WASHINGTON
— Educators are cheering a recent Washington
Supreme Court
opinion that they see as upholding privacy rights, but others
believe it makes investigating sexual abuse cases in schools more
difficult.
The State's high court ruled 6-3 that school districts are not obligated
under state public disclosure laws to release the names of teachers accused of
sexual misconduct with students but whose cases had been declared
unsubstantiated.
In cases relating to the sexual abuse of children by teachers, Justice Mary
Fairhurst wrote for the majority that "allegations of such abuse should be
thoroughly investigated by school districts and, if the allegations are
substantiated, the media may request records containing the identity of the
perpetrating teacher."
"However," she wrote, "when such allegations are determined to be
unsubstantiated, the identity of the teacher is exempt from disclosure to a
public records request because such disclosure would violate the teacher's right
to privacy."
Fifteen teachers with past accusations of sexual misconduct from the
Seattle, Bellevue, and Federal Way school districts had instigated the lawsuit
to prevent their names being released in response to a 2002 public-records
request from the Seattle Times. The Times requested the names as
part of an investigation into coaches who had been disciplined for sexually
abusing students but had continued to teach or coach.
Representatives for the Washington Education Association, a union
representing the accused teachers, were pleased with the July 31 ruling, calling
it a "good decision" that will protect innocent teachers from public
scorn.
"Unsubstantiated allegations can really hurt a teacher's reputation," said
WEA spokesperson Rich Wood. "This ruling will help protect teachers in cases
where the allegations have not been proven."
Wood also pointed out that state law requires school personnel to report
cases of suspected abuse to the police and that an employee's history of
misconduct must be shared with the new employer if an employee leaves the
district.
Critics of the decision, including journalists and open-government
advocates, believe that it may result in more abusers going undetected. They
point out that unsubstantiated claims are not necessarily false ones, and that
image-conscious school districts might choose to cover up cases of abuse by
labeling them unsubstantiated rather than expose the district to public
scrutiny.
Also, while school district officials are required to release reports of
substantiated claims of sexual misconduct to a former employee's potential new
employer, there are contradictory views as to whether they are required to
release reports of unsubstantiated claims and how detailed those reports should
be.
Jim Neff, the Seattle Times editor who oversaw the series that
spurred the request, expressed his disappointment with the decision.
"We don't think it helps to protect students from possible misconduct by
teachers," said Neff. "It's easier for things to be swept under the rug."
By Caitlin Wells, SPLC staff writer
