Written for the right reasons, anti-‘grooming’ bill needs work

When I was in junior high, I overheard a snippet of a hushed conversation between a boy in one of my classes and the teacher, a male in his late 40s. The background noise of students working on class projects muffled most of the conversation, but I could sense from his body language that the boy, who was sitting in a chair next to mine, was agitated. As he rolled his eyes and huffed, I wondered if the boy was about to be reprimanded by the teacher, a somewhat stern man, for being disrespectful.

Instead, the teacher quickly knelt down and leaned in next to the boy on the side opposite of where I sat, and with a hint of urgency in his voice, began to counsel him quietly. It was during a quick lull in the background noise that I heard the teacher softly ask the boy, “Are you mad at me?”

It seemed such an odd question for a teacher to be asking a student. Certainly, it’s why I remember the brief exchange at all. I was barely a teenager at the time, insulated from the inference of anything sinister by my childish naivete. But it still seemed weird.

Just over a year and a half later, the teacher was charged with third-degree sexual abuse for, as Gazette reports at the time state, “allegedly engaging in a sex act with a 15-year-old male student.”

After his arrest, it was reported that a couple of other male students came forward with similar allegations. It wasn’t until I was in my late 20s (past the statute of limitations, for what it’s worth) that I realized the random snippet of conversation I overheard could have been part of an abuser’s act to groom his victim. I will never know. And I will never attempt to find out.

Nobody likes discussing the awful subject of sexual abuse of a child by a school employee. But we must. It’s part of our societal duty to protect our children from being abused and exploited by predators who lurk in positions of trust, a duty in which the law plays an integral role.

In addition to criminal penalties for sexual abuse and sexual exploitation by a school employee, Iowa law already outlines requirements for schools and area education agencies (AEAs) to report to the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners any disciplinary action taken against a school employee for certain reasons. It also requires reporting to the board when a licensed school employee is terminated for misconduct or resigns following an allegation of conduct that, if proven, could or would result in having their license yanked.

Conduct subject to mandatory reporting to the board includes seeking, encouraging, or effectuating an inappropriate relationship with a student. House Study Bill 568, which passed out of an Education subcommittee on Wednesday, would expand the list of mandatory reporting requirements to include “grooming behavior.”

The bill’s definition of “grooming behavior” includes patterns of flirting, time alone with a student without any educational purpose, anything reasonably interpreted to be an overly personal or intimate relationship, or “any other individualized, special treatment not in compliance with generally accepted educational practices.”

That seems pretty straightforward. Nevertheless, it’s a very broad definition of grooming. Enough so that some education groups have signaled opposition out of fear that the bill’s broad language could inadvertently apply to actions of a school employee that are arguably harmless.

At best, casting such a wide net for crackdowns could strain well-suited relationships between students and their teachers as school employees look to create distance to avoid repercussions. At worst, it expands a list of ways a teacher’s career could be derailed for actions that do not actually rise to the level of misconduct.

Speaking against the bill, Nathan Arnold, lobbyist for Professional Educators of Iowa (PEI), listed examples of grooming behavior given by attorneys hired by school districts. They included actions as innocuous as asking a student how many siblings they had.

PEI is described as a non-union option for liability protection, legal representation and professional development for educators, thus occasionally putting it at odds with the Iowa State Education Association, the state teachers union. But in this case, the two organizations largely agree: language that goes too far to define grooming behavior could have a “chilling effect” on how teachers interact with their students.

Everybody is on board with why it is so important to prevent behaviors that lead to abuse. How to do that is the hard part. Especially when prevention is attempted through the threat of punishment.

How to destroy evil without ruining good is one of the great quandaries of human existence. In medicine, for example, it can be difficult — sometimes impossible — to excise the evil that is a brain tumor without ruining the good that is a healthy part of the brain vital to life. A nation at war aims to destroy the evil that is the enemy threatening their way of life but faces a terrible dilemma when the terrorist enemy holds their citizens hostage and uses innocent civilians as human shields.

We see the quandary in law, too, when we seek to prevent evil through threat of punishment. Restrict the sale of most firearms in the name of protecting innocent lives, and you could violate a person’s right to defend themselves and their families from violent criminals or predatory wildlife. Criminalize all abortions from the moment of conception — also in the name of protecting innocent lives — and depending on how the choppily the law is written, you could inadvertently bar a doctor from providing lifesaving care to a woman experiencing a septic miscarriage.

HSB 568 illustrates the quandary Iowa legislators face in seeking to further prevent the exploitation and abuse of students. If they pass a broad bill that leaves no stone unturned, the education system could lose good teachers whose careers become upended for nothing. If they dial it back too far, they leave gaps in that same system vulnerable to predators.

Even if legislators write a perfect bill that targets grooming with surgical precision, it still might not be enough to ward off any and every potential abuser. Prisons in every jurisdiction are full of people whose criminal records show that severe punishment is not always enough to deter some people from committing the crimes of which they are convicted.

Like every other person who has something to say about HSB 568, I’ll be clear — that’s exactly where those who groom and abuse children belong: in prison, sequestered from any environment in which children are present. And should they have been school employees, they must also be known to the board and permanently stripped of their licensure.

In what seems an increasing rarity, it is one controversial bill in the Iowa Statehouse that has so far not seen opposing sides slinging partisan arrows at each other. No one is accusing the Iowa Department of Education of wanting to persecute teachers, and no one is accusing concerned objectors of enabling abusers.

Having passed out of subcommittee, HSB 568 is eligible for further discussion and amendments. Perhaps there is a legislative way to address grooming behaviors in schools. If anything could ever get our legislators to collaborate and smooth out a tricky bill, it would be nice if it were in the name of keeping predators away from Iowa kids.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com