Bill Donohue comments on the New York Times’ reaction to a TV ad calling out the New York City public schools for coddling accused sexual predators:
In today’s New York Times, there is an analysis of former CNN anchor Campbell Brown’s new group, Parents’ Transparency Project, that was established to root out public school employees guilty of sexual misconduct. This is what it says about the ad: “Her case is helped by stark statistics and will appeal to parents who would not want anyone who had been accused of misconduct, no matter how minor, around children. But by blaming unions, and ignoring concerns that the city might impose unnecessarily harsh punishmentson employees, she risks inflaming organized labor, and in turn, the Democratic candidates for mayor.” (My emphasis.)
When it comes to the Catholic Church, the New York Times insists on “zero tolerance,” but not when it comes to the public schools. It wants to go light on “minor” offenses, and is strictly opposed to “unnecessarily harsh punishments.” Furthermore, it is important for officials to bow before the unions, and it is equally critical that nothing be done to undermine the prospects of a Democratic candidate for mayor.
As Campbell Brown and the New York Daily News have shown, officials have tried to fire 128 employees in the New York City public schools because of sexual misconduct; only 33 have been removed. One staffer was given a six-month suspension after admitting he was busted for “inappropriate touching.” Officials then learned that he attended meetings of the North American Man/Boy Love Association; NAMBLA advocates child rape.
The New York Times has said nothing about any of this. Why? Perhaps because it sees these offenses as “minor,” or perhaps it sees NAMBLA meetings as educational, thus not worthy of “harsh punishments.” In any event, it would be wrong to tick off the unions, and it would be immoral to put the Democratic candidates in a tough spot. But for priests….