In 2007, a school principal was charged with sex crimes (2 counts). While he was awaiting trial, parents created an uproar against him being allowed
to continue serving at his job. Under pressure, he resigned. His name and picture have been on the news.
. . .
Now, the trial is over. He has been found "not guilty." The news report said he was accused of having contact of a sexual nature with a woman of age twenty, at a party away from the school, and the jury believed that it was by mutual consent.
How hard will it be for this man to get a comparable job, since he was accused of sexual misconduct? Anyone who googles his name will find dozens of stories about this accusation. How many people will even read that he was found "not guilty," compared to all those who read news articles while he was under suspicion?
I would not do what he did, or approve of it, but I have sympathy for him. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean his life will ever return to its former path.
As a matter of interest, how come a 20 year old is still at school?
"School" is used of highschool or what would be called college here - I was almost 19 when I finished highschool.
Most primary schools in the US start at the age of 6 - and high school ends 12 years later. If a child missed a year through illness, etc., 20 is entirely possible.
But scholar - that teacher will never teach again, I suspect.
This is why I would prefer - and have said this for a long time - that suspects are not named in the press until a verdict is given. By all means, punish the guilty - not don't ruin the lives of the innocent.
However, that'd put a lot of the tabloid press out of business...
I did not say the woman was a student at his school, or that he was a high school principal (I'd have to check to see if he was). I see that I could
have used more careful grammar to be clear that "parents" refers to the parents of the children at the school where he served as principal (not
"parents of the adult with whom had sexual contact"), who were of the attitude, "I don't want a man accused of sexual misconduct heading the
school where my child studies."
It does seem to me that the British system of funding schools is better than the American system. Small school districts have a lot of trouble meeting their expenses in the U.S. I'm told it is very common for school teachers to buy supplies themselves for students who do not have basic supplies (pencils, paper) or when their classrooms run short (out of tape). I can hardly imagine a district being able to continue to pay a suspended principal, and pay someone to cover his work as well.
I understand the Chicago area has the opposite problem. Teachers accused of sexual misconduct with students, but without ciriminal convictions, are passed on to other schools. If you only have the word of the child, it's not enough for a conviction. The Chicago schools won't note the accusation in employment records. This does protect against harm from false accusations, but it also allows for teachers to be accused multiple times, changing location after each scandal, provided the name does not leak to news sources.
The funding of the English school system is complex and difficult... I'd happily post some links but they do tend to do in the head...
The only thing that will put them out of business is if people stop buying them.
Isn't that a tragic indictment of the world around us?
If she wasn't a student at his school, he should have been on a leave of absence - nothing more - until the case was decided one way or the other.
As he was found "not guilty", he would have strong grounds for compensation, especially since his name was published and it is extremely unlikely that he will be able to secure gainful employment in his chosen field again.