Reason 647 to HomeSchool: Your Retarded Child Won’t Get Raped

The assumptions drawn from this poorly written newsarticle are dramatic and typical. Nowhere in the article does it indicate the student is developmentally disabled. Special education includes students with learning disabilities and behavioral disabilities. It is for students who may benefit from personalized assistance to learning. He was likely an at-risk teen with a troubled home life who wasn’t thriving in a standard classroom setting. Most of the alleged relationship occurred during the summer when this young man was no longer a student. I’m not defending her actions, but I think you should reevaluate your assumptions regarding the case. The case of “raping a ‘retarded’ kid” is more shocking than the true story, but it’s all in your head.

I’m aware of the curriculum for special education classes. They focus on developmental, behavioral, and physical disabilities. They also include assistance for learning disabilities and for those students who simply have difficulty reading. There are also ESL courses. Until facts arise which identify the student as developmentally or physically disabled, your crass statements are assumptions not facts.

I don’t think I’ve said anything crass. And lets get away from this special education thing. We both agree it’s not just “retarded” kids in these classes. We can also agree that no part of any article about this story indicates that the student was in a special education class. He was a student at West High. And at the time of the alleged sexual encounters he was not a student there at all. He dropped out in April. Although she was an associate at the school and that is considered a position of public trust which holds higher standards for behavior than the rest of society, to assume that she used that position of authority to persuade or manipulate the student into a relationship is also an assumption. It’s amazing how easy it is for you (and the news media) to draw the most sensational story out of the fewest facts. You latched on to the words “special education” and “lascivious acts with a minor” and that was all you needed. All news media and bloggers are overly capable of providing inaccurate or misleading information. You are perpetuating the dissemination of inaccurate and misleading information for the benefit of people who read headlines but skip the articles. In the interest of personal integrity you have a responsibility to present information truthfully. Your opinions are what they are, but don’t alter the facts to suit yourself.

How am I glossing over depraved behavior? I’m responding to the public facts of the case as stated in police reports. You are responding to your fantasy version of the story. Something to consider: if this student were physically or developmentally disabled, isn’t it possible the accused would be charged with sexual assault or rape? Researching the Iowa code for definitions of these different charges would be a responsible place to start if you want to infer any details about the case.

I can think of a dozen cases where a story broke and was manipulated by the press, only to dramatically change when more facts were released. Refer to the Amanda Knox case as a prime example.

You are free to judge whomever you want, but you are still guilty of presenting information in a misleading manner with the purpose of sensationalizing the story.

It’s not a pathetic excuse to save judgement until all the facts are in, it’s responsible.