Hmmmm......
I had one reader drop me a note observing something that's been on people's minds lately.
There's something wrong with the whole scenario when the question is: Did the senator do something he shouldn't have when he was in bed with the page?There's also what one reporter was thinking her heart of hearts that I couldn't express any better. I think Sheri Levisay over at the Argus Leader's Voices blog had it perfect when she noted:
Only one observation: How would we treat this whole situation if this were a coach on a trip with athletes? It’s the closest analogy I can come up with. If nothing illegal was committed, that coach would still certainly be fired, and would most likely never work in a school again. To be sure, Sutton’s primary job in the Legislature is not to work with pages, but I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that, if any sexual contact at all occurred, Sutton is not fit to serve in the Legislature.Read that all here.
Comments
I still can't believe Danny would go through with this.
Just for being dumb enough to sleep in the same bed, is reason enough to throw him out.
The kid had a per diem to spend on housing - and he chose to stay with Dan - with his folks' permission - to save $$.
Not the same as teacher/student. Not at all.
Maybe scout leader? or a chaperone on a school trip?
I suppose stupidity could make a person unfit in the legislature - but would someone please tell the electorate that.
And as an adult, Dan Sutton should have known better. Plain and simple. I don't care about party politics, the honorable thing would have been to resign and not force this kid to go through the public spectacle of a trial.
I am ashamed of Dan Sutton. I am ashamed that he is a South Dakotan. He should have known better and he should resign.
Reason: Principals all seem to have this God complex. They commonly over extend their responsibility to the point of taking cases of criminal activity out of the hands of where it belongs...in court.
It's time to make Principals, Principals again, not prosecutors. We've allowed the schools to over protect students.
I'm trying to think back to my state golf trip a few years ago (to consider the coach comparison someone just made). I think our school put the four golfers (male) and the coach(male) in the same room, and I'm trying to remember how we slept. I honestly do not remember, but I think that proves that it was not an issue to us at the time. To that end, why is it so different for two 18 year old males to sleep in the bed together as a 30 or 40 year old coach and an 18 year old. They are all adults. They are all male. If this issue is as far reaching as some are stretching it, maybe the SDHSAA will have to make a rule that only one person sleeps in a bed relating to any SDHSAA events, maybe even one person per room. As we all know, approximately 10% of humans are homosexual. We would never let a HS boy and girl sleep in the same room, so maybe we shouldn't let boys either.
Where should the PC end?
If the page is telling the truth, then yes, you gotta feel sorry for him, but if the page is lying, then you gotta feel sorry for Sutton.
The big question -- if it all comes down to 50-50, what's the Senate committee gonna do?
Are you serious? Is it common practice in this state for adult chaperones to share beds with students/kids? I grew up in a neighboring state and went on a number of overnight trips in High School(during the mid to late 1980's) and the chaperones never, ever stayed with the kids. They would position their rooms among the students' rooms so that they could best keep an eye on them, but never slept in the same room even. I think it would have been weird then, and the idea is still weird for me now.
You SD people: is this the standard? Just curious...