Another "Czar" under attack

In their ongoing campaign to destroy the Obama administration by picking off individual staffers, FOX News has some alarming information about Obama's "Safe Schools Czar".

President Obama's "safe schools czar" is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men.

Wow! Those sound serious so let's take a closer look.

Jennings was appointed to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student.

He sounds qualified to me. Actually, it sounds like he probably has extensive experience in understanding the causes and effects of bullying in school.

"Jennings was obviously chosen for this job because of the safe schools aspect... defining 'safe schools' narrowly in terms of 'safe for homosexuality'," Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told FOXNews.com.

Well that's certainly well-reasoned. Because Mr. Jennings has a particular focus on gay issues, having been a gay student himself in a less-enlightened time, then he can't be interested in safety for students but only in his own narrow issues. Kind of like saying that a Christian candidate would only be chosen to make the schools "safe for Jesus". And of course making students safe isn't at all something Jennings is probably interested in.

"But at least half of the job involves creating drug-free schools, and we've not been offered any evidence about what qualifications Jennings has for promoting drug-free schools."

Jennings' detractors note that he made four references to his personal drug abuse in his 2007 autobiography, "Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir."
...
Sprigg said that quote is particularly unacceptable for someone who has been named to lead America's Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

"It would be nice to hear from Mr. Jennings ... that he regrets the drug use he engaged in when he was in school," Sprigg said. "But in this autobiography, which Mr. Jennings wrote only recently, he never expresses any regret about his youthful drug use."

So if he jumps through this particular hoop he'll be acceptable? Awesome.

Look, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who haven't ever used drugs, I'm one of them, but this seems like a pointless disqualification. Such a requirement would have disqualified at least the current President and the previous two. Geez, George W. Bush admitted to cocaine use! How many conservatives wanted him declared unqualified? (His incompetence was proof enough for that!) Maybe Mr. Jenning's past drug use will make him more understanding of why people use drugs and how to discourage their use.

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.
...
At the time, Jennings said he had concerns about events at the conference, but he also criticized attendees who filmed it.

"From what I've heard, I have concerns as well," Jennings told the Boston Globe in May 2000. "GLSEN believes that children do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner.
"What troubles me is the people who have the tape know what our mission is, they know that our work is about preventing harassment and they know that session was not the totality of what was offered at a conference with over 50 sessions," he said.

How many recent conservative social conferences have had sessions vilifying gays or minorities, or even openly encouraged sedition? If we were to reject everyone associated with these conservative conferences, the Republican Congressional leadership would all be out of jobs. Seriously, every single one has been associated with this type of crap.

Does that mean that Jennings gets a free pass? No. It means that we look at what he actually stands for and supports. It doesn't sound like he supported the particular session in question and said, "children do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner." That seems right on to me.

The religious right is also alarmed by Jennings' personal views about religion. In his memoir, he wrote of his views while he was in high school:

"What had [God] done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy -- I don't need you around anymore, I decided.

"The Baptist Church had left me only a legacy of self-hatred, shame, and disappointment, and I wanted no more of it or its Father. The long erosion of my faith was now complete, and I, for many years, reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion. Decades passed before I opened a Bible again."

Why this attitude would be at all surprising to anyone familiar with the church's continued hatred of gays is baffling. And respecting religion shouldn't be any kind of actual requirement because it's irrelevant to the job, especially a job relating to public education.

Guess what? Not every government employee "needs to be" religious or respect religion. Some are even ::gasp:: atheists! Deal with it.

What's worse, he's apparently re-embraced religion, so the charge is just even more stupid.

"Since then he has been involved in the Union Theological Seminary," she said. "He does consider himself religious. He tithes -- I just don't see any evidence that he is hostile to religion."

Jennings is on the board of the Union Theological Seminary, which describes itself as "progressive and evangelical."

The last bit is the only thing I find potentially troublesome.

Another controversy from Jennings' past concerns an account in his 1994 book, "One Teacher In 10," about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was "involved" with an "older man":

"Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated."
...

"I said, 'What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?' He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, 'Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.' High school sophomore, 15 years old' I looked at Brewster and said, 'You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.'"

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that "state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988." A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings -- as a Massachusetts teacher -- would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

I'm not sure what good would have come from Mr. Jennings outing a gay student to his parents in 1988. That would likely have resulted in horrific consequences for the student as Mr. Jennings could probably testify to from firsthand experience. And as a practical matter, could he have stopped this student from further meetings with anonymous older gay men? If the man in question was a neighbor or teacher, something could have been done. But what good would have come from outing this student in this situation?

In any event, this happened 20 years ago and we don't really know what was involved. It's possible that Mr. Jennings was criminally negligent in not reporting the incident but it's also possible he did the right thing for the student.

Basically, this is all about casting aspersions like "promoting homosexuality" that no longer mean anything to most of the country. They throw out the usual social conservative scare tactics in hopes that the Democrats will get nervous enough to ditch their friends, like they have recently in response to these kinds of attacks.

If FOX News and social conservatives spent as much time contributing positively to the problems we face rather than spending most of their time just trying to destroy President Obama, we'd all be better off.