For the last couple of weeks, Kevin Jennings has been at the center of controversy over his handling of a high school boy who came to him for advice about involvement with an older man. More recently, conservative bloggers have been attempting to make connections between Kevin Jennings and Harry Hay. Harry Hay was the founder of the Mattachine Society, the first gay rights organization in the country.
The reason Jennings’ critics want to make this connection is because Harry Hay was a supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). NAMBLA is widely regarded as a front group for those with sexual interest in children and teens. Currently, NAMBLA has a feature on Hay linked on the front page of the website titled, “Harry Hay and the roots of the gay movement.” As these links document, Hay spoke at their conferences and supported their aims.
Jennings has spoken positively about Hay and wrote about him in a book titled Becoming Visible, which is a gay history book for teens and college aged adults. In this book, Jennings referenced a biography of Hay (The Trouble with Harry Hay, by Stuart Timmons) which mentioned Hay’s support of NAMBLA but Jennings did not disclose this to his readers. Anyone seeking to learn more would find the reference but then learn that Hay was an advocate of boy lovers. Is it fair to fault Jennings for this? Watch this video from Scott Baker at Breitbart.tv where this is laid out in detail.
Below is the picture Scott Baker is referring to with Hay supporting NAMBLA in 1986:
Harry Hay clearly supported NAMBLA even though he said he was not a member. Here (part one, part two) you can read the section of the book by Timmons which references the event where Harry Hay attempted to wear this sign.
This seems to establish that Jennings was aware of Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA. Now the question: is it fair to criticize Jennings for lauding Harry Hay when he knew Hay was a supporter of NAMBLA?
Some related questions come to mind. When is an icon not an icon? In the Timmons book, it seems clear that Hay viewed the gay establishment who tried to silence his support of NAMBLA as “self-righteous.” Was it? Should gay leaders speak out about this now, especially during gay history month? When conservatives refer to someone like Paul Cameron or Scott Lively, they are criticized (and rightly so, to my way of thinking). Should those who laud Hay be questioned about their support for someone who walked with NAMBLA?
Discuss…
Harry Hay describes his coming out as his “child molestation speech.” Describing his sexual debut at 14 with a 25 year old young man, Timmons wrote about Hay (Read it in context here):
When in later years he told his favorite coming-out story, he referred to it ironically as his “child molestation speech,” to make the point of how sharply gay life differs from heterosexual norms. “As a child,” he explained, “I molested an adult until I found out what I needed to know.”
This same story was told in a 1983 speech in support of NAMBLA and is archived on the NAMBLA website.
The point is that I was perfectly capable of handling myself and knowing exactly what I wanted. But this year I knew that I wanted to find a man to tell me what I wanted to know. So, at fourteen, you realize, I’m a child molester. I’m a child, and I’m molesting an adult till I find out what I want to know. And I found him, and he was shocked. Then he discovered that, rather than being a man, as he suspected that I was from the way I looked—my callouses on my hands, and the way I handled myself, and my clothing—that I was only a fourteen-year-old kid, and if anybody found out about it he’d be in jail for life, or, at least in California twenty-three years in that period.
I’m telling you this story, and I’m saying it tonight, in memory of a man—all I can remember is that his name was Matt. And I send to all of you my love and deep affection for what you offer to the boys, in honor of this boy when he was fourteen, and when he needed to know best of all what only another gay man could show him and tell him.
I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.
So, again, as I said, my offering is not as a member of NAMBLA, but in memory of that fourteen-year-old boy who was handled by Matt so long ago. And in memorial to Matt, I offer you my love.
Harry Hay is one of the icons celebrated this month by GLBT History Month. His day was October 8th.
Michael–
I just looked it up…and it is a word…and a word that fits very well.
Jennings sees Hay the activist, Hay the spokesman, Hay the risktaker, Hay the visionary…and all those things are things he admires, respects and even emulates in Hay. It’s the ideal image- minus the tarnish of Hay’s support for NAMBLA. We’ve said it a number of times in the past few days: Jennings needs to distance himself publicly from even the hint that he endorses NAMBLA. This goes beyond a ‘guilt by association’ reasoning. His response to Fleming was lacking and the endorsement of Hay–without a public distancing from NAMBLA–just makes his stand all the more ambiguous. It might fly on some lower level but not for the position he’s been appointed to.
I get it. Hope, when the time is right, Exodus will distance itself from NARTH.
One can “admire, respect and even emulate” someone for certain qualities or contributions they have — and still make it clear that I do not endorse other aspects of them.
Exodus still needs to say why they dumped references to Cameron — an it was a lot more than his questionable “science”. They never denounced his anti-gay views and “abhorrent solutions” — as Warren has — publically.
And since NARTH still seems to “idealize” Cameron, they need to drop all ascociations with NARTH until they do — as Warren has done — publically.
Michael – I think idealize was a paraphrase by David Blakeslee – I cannot find where I said that.
I know some folks may take exception with bring up Exodus in this discussion, but I agree that
and I think the same principle applies to ex-gay groups and reparative therapy programs as well.
When I suggested that Exodus should remove “even the hint” that it might be seen as idealizing, admiring or endorsing folks like Cameron, Berger, Schonewolf (since NARTH seems to), I caught all kinds of flak on this blog.
Ann- thanks for your response. I certainly understand where you are coming from and see what you are saying.
I read the first 6 comments after I read the feed on this post and gave up right there. This post is silly. One can fairly well compare Harry Hay with the equality movement for gays with John Brown and the equality movement for black slaves in America. And Hay didn’t kill anyone like John Brown. And yet they sing a patriotic, almost ‘godly’ song extolling Brown’s actions.
This Throckmorton post is silly….
Silly, Lynn? Warren is reporting an already existing controversy, not creating one. What is silly is that Kevin Jennings asks us to take him seriously, given all the skeletons in his closet.
What has not even been brought out in these comments yet is Harry Hay’s lifelong Marxist leanings and why Jennings would pay homage to him with that in his background. Warren gave us the links to excerpts from Timmons’ book. Here are a couple pertinent quotes from it:
And a quote from Hay himself:
Others have referred to Jennings writing the foreword for “Queering Elementary Education.” Guess who provided the lengthy top cover endorsement. Obama’s old pal, Bill Ayers. Among other things, he called the book “a book for all teachers and parents, indeed, a book for anyone concerned with the healthy development of children and schools.” Here’s the Amazon page. Check it out for yourself.
Both Ayers and Jennings are vested in educational propaganda and “queering” America through schoolchildren. Jennings recommends a questionnaire for students in his book, Becoming Visible. One of those questions: “If you have never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn’t prefer that? Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?” Queering education? Nah.
And let’s talk about Marxist thinking, still embedded in higher education. No doubt folks like Ayers and Jennings silently pay homage to the Columbia University idealists who brought the (Marxist) Institute for Social Research to Columbia back in Communism’s ‘50s heyday. Paul Lazarsfeld, Leo Lowenthal and Marjorie Fiske Lowenthal were heavily involved in researching mass communications as a propaganda tool. Fiske-Lowenthal went on to become highly influential in public library policies expanding “intellectual freedom” to children, i.e., opposing parental authority over what kids could be exposed to in libraries. She and her husband set up shop at Berkley where she went on to craft library policy. The ALA remains in bed with the NEA ideologically.
This is only a tiny part of the disturbing stuff about Jennings. He is a dangerous wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is banking on the “silly” masses to let him slip right into the pasture.
You suggested that Exodus remove ‘even the hint’ that it might have any respect for those folks and then try to liken that to our complaint that Jennings hasn’t provided ‘even the hint’ that he has any distance from Hay’s views of NAMBLA. Except for the words ‘even the hint’, there’s simply no comparison. Exodus did some distancing but it wasn’t enough for you. Jennings has done NO distancing…NONE, NADA, not ‘even a hint’ of distancing from Hay’s more radical beliefs. In short, the complaint against Exodus was that they didn’t go 100% in their distancing while the complaint against Jennings is that he won’t go even 1%. We’re not asking for a rewrite of history; we’re not asking Jennings to renounce everything Hay every did; we’re asking for an ‘anti child-exploitation’ statement. Yes, it took Exodus a long time to come up with the anti-bullying statement but you relentlessly demanded it until they did. There’s your valid comparison. We are demanding an ‘anti child-exploitation’ statement from Jennings. And we don’t intend to give up until we get it.
He calls the Brewster story an allegorical tale. Interesting. I guess if it works for accepting the Bible, it can work for accepting Jennings.
Debbie–
Back in 2007 when Warren brought the Jennings/Fleming situation up as a blog topic, Dave Roberts said outright that he thought the Fleming story sounded like it was made up…it was a little too perfectly suited to the point Jennings wanted to make. Dave hinted that that is why the story has gone fluid…since it never really happened, it was being tweaked with each retelling based on whatever emphasis Jennings was trying to make.
I almost subscribed to that belief myself…BUT THEN ‘BREWSTER’ APPEARED. That sure messes with the allegory notion. If it’s an allegory, how do we explain Brewster? Where did he come from? Being non-existent and allegorical, how did he manage to take on human embodiment? Why didn’t Jennings say ‘this isn’t Brewster’? So much defies logic one of the keystones of a good education.
Yes, Eddy, it is all a kettle of smelly fish. Seems to get smellier each day. This is far beyond the “anti-gay attacks” that Kincaid and others allege. It’s one thing to just disagree with someone’s ideology. It’s another entirely to discover lies and heinous acts attached to that ideology and to realize that innocent children will be impacted by it.
David – Was this intended as a paraphrase of a conversation?
I don’t recall ever having a conversation like this and if a paraphrase, it would be good to make this clear. Also, I am pretty sure Timothy has never said anything like that. He and I disagree on this issue but his criticism was primarily directed at the groups who criticize Jennings because he is gay and not solely due to his policies. At least this is how I read it. I want to keep the discussion to the issues.
Are there any such groups? Seems to me the objections are grounded not in his mere gayness, but in his radical “queering” ideology, which would most certainly inform his policies.
For those who want to do a bit more digging on Jennings and other influences on his thinking, I recommend this excellent article written by Marjorie King for City Journal in 2003. She mentions Herbert Marcuse, who I can’t believe I forgot to mention in my above comments about the Institute for Social Research as he was the most radical member whose New Left influence on education and his sexual liberation theories are being felt today.
Warren,
You may want to keep the discussion to the issues…but Timothy wishes conflate disagreement with bigotry. Read his posting, there is no way to “make nice” in his assertion that your hard work to document the limitations and dishonesty of Jennings, as well as the legitimate concerns about Hay are disgarded, out of hand. Furthermore, he seeks to align you with anti-gay elements.
Regarding the above conversation: IT IS AN ALLEGORICAL TOOL in the spirit of Jennings…
“Anti-gay”…if you criticize Jenning’s judgment and his uncritical support, yes, idealization of Harry Hay.
oops…discarded.
@ Michael,
Comparing Jennings and Hay to Narth and Exodus is to inflate any power that Narth and Exodus ever or will ever have.
Narth and Exodus were never appointed as Special White House Advisors on Safe Schools.
Posted at box-turtle:
David Blakeslee
October 13th, 2009 | LINK
Correct me if I am wrong…about the following comment:
The Mattachine Society was energize by is radicalized beginnings…and made great strides because of that energy and outlook and willingness to take risks.
It was weakened, internally, by its own wish to be less confrontational (1953) and to seek assimilation.
If radicalism creates the energy for constructive change…and Harry Hay proved it…then it is reasonable to bring all of Harry Hay’s ideas to the front…especially as some of them may be passively accepted by Jennings (adolescent sex with adults as consensual).
David,
I admire and appreciate your certitute and convictions on this and other things you post about.
Just a reminder that Obama said this to the HRC folks Saturday:
Memo to the Prez: It’s for what “they” (specifically, Jennings) believe, which also happens to be an integral part of who they are, and for what they do with those beliefs. Gay, in and of itself, bothers fewer and fewer people these days. Contributing to or tacitly approving of the exploitation of young people, whether that is physical or mental “rape,” bothers a lot of people.
I’m interested to hear other’s thoughts on the point that Lynn brought up regarding Harry Hay and John Smith (or even Harry Hay and MLK that another poster brought up previously). Is it possible to admire the man’s work in the movement even if you disagree with other parts of it? And, if you admire that person’s work, is it necessary to bring up the negative side/disagreements every time you speak on him?
Brady, we are what we are in totality, and not in isolated parts. That means getting credit where it’s due and taking our lumps when we mess up. Anyone serving in a public office ought to be held to the highest of standards. Inscrutability doesn’t cut it. Being a policy-making public figure demands giving an account of one’s questionable associations.
Brady–
It certainly is.
No. and no one is asking for that. Jennings has NEVER brought up the negative side/disagreements; that’s where the problem lies. Being appointed as school czar is a situation that demands that he states clearly his beliefs re sexual exploitation of minors–including minors who might be ‘almost of age’.
Being schooled is a government mandate for all American youth. Jennings has been appointed to a very influential position over the schools. We all have a right to know where he stands since it isn’t clear 1) by his failure to report the Fleming incident 2) by his endorsement of Hay without ever speaking exception to the NAMBLA endorsement.
When we live in a society or political fishbowl where people are demanding transparency, then yes, we need to disclose the good, the bad, and the ugly. If we are going to demand honesty and thorough conversation and have any hope for peace, then we have to look at all of it.
I just knew you guys would object to the “comparison” — and you missed my point. I do not see these things as equal — but I think the PRINCIPLE of distancing oneself — and speaking out against the wakco fringe BY NAME — is a principle that applies across the board.
We ARE known by the company we keep. And Exodus is still cozy with NARTH, who is still cozy with Cameron, etc. Warren spoke out and pulled away — why won’t Exodus?
@ Michael,
The company we keep….Jennings and Harry Hay. Exodus and Narth.
The power we have…makes the meaning of who we associate with VERY important.
Exodus and Narth have minuscule power.
@ Brady,
The whole person is always worthy of discussion…discussing the whole person each time his name is mentioned is exhausting…remembering the whole person, when filtering their advice, condemnations and use of science is responsible.
Sad that you would think that way, David. It think it matters regardless of the power we have. Does the principle only apply to the powerful? Would you teach your kids that?
Would you use that same line of reasoning with principles like honesty? Fairness? Fidelity? Only “VERY important” if you have power? What kind of ethos is that?
@ Michael,
Never said “only”…
Power corrupts…absolute power corrupts absolutely…
Our beliefs are not harmless, but the destructiveness of them is directly proportional to the power we have…
Quite dodging, Michael…Jennings has extraordinary power, it is right to ask him his views on adolescent sexual behavior.
Oops, I meant “quit”
Michael–
I don’t think we missed your point at all. I don’t think you’ve succeeded in making it. Jennings has done ZERO to distance himself and has a few dubious marks against himself personally…not responsible for the comments on fisting delivered to teens at the seminar, not responsible for the shabby way he handled ‘Fleming’, likely not responsible for the questionaire that Debbie cited that Jennings endorsed containing this gem: “If you have never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn’t prefer that? Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?”, not responsible for lauding Harry Hay as an example without distancing himself from Harry’s more wacked out ideas. Gives new meaning to “Call Me Irresponsible”.
Yes, Exodus hasn’t completed severed ties with NARTH but they have distanced themselves from the teachings of Cameron–easily found through their home page.. For that, they get a few more points in the distancing department than Jennings has to his credit.
It’s that old double-standard rearing it’s ugly head again. From Exodus, you demand 100%; from Jennings, zip, nada, nothing, zero. And David’s points are extremely valid…the power Jennings has been given…the responsibility he has been entrusted with…they demand an even higher standard; they call for a higher measure of responsibility and accountability. In those immortal words of Tom Petty: ‘We Won’t Back Down’.
Debbie and others- I am not arguing one way or the other on the issue of Jennings in comparison to Smith, King, etc. (I haven’t yet at least). I thought Lynn brought up a valid point that had not been discussed.
I agree that we should look at all sides of a politician, but I hesitate to draw connections between NAMBLA and Jennings because Jennings spoke well of Hay. I haven’t seen you guys draw direct connections, but there are some that have (or at least have heavily insinuated it). If we are questioning his judgment, that’s one thing, but if we are tying him to NAMBLA, that’s quite another.
Brady–
That’s pretty much the gist of the topic and we’ve stayed pretty close to it. I don’t think we are tying him to NAMBLA as much as we are asking him to tell us how much he isn’t tied. If he’s not connected…not endorsing…not in favor…then it should be a very easy statement to make. Why, in the light of the circumstances I listed in my last post, is there such resistance to this simple request?
Nope. They both should do the 100%. Whether they have great power or miniscule power. That should not matter.
It’s not enough to for Exodus to quietly distance itself from Cameron’s dubious “science”. To date, NARTH has done zip, nada, nothing, zero about Cameron’s hateful teachings and “abhorrent solution. In fact, they have boldy refused to do it.
And Exodus is still cozy with NARTH. Why? Warren spoke up and dumped NARTH for this sort of thing– even though he has miniscule power. He wanted to avoid even the “hint” that he agreed with Cameron, Schoenewolf, Berger, et al. Why isn’t Exodus using what little power it has to do the same thing?
The point I am making is that character counts — regardless of how much power you have. Otherwise, it’s a big double standard — and makes those criticizing Jennings look like it only matters when someone is pro-gay and has power.
Rather than get bogged down into how much one group or another has done, I think it is good to note that Exodus and NARTH have done some things but not enough. NARTH especially still has reference to Cameron’s work and Exodus continues to reference the reparative drive theories as if they were hard science. They have however removed all references to the Pink Swastika and Exodus took a stand over Schonewolf and Berger, and removed the link to Lively’s article…as did Campus Crusade for Christ.
However, I am surprised that more gay groups have not been clear that Harry Hay was wrong to endorse NAMBLA and say that 13, 14 and 15 year old boys need older gay men to show them what they need to know. Hay did not merely endorse their freedom of speech but rather their mission. This has gone beyond Jennings for me now. I have not been able to understand why the http://www.glbthistorymonth.com/glbthistorymonth/2009/ website, which is promoted to high school and college age kids has declared Hay an icon.
Why indeed? It would be a very easy statement to make. I agree. He should do it today. And so should Exodus. Today. If morality and character only matter when you have power, then it’s not truly morality OR character. It’s just political posturing.
Long before this thing with Jennings, I suggested over and over that Exodus and NARTH needed to do this — that if they were not connected (to folks like Cameron, Berger, Shoenewolf, etc) …not endorsing…not in favor.. they needed to say so clearly. I used almost exactly the same words and reasoning you are using here — and was brushed off.
Double standard.
Michael–
We’ve had AMPLE opportunities to discuss the failings of EXODUS and, the fact is, that EXODUS has made some adjustments. They have a statement re Cameron, they have an anti-bullying statement. Simply not going to go there with you when there’s a very REAL, very MAJOR issue with VERY FAR-REACHING impact and a man who won’t give a clue as to whether he has a working moral compass. Exodus has had their day (many of them) on the blog’s examining table and I’m sure they’ll be her again but…this happens to be Jennings’ turn.
PS – John Brown has not been appointed to the Dept of Education.
Neither has Martin Luther.
Given their views and tactics, I would oppose them too if they were nominated.
Frankly Warren, I am also dismayed that Harry Hay would be presented as an “icon”. A early pioneer of the gay rights movement and a part of gay history? Sure. Icon? No. Couldn’t they find someone more admirable? What were they thinking? Didn’t they anticipate the backlash?
That’s old news. They’ve been doing it for the several years I have known about them. Just flying under the radar. Some guy went on “The O’Reilly Factor” several years ago to tout another Web site that was at that time connected to GLBT History Month. That one had lots of links to gay porn and sex toy shops. It was disgusting, and this man was telling people to go there. Barely anything that resembled history. It did have good old Harry, of course. I sent O’Reilly an e-mail.
Really? Can you direct me to their official statement denouncing Cameron’s views? Calling him on his “abhorrent solutions”? And the “anti-bullying” statement was 30 years late and took constant badgering by ME to get it done. “Some adjustments” to evil are not enough. They still are friends with NARTH and NARTH still promotes Cameron.
But I understand and agree — this IS more important because it’s a national matter — whereas Exodus and NARTH have little to no political power. Let’s hope it stays that way.
If a political appointee had praised NARTH, would you object strongly?
I’d object but not as strongly as I’m objecting here. This appointee (Jennings) has an appointment related to the education and protection of children so a seeming indifference to NAMBLA is particularly alarming. Had his appointment been to the military…to car company oversight…to banking, etc., his endorsement of Harry Hay would mean little to me.
And, curse me for not being entirely fair and globally minded, but the issue of the exploitation of children ranks higher on my list than a number of other ‘burning issues’.
If you have more curiosities, we’ll have to take them up at another time in another place. I do not wish to be a party to shifting this discussion away from its stated focus.
I undersrand and agree with this. I will not belabor the other point.
Warren- thanks for the response re: Brown and King.
Regarding Hay and being heralded as a gay icon–I’m with you. Until this conversation, I was only under the impression that he had spoken in favor of NAMBLA’s right to free speech. I don’t want anything to do with the organization, but from a legal standpoing, I’d at least see the reasoning. Speaking in favor of their mission…can’t get behind him, at all, for that.
@ Warren,
You are now part of the “anti-gay industry.”
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/2448.html
I think it’s time we become more industrious. Let’s live up to the hype! Don’t be content with just commenting here or reading up on the issues where you can, let’s live up to the hype! Voice your concerns about this appointment…about the issues that call for clarification…voice them wherever you think it might do some good.
They’ll call you anti-gay, or like Timothy Kincaid, mischaracterize your work:
That was his description of this: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=142
Thank for the reference, David. Seems to me that white paper certainly is relevant to some of our current discussions. This part, in particular, brings to mind some of GLSEN’s goals and curriculum objectives:
And Jennings’ weak attempt at doing something positive for whomever Brewster was meant to represent by tossing out “I hope you used a condom” comes off looking more silly after your review of the “Protect Yourself” video. Is that video still being used?
I became aware of the Montgomery County sex ed flap back in 2006. I recall it going back and forth, but I wonder where it is today. Also, Warren, you proposed an alternate curriculum for schools. Where does that stand now?
Forgive me for referencing the white paper one more time. Warren, we know that you have moderated some of your views since then. But some things still hold.
Given the statement below (we can debate the actual numbers, but that is mostly a moot point) I am wondering if “safety” in schools extends to helping to protect students from the STDs inherent in their sexually curious and risky behaviors, made more risky by their brain development, as pointed out in the statement I quoted in my above comment. Since there have been several threads here discussing Kevin Jennings and various aspects of his appointment controversy, I am not sure which is the best place to raise this point. But as this one is the current discussion, I am doing it here.
What we have is folks like Jennings actually promoting or helping to create some of the very problems he is being asked to help solve. It’s been pointed out by critics that “safety” as pushed by GLSEN and Jennings is a euphemism for gay advocacy. And students will be less safe from serious STDs, including HIV, if the prevailing thinking in public schools continues.
And by the way, the CDC’s estimates now of MSM (males sex with males) new HIV cases is even higher.
I am not up on HIV/AIDs prevalences now so I can’t comment on that.
I do think that teens are still teens and while we are making driving ages older (16.5 in my state, 17 in some states) we are expecting sexual activity earlier and earlier to be a norm. Both can be quite destructive in different ways. Call me old fashioned but pretending to be an adult in a car or in a bed is asking too much of a adolescent brain.
I call you wise, and an adult!
From a posting at Timothy Kincaid’s site, an author there referred to his other opinions which are found here: http://thomaskraemer.blogspot.com/2009/02/nambla-killed-gay-liberation.html
Debbie- regarding your most recent comment. While Jennings’ statement to Brewster was wholly inept, the one thing he actually did do was ask the boy to use a condom.
I agree with Warren regarding his statement about driving ages getting older while sexual experiences seem to be getting younger (and society seems to be ok with that), but I’m not sure I see the connection that Jennings is promoting sex or is helping to contribute to high STD rates in teens.
The point, Brady, was that he needed to do so much more. Condoms are not the magic bullet kids probably think they are, and I went to lengths to show that with my comments. Responsible adults (parents, teachers, coaches, etc.) need to be giving the whole message about “safety” to kids. If safety does not also mean safeguarding oneself from STDs, unwanted pregnancy and emotional distress — a message that also emphasizes the importance of waiting to become sexually active — then Jennings and his ilk are being hypocrites.
And yes, Jennings’ attitude and activism, as expressed through his collective writings and speeches, do, indeed, promote an unsafe environment in some ways for students by allowing them to believe they are safer than they are.
There is also the moral element, and that part of it is being neglected, as well. Is it morally right to help proliferate a large public health problem?
Of course, we already have covered the other moral elephant in the living room — winking at adult sex with a student who either was a minor or was still far too young to be playing with fire.
Kraemer apparently played some role in Oregon State University’s GLBT month in 2006
http://calendar.oregonstate.edu/event/8187/
I am sorry if we have covered this, but was “use a condom” the only thing he said to the kid? There must have been more to their conversation…
I can’t find anything else he has said publicly and he did say recently that he should have called in medical and legal consultation but he didn’t at that time.
The only things Jennings has admitted to and Brewster, the 16-year-old, has corroborated, is that Jennings (1) advised him to use a condom and (2) did not suggest to him that he should end the relationship with the older man. It’s on that point that Jennings later said he should have sought legal consultation.
I just find it hard to believe that a teacher (or any sdult) would just leave it at “wear a condom”. There must have been more to their talk. No questions asked? “Do you think it’s wise to be having sex at your age? How long have you felt depressed? I really don’t think you should be having sex with adults…?” Nothing else?
You would have to be brain dead. Even if he was of “legal age” and even if the kid said he was not having sex with the man… Something else must have happened in their conversations — otherwise the talk would have only lasted a few seconds. “Wear a condom, have a good day, good-bye”?. I find it hard to believe.
I agree with you. There had to be more to the conversation than that, but it appears that Jennings and Brewster agreed to publicly admit only to those two points because they were mentioned in Jennings’ original telling of the story. Of course there was more. Regardless, you end up with an adult educator condoning sex between a teenager and an adult, as long as it is done safely.
It’s irresponsible and reckless and, considering the time period, Jennings and Brewster are both very fortunate that the kid did not end up the victim of violence or disease. I think most adults who are not brain dead wouldn’t even advise other adults to continue a relationship that began through promiscuous contact.
Regardless, if there is any record of Jennings asking the questions you mention above — all very reasonable and representative of common sense, regardless of training — he has not produced the record, nor has Brewster.
Brewster was also at risk for being brutalized as an “out” gay adolescent…lets not forget.
That makes no sense at all. If they was going to tell the story at all — and I don’t see why they did — why would they agree only to mention the most damaging parts of their conversation?
Why not say, “A young gay man came to me who was very depressed, did not want to live and was taking great risks with his health. Sadly this is all too common for gay youth who have been brainwashed into believing they are dmaged and unworthy.”
“We had a heart-to-heart conversation and I helped him to see that his life was indeed worth living, that he did not need to put his life and his health in danger…”
Why just mention the older man and the condoms? Unless they both agreed that they wanted to look stupid?
Debbie- I agree that Jennings needed to do more, which is why I called his response inept. But, telling a kid to use a condom is hardly promoting sex.
Maybe that’s where we differ. I am of the opinion that sex education that encompasses both absitenence, safer sex, and the risks that come with sex, is the proper way to go about handling the problem with teen pregnancy and STD. You seem to be saying that talking about safer sex, or even telling kids its ok to be gay is advocating sex and spreading STDs.
if you are saying that Jennings and “his ilk” are “proliferating a larger health problem” by telling people that kids are ok, I’m sorry, but I have huge issues with that. If you are not saying that, then please tell me how else you think he is doing that or how else he is allowing students to be safer than they are.
Carole and Ann- this is off topic from the current post, but Carole asked previously why gays often focus their hostility at the Christian faith rather than the other faith.
This is completely allegorical, but I have a post up on my blog about a Christian friend of mine that recently came out and the response he got from some of his Christian friends. I believe it’s these types of responses that cause some to have such feelings towards the church.
That like’s saying telling a person how to use a fire extinguisher promotes pyromania.
In all of the retellings, Jennings seems to make it clear that the conversation with “Fleming”, “Brewster”, whoever was very brief. In the scenario where the conversation took place in his office, a female co-worker brought the boy to him and then left. It seems there was an awkward minute or so before Jennings asked ‘So, what’s his name?’ That remark, more than leading to the name, was clearly meant to convey “Let’s cut to the chase…you’re gay.”
Jennings also did a little fact-finding. He discovered how they met…he learned about the overnights. My sense was that his approach was mostly inquiry and short on advice. But, the advice regarding condom usage is the only advice Jennings cites giving.
It’s entirely possible that Jennings edited his comments for his audience. Perhaps he did give age-appropriate advice but then realized that a sizable portion of the gay readers would take issue with him ‘going conventional’. And it’s still entirely possible that ‘Fleming’, ‘Brewster’ is pure allegory. Yes, we now have to contend with the ‘real Brewster’ having come forward. But, duh, how easy is that! It was a made up name and info designed to protect anonymity. So, any male who went to that school and was 15 or 16 at the time could make the claim that they were the real Brewster. Even if the story is true, anyone else could step forward and claim to be Brewster as long as the real Brewster could be trusted to keep quiet. (i.e. if Brewster really was 15 at the time, it would be very expedient to have someone who was 16 at the time step forward in his place.)
I gave my daughter the WHOLE talk — reproduction, STD’s, safer sex, condoms, love, commitment, marriage, responsibility and the STRONG message that I did not want to be a grandfather until I was 55 or so.
We had “the talk” many times from early childhood through her adult years — adding more information as she was able to understand it. I think it would have been irresponsible of me to leave ANY of that out.
She waited. She married. She gave me the wonderful experience of being a grandad. Giving information does not promote irresponsibility.
That doesn’t make sense either. What possible objection would a “sizeable portion of the gay readers” have with Jennings mentioning that he encouraged the boy to be safe in every aspect of his life– emotionally and physically?
Why would Jennings edit that out for the audience? What would have been his prupose in only mentioning that he told the boy to use condoms? What would be the point in that?
IF his only point in bringing up the story was to mention that he told a sexually active kid that it was smart to use condoms, why put in the stuff about the older guy — particularly if the story may not have been real anyway?
If you are going to leave something out for your audience — or make up a story to prove some point — why not say:
“I once met a gay boy (who I will call Brewster”) who was very troubled about his sexuality and other aspects of his life. He felt very alone. He felt frightened. He was taking dangerous risks with him life and his heath. He said he didn’t want to live. I helped to so see that his life was worth living, and I gave him support and advice on how to keep safe emotionally and physically. Such stories are all too common! We need to reach out to kids like “Brewster”.
What possible objection could a large portion of his gay readers have with that? I can’t think of any reasonable gay person who would. Why only mention the condoms and the old man?
The more I think about this the more I am confused. This may be a made up story. “Brewster” may be a composite and the guy who claims he is the real Brewster may not be. I
If there was a real “Brewster” he may or may not have had sex with an older man. The one who claims he is the real guy says, “No”.
If the incident is real and the boy is real, Jennings may have given “Brewster” sound advice, but chose to mention only condoms and a possible molest, not wanting to offend his gay readers.
Huh?
Michael–
We all admit that it doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense if it’s real; it doesn’t make sense if it’s made up. There’s some significant stuff missing but it’s from Jennings own telling and retelling. That’s been the point all along…there’s an awful lot that just doesn’t make sense and only Jennings can clarify. I’m afraid, though, that with czar status he’ll consider himself above all that.
Also, the Brewster who came forward said that he didn’t have sex with the older man. It does make the condom advice a little strange but it is possible. HOWEVER, Brewster claims to have met this older man in a restroom and that he spent the night with him. A 15 or 16 year old student going out of town to spend the night with a stranger they met in a restroom…against school rules and against personal safety rules…whether they did or didn’t have sex.
I don’t think it makes too much difference BUT, to be fair, we don’t know the age of this ‘older man’. I remember at 15 that 18 looked old and that 25 looked like the end of life. The mental image we get with ‘older man’ I suspect is 30′ish to 40′ish… I do hope that Jennings got a sense of how old the ‘older man’ was.
Judge Judy says, “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true”. Makes be believe the entire thing is made up. But why would Jennings make up a story that makes him look stupid?
Michael – I think the story has a factual basis, at least I hope this whole thing including Brewster’s defense is not made up. I am pretty sure Brewster is a real person and that Jennings used the story to make whatever point he was interested in making. If you listen to the recording of his description of Brewster in his 2000 speech to GLSEN-Iowa, it comes across as a real event. The details are much different than what Brewster now said they were but he tells it as a story like it was yesterday. What he told is what the fuss is about. His defenders need to remember that we are going on his own words, not guesses.
PS to Michael – the only person calling it an allegory to my knowledge is Timothy Kincaid. Media Matters takes it literally, Jennings said he should have handled it differently and a possible Brewster has come forward to describe a real event, albeit with details much different than Jennings describes.
Gee. I just got introduced to zombieblog, thanks to this thread. What a trip! Whoever this dude is, he(she) sure has the goods on Jennings. It will be interesting to see how Media Matters responds to the call-out. Word of caution: If you decide to check out any of the photo essays on the zombie’s related site, be advised some images are shocking.
Debbie–
Lots of ‘zombie’ pages and blogs…any help on finding this one? a link…an exact online address?
Eddy, the link is right above our heads in this thread, and I didn’t help by misspelling it. It is zomblog.
Which was what? What point was he making? Why would he only mention the condoms and the possibly sexual relationship with the older man — and not the rest of the advice which I am sure he must have given? Why would he only mention things that would make him look stupid?
An example of a negative outcome from intergenerational consensual heterosexual sex:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-abortion-memoir13-2009oct13,0,6943535,full.story
More Jennings Trouble:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/breaking-obamas-safe-schools-czar-is-promoting-porn-in-the-classroom-kevin-jennings-and-the-glsen-reading-list/
Thanks, David. Is it any wonder that Jennings isn’t answering to the challenges re his appointment? This ‘recommended reading’ is way over the top. I hope more than a few people will take just a little time away from the Uganda mission to take some action on exposing the dangers that Jennings presents. I recommend that anyone who shares this concern about the questionable status of Jennings should send this link (along with a statement of their concerns) to anyone with any type of political status…from the local school board on up.