Yale Daily News

I wish I'd known this when blogging about SWAY week. It would have been a great retort to those who blogged that pornography is harmless.

Why would walking into a locked room and finding a boy sitting and a man standing in front of him legally require the asst. prof. to report it under child welfare laws? That is a key relevancy of the whole story--explain the case being made. Telling me there is a case pending is something, but your job as a journalist is to explain it. This is pretty shoddy and therefore pointless reporting.

Good God ! another 1998 issue

---off the record---

Do you think the boy might of had an uncle or father that waspissed and embarrased and might have seeked revenge??

ala s.jovin,

Wow

blame the attorney for not bringing a more compelling suit. the argument spelled out in the lawsuit is that what the professor saw -- as described in the article -- would have been, to a reasonable person, suspicious and indicative of potential child abuse, thus requiring the professor to report it to the authorities (as educators are required to do under connecticut statute)

Silly #1: pornography and child pornography are NOT the same thing.

Also, let's hope that the professor from the other university who offered the "he's too busy to look at all that porn" defense got fired too.

Sure thing. Post questions that you (or others) would like to see answered in our next online update, and we'll do our best. In the meantime, we're looking into the one posed in comment 2.

Andrew Mangino, Editor in Chief

No, I'll still quibble with the reporting. If I were writing this article then I would mention that the suit alluded to the barest of details and then explain something about the statutes that are being called into play.

The law obligating educators to report an adult and an child in a room would be a topic of interest to a community of educators and potential educators. I doubt many readers are familiar with these laws and I would imagine this would be worth elaborating on. I don't think it is reasonable for the author to presume that the audience is familiar with the Connecticut statutes.

Just trying to give some feedback so the author can learn to write a better article.

if all YDN offers is what the AP already had, why even post the online update? why not just post a link to the AP?

See Sections 17a-101 through 17a-103a, inclusive of the Connecticut General Statutes.

Mandated reporters are required to report or cause a report to be made when, in the ordinary course of their employment or profession, they have reasonable cause to suspect or believe that a child under the age of 18 has been abused, neglected or is placed in imminent risk of serious harm. (Connecticut General Statutes §17a-101a)

Child abuse occurs where a child has had physical injury inflicted upon him or her other than by accidental means, has injuries at variance with history given of them, or is in a condition resulting in maltreatment, such as, but not limited to, malnutrition, sexual molestation or exploitation, deprivation of necessities, emotional maltreatment or cruel punishment. (Connecticut General Statutes §46b-120)

The issue would seem to turn on 1) what in fact was taking place and 2) whether there was "reasonable cause to suspect" that the child was subject to sexual abuse. At the moment, we know answers to neither of these crucial questions.

Since the YDN was quick to bring up Desfeux's support for Romney, I am a bit disappointed that this article failed to mention that Lasaga is almost certainly a lifelong liberal Democrat. Or is that just too obvious to be worth pointing out?

#11: Clearly the story did offer a Yale-centric perspective that would not have been available on the AP. The author just didn't have any additional information on the complaint.

It's sad to see that the comments on an article concerning such a serious and depraved issues focus on criticizing the journalist instead of actually discussing the issue itself.

Yale has a well known history of covering up sex scandals, reports of rape and abuse and sexual harassment, so this really shouldn't surprise anyone. I mean, isn't Harold Bloom still there?

Princeton08, this is now the second article on which you've posted making snide comments that reek of bitterness and immaturity. The insecurity is so visible it's actually possible to conclude you're the same person who commented on the inane "enrolled" vs. "attended" issue. I don't know what Yalie beat you out for what job or why you have to post on our boards to justify going to Princeton instead of Yale, but it's pathetic and we don't care. End of story.

Of course. And your petulant responses prove just how much you guys "don't care. End of story." LOL.

Tell me, was anything I said about Yale covering up sex scandals untrue? Are you familiar with the hideous lengths the University has gone to to protect Harold Bloom? If you read other news publications -- and worthy ones, not just a University cum rag of a paper -- you'd know what i was referring to. Do a google search on Bloom, it will blow your mind.

And I think it's disgusting (but not surprising) that most of you are debating everything under the sun except the matter at hand: a boy was sexually abused, and University officials looked the other way. What a proud day for all of you.

I feel deeply for the victim of this tragedy, and I understand his anger and desire for justice, but I fail to see how the university could actually be held responsible for the negligence of one assistant professor. Not to tell was the assistant professor's personal choice. Could the university legally be held accountable?

@#17: Actually, Princeton08 is right. Do some research before making a knee-jerk reaction. Talk to some older students, and they'll be able to tell you more about how the university's responses have tended to be.

And while what he did may not have actually constituted sexual harassment in the Naomi Wolf case, Harold Bloom is still a creeper: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/

Thank you Yale09. I did not mean to insult an entire population when I attacked "Yale." My criticism was intended at the institution and those who are blindly and slavishly faithful to it. Obviously, there are still a few students who can think on their own, as you have proven.

My god, a CHILD was SEXUALLY ABUSED. And this is not the only time the University has covered up cases of rape, abuse and harassment. Typical that so many of the student responses were about defending the institution rather than denouncing a heinous crime. One must give the Yale Corporation credit for its brainwashing. It has certainly taught its student body well -- to defend the institution at all costs, even to the detriment of personal character, personal convictions or principles. Not one poster here criticized the University for its treatment of this issue, in fact not one person here even expressed dismay, horror or sympathy for the victim. No. The instant reaction was protecting the institution, maintaining the status quo. Such good soldiers, really. You all should be proud.

We may be in 2008, but it feels like 1984.

Y09 -- I do not think you criticism "Do some research" is well placed at all. The fact of the University's responses to harassment allegations is one thing. The fact that princeton08 (tellingly uncapitalized) is a pathetic troll is another, and I believe it is that troll-hood is the focus of the criticism, not whether some issue P08 might bring up is true or not.

Excellent Anonymous, keep evading the real matter at hand. It only further proves my point. And of course in your obfuscating world, this allows one to ignore the veracity of any of my assertions. What a great diversionary tactic! You've learned well from your institution and your country!