FINGERPRINTING IS FOR SHOW: CHILD ABUSE IS FOR REAL
Don Tarbet op-ed submitted to Lewiston Sun-Journal
The Maine PTA and about 15 other sponsoring groups and subgroups took out
major newspaper ads beseeching all citizens to attend a rally April 4 on the
steps of the state capitol in support of fingerprinting of all school
personnel. They wanted to send a message to the legislature. According to
one legislator's count, 5 people from the entire state -- other than captive
promoters from DOE and the legislature and the advertised 'inspirational
speakers ' -- attended. The rally was scheduled for 4:30 to 6:30. It was
over by 5:00. The weather? It was much better than on the previous night
when 40 opponents of fingerprinting (split 50-50 between school personnel
and other community members) attended an outdoor rally in Blue Hill in a
driving rain storm. Compare 40 people at a local rally to 5 at a statewide
rally.
So a message was sent, all right; it just wasn't the one organizers of the
rally wanted to send. In fact, a couple of messages were sent. Message one
could be stated quite succinctly. The people of Maine are tired of
non-solutions to real problems. According to figures provided by DOE and
DHS, about 2/10 of one percent of child abuse and molestation occurs in the
schools. That's two in one thousand. National data support this low
number; it is such a small portion of total abuse that it isn't even listed
as a separate category. Child abuse in schools is so rare that every case
that does occur makes the front pages. Of this 2/10 of 1% only 1/4
(according to DOE figures) are committed by offenders who might be caught by
fingerprinting. We are down to 1 in 2000. But that figure is still too
generous to supporters of the law. One in 2000 is too generous.
In reality, DOE figures (42 convictions, 27 sexual over 10 years with 16
negotiated surrenders of license over a shorter period) have to be compared
against the full range of DHS figures (3700+ documented cases of abuse out
of 4500 investigated in 1997 with 3000+ NOT investigated because of lack of funds).
National statistics quoted by Criminologist Steven Barkan in the Bangor
Daily News (10% of boys and 25% of girls suffer some form of sexual abuse)
reveal a horror story truly staggering in its proportions. That makes our 1
in 2000 an overestimation. So for every tragedy described by proponents of
fingerprinting as supporting their point of view, there are at least 2000
untold tragedies we chose to ignore so we can concentrate on the one.
Fingerprinting school employees to prevent child abuse is like kicking the
dog because the chickens won't lay eggs.
And note that the DOE figures were obtained before fingerprinting. Does
that mean that DOE numbers are just the tip of the iceberg? Not at all.
Here again they agree fairly well with national figures, some of which were
obtained from states requiring fingerprinting. With standard, less
intrusive background checks during hiring we were doing about as good a job
of keeping pedophiles out of the schools as we would with fingerprinting.
There is no evidence that invading personal privacy by fingerprinting school
employees will ever protect even one child who could not be better protected
by other, more sensible -- but less spectacular -- means. The tip of the
iceberg? No. We probably have a much better handle on abuse in the highly
visible world of the schools than on that in the darker corners of our
society. There floats an iceberg of frightening dimensions.
Nevertheless, we can't keep out all pedophiles or other abusive types. Most
cannot be detected by fingerprinting because they have never been caught or
prosecuted (3/4 according to DOE figures). The well-publicized case of the
track coach who molested his charges over a period of years is a perfect
example. Fingerprinting that man every five years -- or every five days
would have done nothing toward protecting those young people. So
fingerprinting serves only to provide a clean bill of health to some people
not deserving of one. It also engenders a false sense of security. It's
lying to our children about their safety, and that is the worst thing we can
do to them. Any measures we take to protect children must be directed at
the real danger, not at creating facades.
Almost as bad, the system itself may be terribly flawed. John Ford Sr. is a
former sheriff of Waldo County (who has had to step in to resume duties
following the tragic death of the elected sheriff at a fire). He writes to
the Maine Educators Against Fingerprinting (MEAF) website
(http://www.mainemarketplace.com/fprint), that the state's effort is
'a farce'. Getting fingerprint records in criminal cases to the FBI
database so that they can be checked against is slow and uncertain.
CNN ran a story on another fingerprint issue saying that the merging of a
database with the FBI's and getting meaningful results back might take years.
We have been fingerprinting for months now. What results have we gotten
back?
A number of writers have suggested that one major reason for establishing
fingerprinting is to circumvent liability suits, to show that we really are
doing something to promote security. The Governor and the Commissioner of
Education use identical phrasing; "This process is about enhancing the
integrity and public perception of the teaching profession." In other
words, it is about appearances. This hope of avoiding liability may prove
false. The data are coming to show overwhelmingly that the state has chosen
a non-optimum solution when better solutions were available. Fingerprinting
is for show. Child abuse is for real.
Perhaps another message sent is that the bureaucracies of some organizations
are not in good touch with their members. I know of at least one
organization listed as a sponsor of the rally that never polled its members
and suspect that the same could be said of several more. The Commissioner
of Education made a presentation to the executive council and it was so
decreed. Maybe a majority of the members of those organizations do support
fingerprinting. Or maybe not. They weren't asked. And it is absolutely
certain that there is not unanimous agreement within the education
organizations listed. I am a school board member, and the Maine School
Boards Association certainly does not represent my view or that of a number
of other board members I have talked to. It is also instructive to note that
the public forum in Bath that resulted in a straw vote of 120-4 in favor of
repeal was sponsored by a parent/teacher organization. Perhaps the message
to the legislators is: "Make sure you know how an organization formed its
policy before you take that policy to the bank."
Maybe the bottom line is that many Maine citizens are tired of having our
children used as political footballs. The most encouraging event of April 4
was the attendance at the presentation of the Trahan proposal for creating
a commission to study child abuse and outline preventive measures. People
from all sides of the fingerprinting issue were there. Maybe we are going
to get serious about protecting our children. I certainly hope so.
Several years ago I wrote a letter to the baseball league in which my son
played complaining that the children were being subjected to unsafe
conditions to satisfy adult egos. You know how it goes. You open your
mouth and people tell you to either close it or roll up your sleeves and get
to work. Next thing I knew I was president of that league and have been
ever since. That is the thing to remember. There are no easy solutions,
no matter how much we want them. We have to roll up our sleeves and get to
work. The Trahan proposal provides the framework. We have to provide the
will. Our children are worth the effort, aren't they?