Don’t Blame the Victim

An Anaheim school board president owes an apology to a victim of sexual abuse by a former teacher for remarks the official made after the woman, now 19, was awarded $2.5 million in damages by an Orange County jury. To suggest that the victim was partly responsible for the abuse is irresponsible. The teacher began a relationship with her when she was a 13-year-old junior high school student.

Harald G. Martin, president of the Anaheim Union High School District, said in his initial remarks that the district recognizes a “grave responsibility for taking care of students.” That would have been fine if he stopped there. He got into trouble when he elaborated.

After the verdict, Martin said that “if both parties kept it secret . . . I think there’s some culpability on the victim’s part.” The board did not take up the issue when a complaint was lodged by a student-rights advocate at a recent school board meeting.

The matter needs to be clarified. The silence of a teenager is no reason to hold her responsible. The jury last August found that primary liability was with the former science teacher and track coach, Clifford Scofield, 57, who pleaded guilty to 19 counts of child molestation and served 13 months in prison. The jury also found the district negligent for failing to prevent the abuse, which was carried on over a period of four years.

The question of direct culpability for a district on the behavior of a teacher can be a gray area. The U.S. Supreme Court, on a split decision last year, cleared the way for districts to be forced to pay for damages to students if officials knew of the abuse and failed to stop it.

What the district actually knew is unclear. The school district says it was not aware of what was going on, and that if it had been, it would have taken steps to end the relationship. Martin understandably may have been frustrated by his sense that the district would have done something if only it had known what was going on. But the attorney for the student apparently persuaded the jury that there were instances where school officials had seen the teacher and student together in situations that should have raised concerns.

The board has been contemplating an appeal. For it and other school districts, protecting the student has to be paramount.