Dec 9


“But if she doesn’t scream, it’s ok”

by Terry 09 December 2005


In a story reported by the Seattle PI, the Royal City, Washington school district took victim-blaming to a new low recently when they claimed they should not be held liable in civil court for the actions of Royal Junior High School teacher Steven Diaz when he sexually exploited a 13-year-old girl. Their justification? They claim she participated in the affair. They argued in court that the 8th grader “had a duty to protect herself against sexual abuse but failed to do so.”

Thankfully, Washington State Supreme Court shot them down. Under state law, it’s criminal for a teacher or anyone else in a position of power to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18. The court wrote in their opinion, “a child under the age of 16 may not have contributory fault assessed against her for her participation in a relationship.” In a ruling of 7-2, the court stated that criminal laws protecting children from sexual abuse apply equally in civil cases. The court also dismissed the defendant’s assertion that the girl consented to the relationship.

My question is, what was going through the heads of those 2 who disagreed? I’m extremely concerned that they would be swayed by the argument that victims have a responsibility to prevent their own victimization. Could a murderer claim that the person he killed was partially responsible for his own death because he had a legal obligation to stay out of the path of the bullet? Children–even female children–have the legal right to be safe from predators, particularly in their schools. That is the intent of the law. The principal and the school district which hired Diaz had the duty to protect that child and to provide supervision to guarantee that their employee was not a danger to the children in his care.

I am also concerned that the opinion extended protection to children only under the age of 16 when criminal law says 18. It opens the door to those who would say it’s ok to blame the victim based on her age. Teachers having sex with students is NEVER acceptable and it’s NEVER the child’s fault. Period.

Men are not helpless; they are not at the mercy of their hormones when confronted with a nubile teenager. The vast majority of men do not rape and do not exploit. To leave this out for abusers is an insult to all the decent, caring teachers who know that sexually approaching a child under their influence is not only illegal but wrong. The responsibility belongs only to the perpetrator. Even if she’s pretty. Even if she doesn’t run away. Even if she’s 17. It is his crime, not hers. Always.

The bottom line: only an abuser has the responsibility to prevent abuse. Failure by the victim to avoid rape–evidenced by being raped, statutory included–does not make her culpable for the crime.

I am disgusted that the Royal City school district would even consider this defense, let alone present it in court. In my opinion, it shows that they pay a higher allegiance to their pocketbooks than to the children in their care. Should the district ask for the ruling to be reconsidered, I hope they will be slapped down soundly.

This 13-year-old child has been through enough.

Tagged:

6 Comments

6 Responses to ““But if she doesn’t scream, it’s ok””

  1. Have Coffee Will Write » WHO DIDN’T SEE THIS COMING…? on December 11th, 2005 4:44 am
  2. I See Invisible People on December 21st, 2005 8:23 am
  3. Chris on December 25th, 2005 5:34 am

    The internet is a wonderful thing. One of the dissenting opinions wasn’t dissenting the girls claims, but it was dissenting that the school and the school officials were at fault for the rape. You can find the opinions online. Here’s the quote from one of the dissenting opinions.

    “In this case, the school district and Principal Preston Andersen allege that the student lied to her parents and school officials about her encounter with Diaz. Nevertheless, the majority denies these defendants the opportunity to demonstrate that the student’s conduct, denying any sexual contact with the teacher, contributed to her injuries allegedly caused by the defendants’ negligent hiring and supervision of the teacher. In its reasoning, the majority blurs the distinction between intentional and negligent conduct, confuses the multiple defendant parties in this action, and ignores the importance of the facts suggesting that the student lied to her parents and school officials about the sexual relationship with the teacher. The majority’s holding is overly broad and effectively holds the school district and the principal liable for the intentional conduct of
    the codefendant teacher.”  (Quote)

  4. Terry on December 25th, 2005 10:23 am

    Thanks, Chris. Though I still disagree with it, the details on the dissenting opinion is interesting.  (Quote)

  5. MG Monza on December 26th, 2005 9:02 pm

    Where is all the frenzied media coverage that howled for the female Washington school teacher that had sex with a 13 year old?
    Why isn’t Diaz’s name as familiar to everyone by now as hers?
    Like the howling for the blood of Susan Smith, while at least six men in the Pacific West alone were reported to have
    murdered their children solely in order to get back at the mothers, this shows how much permission men have to rape and murder girls and women and how little value American newspapers and television editors and reporters place on the lives of women and girls.  (Quote)

  6. scribblingwoman on April 23rd, 2006 7:35 am

Leave a Reply

Terry likes gravitars to personalize comments. Don't have one? Make one at gravatar.com!