Much Mythmaking About Special Order 40
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

A beleaguered LAPD chief William Bratton after weeks of being pounded and badgered by assorted right-wing talk radio show yakkers, and anti-immigrant rights groups, immigrant rights groups, and the L.A. City Council says that he’ll soon tell what LAPD officers can and can’t do in regards to the much attacked, much defended and much misunderstood Special Order 40. The controversy and the muddle has spawned much mythmaking about what the Order actually says and what it allows officers to do.
The Order specifically says that LAPD officers can’t initiate any “police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person,” and with the objective of arresting or booking a person for “illegal entry” into the United States.

In plain English, the Order and the policies and procedures that the LAPD top brass put in place decades back to under gird how the Order is interpreted and enforced on the streets prohibits officers from asking a person about his or her alien status and from notifying the ICE about a person’s undocumented status unless the person has been arrested.

That line has been widely cited by those that want the Order dumped and has stirred the anguish of Jamiel Shaw Sr., whipped up frenzy among anti-immigration reform activists, and gave right wing talk hosts the wedge they needed to pound the city council and Bratton and sneakily push their anti-immigration reform agenda. The part of the Order that they have sloppily misread or deliberately ignored never forbade LAPD officers from participating in task force investigations, responding to requests from the ICE for information regarding suspected illegal aliens, or assisting ICE agents in the execution of arrest warrants.

That’s just the start of the public and political mythmaking on the Order. It does not bar an LAPD officer from notifying ICE of the immigration status of a person arrested for a crime if the officer learns of that information. Further, nothing in the Order bars an officer who is investigating an individual for criminal activity other than an immigration violation from asking that person about his or her immigration status and then advising ICE.

The Order was never intended to prevent officers from not checking whether anyone being investigated for or arrested for a criminal offense, let alone arraigned and held in the county jail pending prosecution, from notifying ICE about the possible illegal status of the suspect. Even on the hotly disputed and debated point that the LAPD officers can’t ask a person who has been arrested for a crime about his or her alien status, there is nothing in the Department’s policies and procedures that explicitly prohibit that.


There’s nothing in the policies and procedures of Special Order 40 that prohibits LAPD officers from interacting with ICE agents for investigative purposes. This includes the issue that has caused the most confusion and inflamed public opinion and that’s officers providing the names of known gang members to the ICE in response to a request from the agency for information. There is also nothing in Special Order 40 that forbids LAPD officers from joining in a task force with ICE where the feds are investigating criminal violations of immigration laws at the same time that the LAPD is investigating violations of state criminal laws relating to say drug dealing or violent crimes. LAPD officers are certainly not prohibited from assisting the ICE to arrest a gang member for whom a warrant had been issued.

Here’s an added check list of what LAPD officers can do to nail gang members and violent criminals that are suspected illegals. They can:
*Respond to requests from ICE to provide information regarding an individual’s criminal activities or whereabouts.

*Assist ICE to execute arrest warrants for violations of the immigration laws.
*Provide tactical assistance when ICE is planning to conduct any operation that will prevent criminal acts and violence.

*Can provide the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department with the names of gang members or those suspected of involvement in criminal acts that are suspected illegals to ICE once the criminal investigation process has started.
The problem is not and never has been that Special Order 40 ties the LAPD in such tight knots that it has been hapless and ineffective in dealing with violent gang members who may be illegals. The problem is the muddle in interpretation and enforcement of the Order. LAPD officers have gotten confused and mixed signals from LAPD officials about what they can and can’t do on the streets with criminals suspected of being illegals.

As it turns out they can do a lot to get them off the streets and eventually out of the country. It doesn’t take a full blown, divisive, and racially polarizing campaign fueled by myths and misunderstanding about the Order to do that.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Swatting SWAT
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The instant that LAPD chief William Bratton called for a fresh look at the practices and gender make-up of SWAT in 2005, the howls went up from the LAPD Police Protective League, and the reflexive opponents of any LAPD change that Bratton was out to gut SWAT. This was silly, hyper-defensive, and politically motivated. Bratton was hardly out to dampen down the effectiveness of SWAT. The unit has had a solid record in handling tough situations with tact, professionalism, and most importantly a relative minimum loss of life.

The problem is that SWAT has made glaring operational mistakes in some very volatile situations. The equally big problem is that SWAT simply does not reflect the changing face and gender of the LAPD. The department in its blunt report dissecting SWAT said so. It called it insular, a good ole boy, and self-protective unit. Translated that means the unit is an iron-clad closed shop outfit, that brooks no outside interference, direction, and has doggedly resisted the entrance into SWAT of any other than hand-picked, elite male officers. This is a sure fire prescription to reinforce the clubby “them versus us” mindset and code of silence that has bedeviled the LAPD for decades.
This is the mindset that Bratton has sworn that he will do whatever he can to end during his second term at the LAPD helm.
But judging from the horrified reaction to the report and the changes that it recommended to break down the insular culture of SWAT, Bratton will have his work cut out for him on this. He’ll have an even tougher job in trying to make operational changes, or better still policy changes, on the thorny issue of the use of force. While SWAT has been lauded for handling most stand-off situations without resort to gunplay, on a few occasions when it has used force the result has been disastrous.

The most glaring and tormenting example of this was the accidental slaying of 19 month old Susie Pena, in a South L.A. hostage standoff in 2005. That forced a deep soul search within the department and within SWAT on when and when not to use force, and how much force is appropriate in tense situations. It also forced the LAPD top brass and the police commission to look at something else about SWAT. And that is when force may be inappropriate, or flat out overkill, in a situation where innocent civilians are injured or slain as a result. The question is how accountable are SWAT commanders and officers for the killing, and what if any punishment is meted out when a shooting is ruled out of policy.

The report found that in almost all cases where there was the questionable use of force by SWAT, the shooting was not found out of policy. The couple of times that the shootings were ruled out of policy there was no indication what, if any punishment there was to the shooters?

This is no small point. This begs for a policy change and that change is that the department must establish clear and firm guidelines on when an officer, in this case a SWAT officer, can and can't use deadly force. The vague rule is that an officer can use deadly force when he or she feels their life is endangered. What does that really mean?

That's the first step to confronting this problem. The second is discipline. A chief must have full authority to punish an officer found guilty of using excessive force. That includes SWAT officers. This too must be addressed and changed.
The overuse of excessive force is still the single biggest thing that poisons relations between the police and minority communities. It has sparked deadly racial turmoil and civil unrest in Los Angeles and other cities.

Bratton should be applauded, not stoned, for having the foresight to examine all parts of the LAPD to see what works, what doesn’t work, and where appropriate changes can be made to make those parts work even better.

No one is condemning SWAT for the way it handles things, nor is anyone calling it an out of control bunch of Cowboys. It has repeatedly been praised for getting it right most of the time. However, it’s those times when it doesn’t that the report simply says demands some change. After all we all want to see SWAT be the absolute best that it can be. Don’t we?

Hang in There Tavis Smiley, Don’t let the Black Obama Thought Police Run You Out
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

As late as this past January, black talk show host Tavis Smiley was the darling of black America. Three months later he’s the butt of black America. The tip off that Smiley’s personal stock has plunged was his abrupt announcement that he was quitting his long standing post as political commentator on the nationally syndicated Tom Joyner morning show. The Joyner show is virtually the airwaves Bible for legions of blacks. For more than a decade, Smiley was the show’s black political and social issues voice. He was widely considered the go to guy for blacks on cutting edge social and advocacy issues.

So what is Smiley’s great sin? He had the temerity to be less than a court cheer leader for candidate Obama. He compounded the sin with the black Obama thought police by having the added temerity to invite and warmly greet and thank Hillary Clinton for speaking at his annual State of the Black Union (formerly State of Black America) forum in February. Then he had the added added temerity to publicly criticize Obama for offering to send his wife Michelle as a fill-in.

That did it. The howls went up that Smiley was A. anti-Obama B. A closet Hillary backer C. an egoistic, self-absorbed, full of himself, bad host and ingrate. One columnist summed up the chorus from the black Obama thought police with this plunge the knife in the back title “Who Died and made Tavis King?” That title and the sentiment behind it would have been nothing short of heresy in January.

But putting the suddenly hate Smiley tide aside for a moment. There are two shames and tragedies here. The first is that if an African-American, and it makes no different whether it’s a Smiley, or anyone else, even dares breathe a kind word about Hillary Clinton they will be run out of Dodge on a rail. Heaven forbid if they declare that they will vote for Clinton. No matter how many reasoned arguments they give—her experience, grasp of the issues, programs, and positions, staunch history in support of civil rights, women’s rights, and social justice issues and Obama’s paper thin if not outright dubious record on all of the aforementioned. Then remind the Obama chorus that the last time they looked the strength of democracy and the first amendment is the right to back a candidate of their choice and not be subjected to a verbal public lynching for making their choice.

The second shame and disgrace is that those blacks that exercise their democratic right to pick the candidate they think will do the best job and not blindly back a candidate based solely because he’s black are considered race traitors. This is almost a text book variation on the old Orwellian Animal Farm saga of when the formerly oppressed flip the power table and suddenly become the new masters. They think, act and behave like the bunch that they kicked out of power. They are just as oppressive, stifling and thick headed toward any views and opinions that don’t conform to theirs.

Given the history of the racial scorn heaped on them, blacks should be the absolute last ones to impose a racial code of conduct on other blacks. Unfortunately, in their absolute dogmatic, unyielding, Obama mania, they have turned what in any other season would be a healthy give and take reasoned dialogue and even debate on political issues into finger pointing, name calling, bashing, and yes as Smiley unhappily said “hate” toward any black who disagrees that Obama is the second coming of Dr. King.

Here’s the challenge to Obama. Smiley has given him countless opportunities on his TV show, website, radio show, a presidential debate, and other public venues that he’s hosted to amply express his views. That hardly sounds like an inherent political enemy. Why not issue a statement simply saying that Smiley’s a stellar and consistent media and public voice for black causes, and a man worthy of respect and admiration. But most importantly, he has the right to hold and voice his political opinions on the presidential candidates and that even includes principled criticism of candidate Obama.

He has the right to do that without being vilified and verbally assailed. This in no way diminishes his credibility or value to black America. In other words, knock off the “hating” on Smiley (and others). Tavis, let me know when, but more likely if, that statement is ever issued. Meanwhile hang tough, and don’t let the black Obama thought police run you out.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Race Is Still the X Factor for Obama
Earl Ofari Hutchinson



There’s a good and bad note for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama in the recent exit polls of white voters in Democratic primaries. The good note is that by a lopsided majority of six to one whites said that race was not a factor in considering whether to back Obama or not. That pretty much conforms to virtually every poll that’s been taken since Obama tossed his hat in the presidential ring a year ago. His red state Democratic primary and caucus wins and the handful of endorsements he’s gotten from the red state Democratic senators and governors seem to bolster the poll findings as well as his camp’s contention that the majority of whites have bought his race neutral change and unity pitch.

The bad note for him, though, is buried in the racial rose tinged poll numbers. In fact, they were actually buried there even as he rolled up big numbers in his primary victories in Georgia, Mississippi, Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, and South Carolina, and the District of Columbia. Blacks make up a substantial percentage of the vote in those states, and he bagged eighty to ninety percent of their vote. But much less noted was that Clinton got almost sixty five to seventy percent of white votes.

It wasn’t just the reverse racial numbers for Clinton and Obama. Obama does incredibly well in netting the vote of college educated, upscale whites. But Clinton does just as well in bagging support from lower income downscale, and rural white voters. This has huge potential downside implications for Obama in a head to head battle with John McCain in the red states. A significant percent of the voters there are lower income, rural and less educated whites. Obama banks that he can pry one or two of the red states from the GOP. Yet, if he can’t convince Clinton’s white vote supporters, and they are Democrats, to back him, the chances are nil that he’ll have any more success with Republican and independent white voters in these states.

A hint of that came in the Democratic primary in Ohio. Clinton beat out Obama in the primary, and she did it mainly with white votes. But that wasn’t the whole story. Nearly one quarter of whites in Ohio flatly said race did matter in voting. Presumably that meant that they would not vote for a black candidate no matter how politically attractive or competent he was.

An even bigger hint of the race difficulty could come in Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary. The voter demographics in the state perfectly match those in Ohio. A huge percent of Pennsylvania voters are blue collar, anti-big government, socially conservative, pro defense, and intently patriotic, and there’s a tormenting history of a racial polarization in the state. Pundit James Carville has even described Pennsylvania as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between. Carville’s characterization is hyperbolic, but devastatingly accurate. Take the state’s two big, racially diverse cities out of the vote equation, and Pennsylvania would be rock solid red state Republican. While polls show some fluctuation in Clinton’s decisive lead over Obama there, she still has a solid lead.

The near unanimous backing that whites give to the notion of voting for a black candidate for president also deserves to be put to a political test to see how much truth there is to it. The question: “Would you vote for a black candidate for president?” is a direct question, and to flatly say no to it makes one sound like a bigot, and in the era of verbal racial correctness (ask Don Imus), it’s simply not fashionable to come off to pollsters sounding like one. That’s hardly the only measure of a respondent’s veracity. In a 2006 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, a Yale political economist found that white Republicans are 25 percentage points more likely to cross over and vote for a Democratic senatorial candidate against a black Republican foe. The study also found that in the near twenty year stretch from 1982 to 2000, when the GOP candidate was black, the greater majority of white independent voters backed the white candidate.

Republicans and independents weren’t the only ones guilty of dubious Election Day color-blindness. Many Democrats were too. In House races, the study found that Democrats were nearly 40 percent less likely to back a black Democratic candidate than a white Democrat.





Obama’s Democratic primary and caucus wins certainly show that many white voters will vote for him. They obviously feel that he has the right presidential stuff. But a large number of whites aren’t quite ready to strap on their racial blinders even for a candidate who has leaned way over backward to run a race neutral, bipartisan, unity campaign. The big question is just how many whites will refuse to strap on the racial blinders on Election Day. That’s still the X factor for Obama.

Saving Lives is Silliness? A Stunt? Dr. King Had an Answer for the L.A. Times Editors on the Murder Moratorium
Earl Ofari Hutchinson


On April 16, 1963 a group of prominent white Alabama churchmen wrote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. an open letter demanding that he call off demonstrations against segregation in Birmingham. The churchmen ridiculed Dr. King’s efforts by branding the demonstrations “untimely” and “unwise.” King’s first reaction was to shrug off their belittlement as the rantings of yet another pack of do nothing, obstructionists and nay sayers who delight in sitting on the side lines and taking cheap shots at any effort made for change. They, of course, won’t lift a finger to contribute time, energy or their dollars to groups and individuals that are trying to make positive change.

King made an exception and responded to his frozen in the sand critics with his famed Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “The demonstrations seek to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.” King went further and said radical action was needed to wake up citizens and involve them in the change fight.
His response spoke to the ages and applies to the Los Angeles Times editorial board.

They blasted the call by the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, the L.A.Civil Rights Assn. and other civil rights leaders for a 40 Hour King Assassination Memorial Moratorium on Killing as “silliness” and a “stunt.” It supposedly sullied the name and legacy of Dr. King. The tip off on the Times misunderstanding, or deliberate distortion, of the goal of the moratorium was its incredibly, sloppy, wrong headed, and idiotic earlier news headline (“City Council rejects ban on homicide”). The Times couldn’t even get the story of what the Council did right. The Council approved the call to end killing for 40 hours (the 40 hours marked the 40 year anniversary of the assassination) as a tribute to King.

King, of course, passionately and eloquently argued in countless speeches, letters, and interviews for non violence and ending killing whether in Vietnam or the streets of America’s cities. In an article published 12 days after his murder, and what stands as his last admonition from the grave, his voice still rang out loudly for an end to killing.

The moratorium in his name was not a silly, utopian, or wasteful call to end homicides. It was simply a challenge to L.A. residents that have seen many neighborhoods in the city torn by murder violence to pay tribute to the man who is one of world history’s foremost and most beloved champions of non-violence. The call during the period of reflection and thought on the meaning of King’s life and death by violence was a call to residents to commit, engage, and dialogue with friends, relatives, and loved ones in the schools, at work and on the streets, about ways to prevent violence in our city.

It was a timely opportunity for citizen and community engagement, even empowerment, in the ongoing and tormenting fight against murder violence. The moratorium was a rare chance for Los Angeles to provide a working example and a model for peace and nonviolence for other cities torn by murder violence. The moratorium showed what could be done when citizens join in the fight to take back their streets.
We talked with many persons old, and especially, young. They, unlike the tin ears and blinded eyes of the naysayers and head shakers on the Times editorial board got the point. They did not ridicule or belittle the moratorium call. They are the ones that are most at risk from violence. They hardly considered any effort to reduce that risk as silly. They understood that if the moratorium saved even one life during the forty hour observance then the correct word that starts with the letter “s” to describe it is not stunt or silliness but success. This sailed way over the head of the Time’s editors.

Unfortunately, the moratorium did not attain one goal, namely no homicides during the 40 hour period. There were several fatal shootings. But the moratorium did attain the larger goals of calling attention to Dr. King and his struggle for nonviolent solutions to conflicts, and in engaging the community to continue the search for proactive solutions to the murder plague in L.A.
Does this sound like something that’s silly or a stunt?

The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable
The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable,civil rights leaders, and family members of victims of violence call for a 40 Hour King Assassination Moratorium on Killing. It begins at 6.01 PM Friday April 4th, the exact time and date King was killed forty years ago. It ends at 10.01 AM Sunday.

The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable also will host a “ 40th Anniversary King Assassination Dialogue on Violence Roundtable” on Saturday April 5. Community leaders, elected officials, law enforcement are invited to dialogue on specific initiatives that the community can implement to reduce murder violence.

Honor King on the Fortieth Anniversary of his Assassination with a 40 Hour King Assassination Moratorium on Killing. Pt 1
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

“a check of the hospitals in any Negro community on any Saturday night will make you painfully aware of the violence within the Negro community.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Forty years ago on April 4, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. There is a chilling parallel in his assassination and the recent murder of Jamiel Shaw and the near killing of Lavarea Elzy. They, as Dr. King, are innocents. The victims in the recent spike in the mostly black on black and Latino on Latino murder violence in Los Angeles has stirred hand wringing, head scratching and finger pointing among LAPD officials, local elected officials and community residents in a desperate effort to get a handle on the violence.
But whether it was the assassin’s bullet that claimed the life of one of history’s most prominent and beloved fighters for peace and justice, or an innocent such as Shaw it’s still painful, heart wrenching and screams for an answer. The King led civil rights movement provided two answers to the violence plague. The first was King’s fight for racial justice and economic uplift. That meant far more than simply integrating a lunch counter or drinking out of a white’s only fountain. It meant ending the disparities in the criminal justice system, a full court attack on failing public schools, providing affordable health care and housing for all, decent jobs at decent pay especially for young black males that face near Great Depression chronic levels of unemployment, and comprehensive family support programs to prevent family break-up. Economic and racial equality are essential to boosting self-esteem, self-worth, and community caring values among young African-Americans and other minority youth. That would be a giant step toward cutting down the carnage that has plagued many poor black and Latino urban neighborhoods.
Even before James Earl Ray’s bullet tore through King’s neck, he had denounced the attacks against stores, shops and police by young blacks following a march by striking Memphis sanitation workers. King’s horror of violence by blacks or whites was never far from his mind. But he knew that simply calling for an end to the violence was an empty gesture if he and other civil rights leaders weren’t willing to lead by example and make nonviolence the heart of their philosophy, practice and preachment, and if need be sacrifice their lives rather than resort to violence.
King’s second answer to ending the carnage in Los Angeles and other urban neighborhoods was to instill in young blacks a reverence for life. He and other civil rights leaders understood that a big reason it was so easy for blacks to slaughter each other with impunity was that their lives were devalued by the killers and by larger society. This indifference to life created an internal hostile climate that was fueled by the endemic high unemployment and poor education among many poor black and Latino youth.
Though black-on black murder did not top the murder charts in some big cities during the heyday of the 1960’s civil rights movement, the seeds of the violence were there. The seed remained the economic and social neglect and destitution of the inner cities. King did not explicitly call for a moratorium on urban killings during his lifetime. The issue for the civil rights leaders then was still the fight to end the vestiges of Jim Crow discrimination and the developing battle against poverty.
The assassin’s bullet that felled King sent the horrible and grotesque message that if violence could claim a King, it could claim anyone’s life. The only thing that could stop it was a deep, intense, and sustained commitment by society to work toward peace and social justice and by African-Americans to fully repair and restore pride and devotion to family and community.
Forty years after the murder of one of the world’s leading martyrs for peace and justice, what better way to pay tribute to his sacrifice than with a 40 Hour King Assassination Moratorium on Killing. A community, South L.A., and a city, Los Angeles, that can start and end 40 hours with not a single recorded murder is a community and a city that has shown that forty years later it can still embrace the message of peace and nonviolence that King preached and that ultimately cost him his life. It’s a small gesture time wise, but a monumental feat human life wise.

The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable
will host a community discussion on “Sexual Predators and LAUSD Classrooms: The Steven Rooney Case May Be The tip of Tipberg”
Parents, Teachers and Adminstrators Urged to Come Forth and Discuss the Issue.

Saturday 10:00 to 11:00 AM, March 22
Lucy Florence Coffeehouse
3351 W. 43rd St. L.A. Leimert Park



Passing the Trash
The Dirty Secret of School Sexual Abuse
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Passing the trash doesn’t have anything to do with a garbage pickup. It’s the practice that school officials, teachers and administrators whisper about among themselves when school districts routinely move a teacher or administrator accused of sexual misconduct to another school, file no charges against the accused, make no public disclosure about the charges, and even make a financial settlement with the accused if they move on. Invariably, the offending teachers are dumped in the poorest of the poor mostly black and Latino inner city schools.
The practice of shuffling sexually tainted teachers and administrators is a dirty secret and a national disgrace. Yet dozens of school districts engage in the practice. Hundreds of teachers accused of or that are guilty of sexual abuse of students have skipped away scot free or with minimal disciplinary action. This practice has left countless student victims and their parents in emotional rage and turmoil. The practice recently bit the Los Angeles Unified School District hard when Steven Rooney an administrator was charged with the sexual molestation of a 13 year old middle school student.
The Rooney case was a textbook example of the all too prevalent wink and nod of many school districts toward sexual abuse. Rooney was under investigation for a prior suspected sexual offense against a teen student, yet was shuffled around to several South Los Angeles inner city schools. Finally he was dumped at Markham Middle School in the heart of Los Angeles’s Watts district. There was no public disclosure that Rooney might be a problem. Rooney’s arrest brought howls of rage and protest from dozens of parents. Embarrassed school officials scrambled fast and offered profuse apologies, promised to set up a task force and conduct a rigorous investigation.
The problem though is that the Rooney case may be just the tip of the iceberg. The great likelihood is that there are other teachers and administrators that have committed acts of sexual abuse within the LAUSD and parents, students, and even teachers and administrators may be totally in the dark about them. And it’s not just the Los Angeles school district.
Education researchers estimate that fifteen percent of the nation’s 50 million school children could be the victims of sexual abuse. The sexual abuse involves not just inappropriate physical contact between teachers and students but involve sending emails, text messages, and digital photos, as well as My Space postings, seductive notes, and even anonymous gifts. A majority of the cases go unreported out of fear, shame, embarrassment, and reluctance on the part of some teachers and administrators to blow the whistle on their co-workers. Some districts dread the prospect of costly liability suits and settlements, and the adverse publicity from sexual abuse cases.

The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable
will host a community discussion on “Sexual Predators and LAUSD Classrooms: The Steven Rooney Case May Be The tip of Tipberg”
Parents, Teachers and Adminstrators Urged to Come Forth and Discuss the Issue.

Saturday 10:00 to 11:00 AM, March 22
Lucy Florence Coffeehouse
3351 W. 43rd St. L.A. Leimert Park


Even when abuse is documented or strongly suspected, the discipline is often spotty, inconsistent and arbitrary. From 2001 to 2005, states suspended or revoked the licenses of more than 2500 teachers and administrators guilty of sexual misconduct. A handful such as Rooney was jailed. In far too many other cases, the offending teachers and administrators were transferred within the district, or got jobs with other school districts, and were given glowing recommendations. There was no known public disclosure in most of these cases. There is no federal law that bars teachers accused of sexual malfeasance from moving from one school district to another.
The school districts where the sexually suspect teachers resurface did not know that they were ticking sexual time bombs. Some states have moved aggressively to get a better handle on teacher and administrator sexual abuse. They mandate fingerprinting, criminal background checks, and the automatic revocation of a teacher’s license for conviction of sexual molestation. Many other states have done little to crack down on school sex cases.
There are still more gargantuan loopholes in the laws. The FBI’s background checks disclose felony convictions only. In many teacher sexual cases, the charges are reduced to misdemeanors. And sexual accusations are reported to police and child welfare authorities only when there is sufficient proof of abuse. Since much of the abuse is through the internet, in secret, and the victim is threatened there is no smoking gun proof of abuse. This insures that thousands of sexual abuse cases slip through the cracks. That’s what happened in the Rooney case.
The LAUSD, as other districts, were not simply clueless. They are hamstrung by their own vague and lax provisions in dealing with suspected or actual sexual abuse. The LAUSD, for instance, conducts investigations into suspected abuse only after a criminal investigation is completed. There is no mandatory transfer of teachers and administrators under a sexual abuse cloud to non-classroom assignments during the district investigation. There is no mandatory public disclosure of the results of investigations in sex cases involving teachers and administrators. There is no determination whether teachers and administrators in sexual abuse cases are disproportionately dumped at the worst performing South Los Angeles schools. These loopholes scream for closure.
In a 2007 national survey, the Associated Press found that sex cases were on the rise in many states. California was at or near the top of the list. The Rooney case and others like it show why teacher and administrator sexual abuse remains the nation’s dirty secret.