Taking the heat out of accusations
In Society last week, the academic Sarah Nelson rejected calls for teachers accused of child abuse to remain anonymous. Here Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People Kathleen Marshall responds.
Sarah Nelson believes that my support for anonymity for teachers accused of hurting a child, until and unless the accusation is proven to be true, is "misguided and can only cause harm to vulnerable children".
We agree that "a fearful, sterile atmosphere between teachers or carers and children has become damaging to both sides", but we disagree on the solution.
Sarah argues that anonymity until conviction is not appropriate because it perpetuates a stereotype of children as malicious liars; that research shows how difficult it is for children to tell about abuse and to be believed; and that it is difficult to justify protecting only one group of people (ie teachers).
Instead, she suggests reaffirming to teachers that it is legitimate to engage in simple physical contact for purposes such as comforting, aiding or praising a child or protecting them or others from danger, and ensuring gentle, skilled interviewing of the child at an early stage to distinguish true from false allegations.
These solutions could be helpful, but I do not think they will be enough to make an impact on this highly charged issue.
I agree it is difficult to justify applying anonymity only to teachers.
We should consider extending it.
I also agree that proposing anonymity for accused teachers, or anyone else, may be seen by some as perpetuating the unfortunate and damaging stereotype Sarah refers to. Such stereotypes should be constantly challenged.
We need a system that encourages and supports children to speak out, while responding in a measured, mature way to them.
Adults who feel enraged by the prospect of false allegations often suggest that children should be punished for making allegations that turn out to be untrue. I would strongly oppose that development as it would inhibit children from speaking up about genuine issues.
The fact that something is not proven in a court of law does not mean it is untrue. Some kinds of abuse are difficult to prove. I suggest instead an approach that takes some of the heat out of the consequences of a false allegation.
The fact these consequences can be so dire for an accused adult is the result of the laws and system created by adults, and adults have the power to change them.
We can, for instance, filter non-conviction information on "enhanced disclosures" before it is passed to a prospective employer so details of unproven allegations are not shown. We can change the law so reports of court proceedings do not give all sorts of details that might not ultimately be proven. We can also change the law to ban publication of the names of the accused until a conviction is secured.
There are complex legal issues around this and I believe it merits analysis and consultation. I have suggested that the Scottish Law Commission undertakes this task. Then everyone can have a say.
Research commissioned by my office has evidenced the deep-rooted fear adults have of contact with children. Simple reassurances won't do when the stakes are so high in terms of public humiliation, loss of reputation and a possible far-reaching impact on future employment prospects.
I want a system that acknowledges all we have learned about how difficult it is for children to tell about abuse. It should also acknowledge the danger of our current overreaction to throwaway remarks by children. This situation, if left unaddressed, will itself undermine the child protection agenda.
Read more at www.sccyp.org.uk
Source: The Herald [Scotland]