a new school -- all at approximately the speed of light.Silver Spring, Md., 40+ Female: Bob:I can't believe that the parents of the lacrosse students haven't fomented a revolution about the forfeited season, demanding that it be reinstated. My experience with parents these days is that they foam at the mouth with outrage if someone dares even look cross-eyed (as my mother used to say) at their little darlings, They Who Must Be Obeyed.Condign punishment seems to have fallen out of favor these days. Saying you're sorry appears to be enough. Not this time.The boys in question got what they deserved. They need to suffer for what they did, and a forfeited season will probably hurt them most. Why is it that the "boys will be boys" excuse always hurts girls?However, no amount of forfeiting and expulsions will help the poor girl. I hope she's getting counseling (paid for by the perpetrators and their parents) and any other help she might need.Bob Levey: I, too, hope that the girl is getting counseling. But there's been no announcement about who might pay for counseling for her, and I haven't been able to unearth an answer on my own. For that reason, among many others, I wish the case had gone to trial, because I suspect a judge might have ordered precisely this (among other things).Laurel, Md.: I guess I didn't realize that the team thought they were watching film of an opponent -- I don't think you mentioned that in your column. In that case, you are definitely right.One question: Could it be possible that the lacrosse season was cancelled because everyone was suspended and there was no one to field a team? Or was this cancellation supposed to add to the punishment? Bob Levey: No, they could have come up with enough warm, male bodies to have fielded a team. The idea was to send a message that St. Paul's would not kowtow to its jock image or history -- that jocks wouldn't get special, coddling treatment. To that extent, I think this is a terrific message. Look what happens to jocks elsewhere in our culture. They steal from the college bookstore and the coach makes the charges go away. They utter bigoted stupidities about Jews and no one on the team gets upset. Three of them rape a fellow Naval Academy midshipman and the civilian prosecutor allows them to escape all criminal charges. Jocks are not above the law!Chicago, Ill.: Why am I not surprised that this incident involved the lacrosse team? When I went to Georgetown, this would really only have been done by someone on the lacrosse team.Bob Levey: Aw, come on. Footballers could have done this, too, easily, don't you think?Winston-Salem, N.C.: Is this state's attorney (Sandra A. O'Connor) the same one that let the boys from Annapolis off the hook for their "rape" crime earlier in the year?Bob Levey: No, that episode took place in Anne Arundel County, where a different prosecutor sits.Bowie, Md.: More facts, please.What specific school rules were the filmmaker and viewers punished for? Does the school have specific rules against any of this, or was it a sort of catch-all honor code, moral turpitude violation?If the latter, I wonder what would/could have happened if the school was PUBLIC, not private one. If the persons involved had been adults, would watching the tape have been illegal?Bob Levey: The school's honor code says students will always strive to do "the hard right rather than the easy wrong." That's the language that covers this case. The headmaster said the boys violated this language because they didn't come forward and admit what they had done, didn't avoid watching the tape and didn't stop the tape.I can only guess what might have happened at a public school. Most don't have "hard right, easy wrong" language. And public school principals don't have nearly as much freedom or power as private school principals. I suspect the punishment would have been lighter.I'm no lawyer, but I don't think watching the tape is illegal for either an adult or a child. MAKING the tape is another story. Vienna, Va.: Bob, Sounds like the same freak incident in the movie "Carrie 2" -- only the girl got mad and killed and fried everybody. Heard anything about how the girl is dealing with being a victim?Bob Levey: No, I haven't. The rumor mill says the girl's family was thinking of moving to Florida, anyway. May they do so as fast as possible. By the way, the girl did not attend St. Paul's. It's all-boys after the fifth grade.Alexandria, Va.: My $0.02: The self-made porn star deserved to be expelled. I hope the girl's parents will take advantage of whatever legal recourse is available.The rest of the viewers deserved to be taught a lesson, but cancelling the season was probably a bit harsh. There could have been non-Lax players among the audience for all anyone knows.Question: If the team had merely known the tape existed, but never saw it, would they have been as "wrong" not to notify anyone?Bob Levey: But if the headmaster had cancelled only a couple of games, and ordered the boys to rake leaves on campus for three Saturdays, he would have been bombarded with this question:Aren't you going light on these boys just because they're lacrosse players? Ballston, Va.: Bob -- I missed out on -how- the school administrators found out about the incident? And, isn't playing an organized sport also about building "character?" Ironic, to say the least.Bob Levey: Word about the tape leaked to rival prep-school coaches, who told the St. Paul's coach, who brought it to the attention of the headmaster.By the way, the lacrosse coach (Mitch Whitely) deserves a tremendous pat on the back. He knew that the headmaster might crush his season, yet he told him about the episode, anyway. Yes, I know that it was the right thing to do, and that should have been the only consideration. But many coaches would have thought of themselves and their lacrosse seasons first, and about the moral issues second. Was the In-Crowd: I'm still interested why they very notion of "popular" is still being supported on the backs of the tormented. It must be some strong human nature for a group to raise selected members to exalted status and willingly accept abuse. So much for being an evolved species.Bob Levey: In an effort to be "popular," this filmmaker humiliated a girl in a huge way and brought down the house on himself and his pals. How very insecure this kid must have been -- how desperate for the approval of his peers.Fairfax, Va.: I think that the boy who made the tape should be expelled, and I hope it is used against him in the statutory rape case her parents should be filing! The boys who watched received suspensions for failing to bring the activity to light, but to cancel the whole season I think goes too far.The boys should have had to forfeit all games during the suspensions, but they should have been allowed to continue the season, unless the school has a policy about suspended players returning to sports teams.To link the lacrosse season to this event is wrong. This was not a team activity, and I'm sure that not EVERY member of the team was present, only a group of players who are friends. For the record, I am a 30-year-old product of a mostly-male military school in Front Royal, Va.Bob Levey: A statutory rape case would go nowhere. The girl clearly consented to sex.As for whether or not this was a team activity, refer to earlier Qs and As. This was a team meeting, where lacrosse film was the entire agenda. How does that not make it a "team activity?" Baltimore, Md.: Did anyone see some of the quotes from the parents of these boys? Very typical of these outer suburban, overly-moneyed boomer brats. "I can't believe they cancelled the season! My boy didn't make the film!" No wonder the kids think they're untouchable. I played high-school prep lax, and a lot of the parents of other players were good folks. But many more than you would think are these kind of self-absorbed (and often sexist and racist) brats. And people think our problems are in the inner city.Bob Levey: Many parents confuse defending their kids with raising their kids in the right way. Ask any teacher what I'm talking about. If she gives Johnny a B-minus on an English paper, some parents want her head -- when the point is that Johnny ain't doing the work!Silver Spring, Md.: Bob, my mouth dropped open when I read your column. Where did that boy get the idea to do something so terrible? Had he been in trouble before in any way? Didn't any of the boys get up and walk out of the showing or condemn the video? Bob Levey: No sign of this boy having done anything like this before. None of the boys got up and walked out, or condemned it afterward. In fact, the boys all did their best to keep the video a secret.Washington, D.C.: Part of me wonders whether expelling the filmmaker is the right thing. Although I guess he and the girl go to the same school, part of me thinks expulsion means that HE gets to start again with a (relatively) blank slate. He doesn't have the daily weight of facing his teachers and peers who know what he did. Most adults who make mistakes can't extricate themselves so cleanly from their community.Just a thought.Bob Levey: Again, he and the girl did not go to the same school. She attended (and still attends) a private school near St. Paul's.One of the saddest truths about this story (which I tried to bring out in my Wednesday column) was that the filmmaker was always going to "start again" regardless of the punishment the school gave him.I quote a 45-year-old Dad as pointing out that St. Paul's kids are always going to be successes in life 30 years from now. Sadly, and very unfairly, I think that'll be true of the sex video maker, too. Arlington, Va.: Bob:Some admittedly trite advice that I haven't seen someone mention yet -- to the "boys will be boys" argument, how about "how would you feel if it were your sister or cousin on the video?"One more completely unrelated point -- I know it happens all the time, but I don't think it's right for a 15-year-old girl to have consensual sex. What happened to her was appalling, but a lot of lousy things happen as a result of underage sex, and maybe her story will serve as a warning to other young adolescent boys and girls.Bob Levey: I completely agree that 15-year-olds are way too young to be having sex. It carries huge emotional baggage no matter how much "love" is attached to a partner. No 15-year-old (that's right, folks, he said NO 15-year-old) is equipped to handle it.And yet we have to recognize that zillions of 15-year-olds have sex every day. Always have. Always will.So the issue is not whether we should decry sex in general. It's also what we're going to do about the kids who are engaging in it.Shouldn't adults try to guide sexually active kids down a protective path, rather than saying "You shouldn'ta done it?"It's too late to say that. But it's not too late to try to guide a kid into a lifestyle that won't literally kill him or her.In discussing this case this week with a woman I know, I raised this question (and I'd like to raise it again in this discussion):How many 15-year-old girls have sex for the first time in their lives, get harmed in some way and then give up sex until they're much older?I suspect the answer is: lots.We adults so often assume that if a kid starts "doing it" at 15, he/she will keep right on doing it. I wonder..... Bowie, Md.: I have to wonder whether this incident would have been as likely to happen (no question it COULD have happened) at a coeducational school?Boys will be boys and jocks will be jocks, but males do like getting approval from females, and ones that spent the better part of their days in a half-female environment might have been a little more circumspect about offending at least half their friends.Bob Levey: Great question. My seat of the pants answer is that it would be far, far less likely to happen at a co-ed school -- just as it's far less likely that teenage boys with sisters will "act out" sexually in destructive, contemptuous ways.Washington, D.C.: I am amazed at those who think cancelling the season was too harsh -- we are talking about a game for crying out loud. A game -- compared to what that 15 year old is and will go through. Where are our priorities? --Mother and grandmother to daughters.Bob Levey: I'm with you all the way. Take another look at the column. One of the key arguments against cancelling the lacrosse season was that boys who might have won college scholarships will now be deprived of the chance. But look at what this girl is being deprived of! No comparison, as you say. Thanks for "getting it."Herndon, Va.: When I was in high school (only eight short years ago), is was made crystal clear to any athlete (male or female) that it was a privilege, not a right to participate in sports. Regardless of whether or not you were in uniform, you represented your team and your school. Any misconduct resulted in suspension or removal from the team. I don't understand why some people claim that just because these kids had talent, that they should be allowed to play. If I went to that high school, I wouldn't want them to represent my school. Bob Levey: You say it very, very well. Thanks.Former 15-year Old Girl: Although this is a serious issue, let's not be too quick to remove all blame from the girl in question. Yes, he videotaped it, and yes he showed it to his friends. But isn't this also a lesson for all the high school (and college, for that matter) girls out there? When you jump in the sack with a guy (even a boyfriend) you set yourself up for all sorts of terrible things -- STDs, rumors at school, being labeled some nasty things. Of course, these pale in comparison to being videotaped -- but this is just one more reason to hold off on casual sex. And girls should be aware that they run this risk whenever the engage in sexual behavior.Bob Levey: Very important point. Please don't misunderstand: I believe the girl is suffering terribly, and has been terribly mistreated by not only her lover, but a roomful of strangers. And yet, as I said, she consented to sex. She, too, has to learn the word "consequences."Bowie, Md.: Bob,It's understandable that the boys kept the video a secret.Would the lacrosse season NOT have been cancelled if one of them had ratted it out?Bob Levey: I doubt it, because the boys would still have violated the school's honor code by sitting there and watching the sex-on-screen.Laurel, Md.: C'mon, Bob, you're being a bit harsh on the video maker, aren't you? You're sad that the kid will be doing well in 30 years? Should this type of thing be with the kid everywhere? How about giving him a second chance? He did the crime, he's doing the time, after that, let him have a fresh start somewhere else. You want this kid to suffer for the rest of his life? Not that I'm defending what he did, that type of behavior out of teenagers is awful. It sounds like you would like to keep him out of society for the rest of his life. He's still in his formative years!Bob Levey: I'm not a throw-away-the-key type and I never will be. What I meant was that the girl will clearly carry the scars from this incident forever. The boy is far less likely to.Washington, D.C.: I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as supporting the decision to cancel the lacrosse season. The school needed to show that this was a very serious matter that they were taking very seriously, and I think that is exactly what the cancellation shows. I think all kids in that school (and all area schools) got the message that such behavior is unequivocally wrong. There might be a little whining about unfairness, but I see it as being along the same lines as whining about having to do homework. A teenager's sense of what is fair and what actually is fair are often very far apart.Bob Levey: It'll be very interesting to me to see how many schools adopt clear, written guidelines about behavior at outside-school events. I suspect most (if not all) will, so they can punish kids in a private-home incident such as this without anyone saying (as they have in this case), "Hey, wait a minute, it didn't take place on school property." Clear, written guidelines would say: "That doesn't matter. If it's a school team, gathered to scout a school opponent, our rules apply."Old Town, Alexandria, Va.: As a graduate of a university that is co-ed in some respects and single-sex in some respects I can unequivocally state that people who are socialized in the company of both sexes are much less likely to do something so awful. Single sex schools do some kids a disservice by not allowing them to form healthy friend relationships with members of the opposite sex. This allows them to objectify and dehumanize the members of the opposite sex. If you are a guy and your best friend is a girl, you are FAR less likely to do something like videotape yourself having sex with a girl. This situation is totally unreal -- unreal.Bob Levey: I've never been a fan of single sex schools. I suspect that this case will add fuel to the fire about whether these schools "skew" the attitudes (sexual and otherwise) of their students. Anywhere, USA: This is going on a lot more than people think. These guys just got caught at it. Landon School had incident last year involving just this age group having oral sex parties. I notice Landon did not have the same moral guts that St. Paul's did.Bob Levey: What did the authorities at Landon do? Or not do?Former Northern Virginia resident: Bob,A similar situation to what happened at St. Paul's happened at my high school about 10 years ago. I didn't see the tapes, but was told by my abusive football-playing jerk of a boyfriend that there were regular parties at a fellow's house where one guy would be in the closet with a VHS camera and the guys who took their "conquests" in there knew they'd have a souvenir of the evening. Evidently most tapes were just kept that way, but a few leaked around the school, mostly just the team, but quietly enough that the school administrators never found out and most students didn't either. I even heard of one of them (the girl was a really pretty gal, and therefore it was in high demand) had copies sold. This isn't just a "rich kid" problem. I went to a small, semi-rural, public school.Bob Levey: Thanks for making the "rich kid" point. Very important. Washington, D.C.: What will or has happened to the actual videotape? Should it be destroyed to preserve the girl's identity? Stored away in some DA's office?Bob Levey: There were two copies of the tape. Both have been destroyed -- or so school authorities believe. But how can they really be sure?Re: St. Paul grads "will always be successes in life": By what standard? Job title and salary, perhaps, but no more or less on meaningfulness of existence, quality of relationships, etc. than anyone else.Bob Levey: If you mean that the residue of this act will always haunt the video-maker in some spiritual way, I hope you're correct. But you're equally likely to be incorrect.Woodley Park, D.C.: Here's another take on the case, Bob. I see it as yet another example of the misogyny and rowdiness that pervades school (be it high school or college) athletic culture. Other examples include the hooliganism of the frat boy types at UMCP burning bonfires after the recent basketball tournament, the sexual assault a few years back of a mentally retarded girl in New Jersey by (I believe) a lacrosse team, and the rape charges at the Naval Academy. It seems to me we need to de-emphasize athletic programs, and maybe send some of the funding towards academics or music -- anything to calm down, rather than rile up the "testosterony" violent jock types. Bob Levey: We need coaches who think about their kids as adults-in-training and not just as jocks-in-training. To de-emphasize sports is to miss the point. The sport isn't the problem. Good guidance of the kids who play it is. Answer to Bowie, Md.: It happened at my coeducational, wealthy private school in Massachusetts several years ago (in the late 1980s). One girl had performed sex acts with five guys at a party while all had been drinking alcohol. The girl ended up leaving school, humiliated. Two of the boys ended up leaving also. The other three boys were suspended after a long battle with the school and threatened legal action; of these final three boys, one of parents was on the board of trustees, and so he wielded considerable power with the school.Bob Levey: There are always politics, to be sure, and there were at St. Paul's, too. Just as one example, lacrosse is a source of enormous pride at the school -- which translates into donations. To cancel a season was to wreak direct harm on the bottom line. But the headmaster did it, anyway. Very courageous, in the face of the pressure he must have felt.Manassas, Va.: In re: cancelling the lacrosse season, I think I would have gone another route.I would have allowed the team to continue, but permanently benched all offenders. That way, they could continue to build their lacrosse skills, but by having to ride the pine for every game the rest of the season, they would be further reminded of the implications of their actions. As they saw their team's record slip, they would be reminded how far reaching the consequences of our actions can be.Bob Levey: Interesting take. I suspect it might have driven home the same lesson in a different way. But of course, some parents would have complained that benching their kids interfered with the ability of those kids to get athletic scholarships. Believe me, that conversation already takes place between coaches and the parents of benched kids every day of the week.College Park, Md.: I didn't think statutory rape had anything to do with consentual or not. If a legally defined adult has sex with a legally defined child, not matter if the child said "lets"...then it's statutory rape. The young man is getting off easy if no charges are being filed. Bob Levey: That's correct in a technical legal way. But a prosecutor still has to make the decision about whether a case needs to be brought. Arlington, Va.: Hi Bob, I am a 20-something female (no kids) and I basically agree with the school's decision on all counts. However, it makes me wonder: Would the punishment have been acceptable if this had been an inner-city school with poor kids losing out on scholarship opportunities?Are they being unfairly punished in a way that non-rich kids wouldn't? I dunno, but I thought I'd throw that out there for comment.Bob Levey: I raised this point in my Wednesday column. Again, the St. Paul's boys have options that inner-city kids probably don't have. So interfering with an athletic scholarship for a St. Paul's kid who was always going to college anyway isn't that much of a blow. To an inner-city basketball player whose family doesn't have a nickel, however, cancelling his senior season would have a direct, lasting impactCo-ed?: Let's be real. A single sex environment is not the reason this happened. I went to a all-female high school, and college for that matter, and never heard of anything like this. But then perhaps we were able to develop a stronger sense of self-respect than young women in co-ed environments. And no, I'm not a lesbian.Bob Levey: Thanks for this point of view. I wasn't trying to lay the incident at the door of the school's gender mix. This disaster was brought on by flesh-and-blood kids, not by a policy on a piece of paper.Baltimore, Md.: Just wanted to address a couple of points: the boy who made the video supposedly got the idea from the movie "American Pie," in which a guy Webcasts himself having sex (or trying to) with a girl.My boyfriend went to St. Paul's, as did many of his friends, so I can unequivocally say that a same-sex environment warps you! Since they aren't around girls, they don't learn how to behave toward them.I AM surprised, though, that so many people are so shocked by what happened. I mean, what's so surprising about the fact that teenage boys are gross, sex-crazed jerks? I knew that when I was 16!Bob Levey: I'm planning to rent "American Pie" this weekend to see the scene you mention. Could something like that really persuade a 16-year-old kid to do what he did? In real life? To a real-life 15-year-old? I'll watch, and I'll try to decide. Follow-up to the Wednesday column coming very soon.Washington, D.C.: In response to Manassas, my guess is that the headmaster cancelled the season rather than suspend the perpetrators because he felt that the entire school bears some responsibility for allowing an atmosphere to exist in which this could take place, and so the entire school needed to shoulder of the blame.Bob Levey: Exactly. Thanks.Rockville, Md.: Is there any chance that donations will pour in because people think the dean did the right thing?Bob Levey: Possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. What I would bet on: a surge in applications. Wouldn't you want to send your kids to a place where a guy this "together" was running the show? Bob Levey: Thanks very much, gang. An excellent discussion. Next Friday, we revert to our anything-goes format. Be sure to join us then. As always, the May 4 show will kick off at 1 p.m. Eastern time.washingtonpost.com: That was our last question today. Thanks to everyone who joined thediscussion. 2ff7e9595c
Comments