Norwich Bulletin - www.norwichbulletin.com - Norwich, Conn.
Failure to protect children is the crime
Julie Amero is scheduled to be sentenced March 29 in Norwich Superior Court. It is a sentencing and a case that has received international attention.
Amero could receive up to 40 years, if she gets the maximum sentence allowable for each of her four convictions of risk of injury to a minor, and the judge orders them to be served consecutively. It's an unlikely sentence, even though children were exposed to six hours of Internet pornography under Amero's watch. We think Amero is likely to receive some sort of community service, and it would be a fair sentence.
 ADVERTISEMENT |
Amero has many supporters, which should not sway the court, as most of them have formed opinions based on limited knowledge of the facts of the case, or simple hearsay. At the heart of this international debate is whether Amero was responsible for causing the pornography to be on the computer screen for an entire school day, when seventh-grade students were able to view it. Many in the technology field have suggested she was the victim of a "porn storm," which were frequent problems in 2004, when the incident occurred. Some suggested the computer was overtaken by malware or spyware, technical parasites that will plant unwanted images, pop-ups, etc., onto a computer. Some have suggested Amero was the victim of a conspiracy by students.
Read the transcripts of the case and many of these arguments become moot. Read Amero's own words. Yes, there were victims: the children in the classroom who saw the graphic images. Six of them testified to the events of Oct. 19, 2004. Whether Amero was purposefully exploring pornographic Web sites, or was the victim of a technological assault, is irrelevant. She was the adult entrusted with the safety of those children, and she failed.
However, Amero is not the only one to blame. Pornographic sites should never have been able to appear on that school computer. The fact the school's protection against these sites was outdated falls firmly in the lap of the school district. Whoever did not do their job to ensure the proper fees were paid and the licensing was up-to-date deserves to be fired. Based on information the district has shared with the community, we believe the district has done its due diligence to ensure this kind of problem never occurs again.
The school district did have protection for the computers and should expect its teachers to have a smidgen of sensibility if an issue arose. That didn't happen Oct. 19, 2004.
Testimony tells the story
Let's look at the facts.
Amero testified the pornography was popping up all day. She said she tried to stop it but could not. She admitted leaving the classroom door open during her break. She said it never occurred to her to turn off the monitor, or unplug the computer. She did tell others she was having a problem with pop-ups, but she never explained they were pornographic -- a significant detail. She admitted it was possible students had seen the pop-ups. She even discussed the problem with students. Amero never went to the main office and did not discuss the issue with the principal until the next day, when she was questioned.
Somehow, after Amero left the school for the day, the pop-ups stopped. There is no record of them appearing before or after Amero was on that computer, or of there being pop-ups on any other computer at the school.
Different scenario
Let's assume for a moment that Amero was, in fact, the victim of a technical problem. What if the issue wasn't a technical problem? What if the problem was a racy magazine? Would she leave it open all day on her desk and push students away if they came to take a look, or would she close the magazine and put it away?
What if the problem was a fire in a trash can she did not start? Would Amero have done nothing, just as she did with the pop-ups? Would the excuse have been that she was not allowed to touch anything? What if the problem had been a fight in the class between students? Would Amero have run to the lounge and said, "I have misbehaving students," and not explained fully what the problem was?
Julie Amero does not deserve to teach in a classroom. She is incapable of ensuring the safety of children. We base this on Amero's testimony. She is an educated woman with more than minimal substitute teaching experience, yet she was unable -- or, worse, refused -- to solve the pop-up issue. Couldn't she, for example, have taped some paper over the screen? There were many avenues Amero could have explored, but did not, to rectify the problem.
Amero's conviction ensures she will not teach children again. That, not prison time, is the critical issue. If she never serves a day in prison, justice will have been served.
 |  Post a Comment  View All Comments |
| The State of Connecticut, the city of Norwich and the Norwich School System have rightly become laughingstocks in the eyes of the world. The Norwich Bulletin has disgraced itself every step of the way -- from Greg Smith's reporting, to Dan Axelrod's now whitewashed blog, to the editorial positions that you have taken. You have now capped it off. You will deserve every bit of the abuse you now receive. Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:15 am | |
| Thank you to your editors for finally making sense about this case. As someone who has worked in education for years, including as a substitute teacher, this case is a joke. The evidence that has been released shows what you said - that there was no porn before or after she left the class. This implies that it was visited while she was in room. If the sites were all popups, wouldn't they popup before and after she was there too? She is also guilty of doing nothing - and as someone who was an "experienced educator" she should have done something. A larger issue though, is why she was even on the computer in the first place. As a substitute, I never even turn on the classroom computer. There are private records and other important, confidential data stored on classroom computers - and a substitute has no business using the computer. Besides, as any teacher will attest, you don't have time to sit on the computer all day when you are supervising students correctly. She is guilty of being a poor substitute and not doing enough to protect her students. I'm glad to see that people are starting to stop making her look like the victim in this case. Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:29 am | |
No comments:
Post a Comment