In case you're out of the loop, Josh Duggar, the oldest of Jim Bob and Michelle's 19 kids featured on TLC's series 19 Kids and Counting, admitted yesterday to molesting girls when he was a teenager. The allegations of abuse were brought to the media and when asked for comment, both Josh and his parents confirmed the story. Since then, PDFs of the redacted police report have circulated, rumors have swirled, and a witch-hunt has begun.
I've always enjoyed watching 19 Kids and I've read the books that the family has written about parenting, relationships, and their faith. I think their commitment to their convictions and their diligence in raising 19 children (and doing it well ) is very admirable. But when I read that four of Josh's five victims were his sisters, I had to see this police report for myself. I was skeptical, not because I believed a Duggar could never do such a thing, but because I figured the police would have done a better job of shielding the identities of victims when releasing official documents.
Alas.
The portion I have circled in red says: "The alleged victims are [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted], who live with their parents Michelle and Jim Bob [redacted]." The report was made in 2006, but the abuse occurred over the course of a year, from 2002 to 2003. It doesn't take a psychic to figure out who these four redacted kids are. Even though the names are blacked out, their parents' names aren't, which strikes me as a quite poor job on the part of the person who was responsible for redactions before the report was released to the media. Personal pronouns and adjectives have been largely obscured, but if you read the rest of the report, you can find the occasional 'her' or 'she' that was missed. This would indicate that the victims were girls. The Duggars had 5 daughters as of 2003, so we know that four of them are named as the victims. (You can read the whole report here.)
Now that I've had my fun as an investigative journalist, let me talk about some of the glaring issues I see with the way that this whole thing has been handled by the family, the media, the critics, etc.
1. Redactions - come on, Springdale PD. What was the point of redacting the names of the victims if you're going to leave in other identifying information? It took me very little effort to figure out who these victims are because you left in the fact that their parents' names are Jim Bob and Michelle. If you truly want to preserve confidentiality and protect victims' identities, you've got to do a better job than that.
2. Immediate aftermath - Yes, Josh's actions were 'a mistake,' 'reprehensible,' 'inexcusable,' etc. What I have a problem with, though, is that Josh's parents did not take the appropriate action within a few days of Josh's admission to them of what he had done. The report of a police interview with Jim Bob and Michelle describes several disparate instances of Josh's behavior, spread out over the course of at least 9 months. Only after the last of these admissions did Jim Bob report any of Josh's behavior. However, no report was made to law enforcement initially. Jim Bob sought the counsel of his church elders, who recommended Josh be put into a treatment program. After Josh returned from that program, Jim Bob finally spoke with a law enforcement officer. The officer, an Arkansas state trooper, was a family friend and responded by giving Josh a "stern talk" and a warning about what would happen to him if he continued this sort of behavior. The state trooper concluded the meeting without filing a report. Big problems with this:
- As a state trooper, the officer was a mandated reporter. As in, once an instance of child abuse like this was brought to his attention, he was obligated under law to file a report and pursue police action. The fact that he didn't do so indicates that he broke the law to keep this secret. (The state trooper in question is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence for child pornography convictions, which surely isn't a coincidence.)
- As a friend of the Duggar Family, this state trooper would have been ethically bound to remove himself from handling this case because of the blatant conflict of interest.
- Not filing a report resulted in Josh continuing to live with his parents and his victims. It doesn't matter that Josh seemed to have learned his lesson from the treatment program, or that his victims and parents had forgiven him, or that he had apologized to everyone. There was absolutely no way for anyone to be sure that he wouldn't re-offend, and not removing him from contact with his victims is a clear child safety issue. Had a report been filed, Child Protective Services would have gotten involved and separated perpetrator from victims. Yes, it likely would have involved removing one or more kids from the home, but which is worse: breaking up a family while the matter is settled by law enforcement, or risking continued sexual abuse? Neither option is even remotely desirable, but one is clearly safer for the victims.
- This series of events only came to the attention of law enforcement because of an anonymous tip from someone who had read a letter written by a Duggar family friend, which was hidden in a loaned book. The tip came in 2006, three years after the abuse first came to the attention of Jim Bob and Michelle. At that time, Arkansas's Statute of Limitations regarding sex crimes was three years. This means that even though there was a police report filed and confessions made by Josh and his parents, no legal action could be taken because the Statute of Limitations had lapsed. I can't imagine that any parents would be chomping at the bit to turn in their kid, especially when the kid was clearly remorseful and repentant, and they got very lucky that they lived in a state with such a short Statute. I don't fault Jim Bob and Michelle for handling things the way they deemed best. I do take issue with lawmakers who refuse to significantly revise the laws surrounding Statutes of Limitations. It not only rewards offenders who can keep their crimes under wraps until the clock runs out, but worse, it robs the victims of justice. Sex crimes are hard enough to prove and prosecute without the pressure of a countdown clock.
3. Focus on past actions - It is understandable that the media are feeding on this story despite the fact that the abuse occurred over a decade ago. Some media outlets are reporting as if it's an ongoing, developing story, which it is not. Other media outlets are freaking out because they perceive yet a third group of media outlets to be persecuting Josh and the Duggar family for 'mistakes' and 'actions taken by a curious young teenager.' I have yet to find an article (or, better yet, a statement from any of the Duggars) that talks about the impact that sexual abuse has on a survivor. The media are getting bogged down by the initial scandal, the police report, Josh's decision to resign from his director position at the Family Research Council, how Anna knew about his past and married him anyway, and so on. Why is no one talking about the impact this media circus (and possibly, re-victimization) has had on Josh's sisters and the other as-yet-unidentified survivor? It is possible to talk about this without revealing their identities (even though the botched police report has already done so, to some extent) and it would go a long way in contributing to our national dialogue on sexual assault and domestic violence.
4. Lack of adequate and appropriate aftercare for all parties involved - According to the police report, Josh spent a few months at a location described, in different places, as "a training center," "some sort of rehab place," "treatment," and a "training camp." Other references have been made to the family arranging for counseling for the victims. It was later revealed that Josh was, in fact, sent to live for a few months with a family friend, where he helped with construction projects. This family friend was not a certified counselor of any kind, but more of a 'mentor,' according to Michelle. There is no proof that the parents did not arrange for counseling for the victims, but it does lead one to wonder what kind of counseling the victims may or may not have received. If a few months of physical labor with a non-counselor family friend is their idea of counseling for Josh, what did the victims receive?
From the report, it sounds like Jim Bob took charge of forming perception for the whole family through a pair of family meetings. Many of the interviewees say that Jim Bob told them what had happened, what Josh had done, how he was sorry, etc. It also suggests that Jim Bob considered the matter settled after Josh returned, as evidenced by his reluctance to bring Josh in for an interview and his assertion that "if [he] thought the incident was a problem, [he] would have taken care of it when it happened." (I inferred that it was Jim Bob making the decisions based on the Duggars' commitment to patriarchal views on family values. And there are other instances of responses like "[redacted] said she would discuss it with her husband," which suggests that Michelle does not make statements or decisions without Jim Bob.) All of this is to say that the Duggar girls were not given the opportunity (that we know of) to speak with non-family members or impartial professionals about what had happened. And as a counselor, that bothers me.
5. Lack of adequate sex education - The Duggars have become famous for their views on modesty and sexual purity, their courtship and physical contact rules, and their modest clothing and swimwear. On more than on occasion, Michelle has talked about how they have raised their daughters to stay away from clothing that bares their shoulders, thighs, and midsections because they do not want to cause any boys to have impure thoughts and, therefore, sin. While I can understand and appreciate this attitude and set of principles, it is somewhat sexist. It implies that men are incapable of curtailing their thoughts and actions and that it is the woman's responsibility to dress and act in a way that helps the man to keep from sinning. It is disrespectful to both men and women - it diminishes the man's capacity for integrity and self-control, and it tells the woman that men think she is good only for her body and her looks, so she should cover herself up. In fact, by focusing so much on their daughters' outward appearance, they are doing exactly what they find so repugnant in secular culture - namely, reducing a woman to an object to be presented.
The Duggars' approach to sexuality is extremely conservative, as one would expect from watching their program. They are famous for their courtship approach to marriage, in which the man and woman do not engage in physical contact beyond "side hugs" and hand-holding until after they are married. They teach that sexual activity (even something that most would consider fairly innocuous, like kissing) outside of marriage is something to be avoided because it fills the person with impure thoughts and desires that cannot be fulfilled without engaging in sex. While I can understand and appreciate this attitude too, it promotes a flawed understanding of human sexuality. It seems to imply that sexual thoughts and urges are sinful if you aren't married, and it is just best to avoid anything (clothing, bathing suits, books, television, movies, pop culture in general) that might even come close to bringing sexuality to mind. In a way, they are setting their kids up to fail - regardless of marital status, their kids will experience sexual thoughts and feelings, especially as they grow older, and it's not always something they will be able to control. That's just how thoughts are. Telling them that they are sinning when sexuality occurs to them will just make them feel ashamed.
I can understand the Duggars' reluctance to expose their kids to comprehensive sex education, particularly because it will force them to think about, in their opinion, sinful things. I don't think that's a good enough excuse, though. I firmly believe that it is possible to teach someone about sex while maintaining the importance of one's values. They don't have to hand out boxes of condoms to their courting children or bring them to strip clubs, but as we've seen, how you handle your kids' curiosity affects quite a lot. The "he was just a curious teenager who made a mistake" defense speaks to this. At 14, Josh knew that touching his sisters was not okay, as evidenced by his guilt and remorse and confessions to his parents. The fact that he did it more than once to more than one person is what is indefensible to me. Once is a mistake, twice is cause for concern, three is a pattern, and beyond that is unconscionable. I'm not trying to say that this could have all been avoided by a good sex talk, because we can't know that for sure, but their attitude toward sexuality has created a culture of fear, guilt, shame, and ignorance about a natural part of life.
6. "Now everyone can see what hypocrites the Duggars are!" journalism - I don't like to see the Duggars raked over the coals for the way they handled the situation twelve years ago, and I'll be really sad if they cancel 19 Kids for good. The war cries about hypocrisy and trashed credibility mostly just show a flawed understanding of the Duggars' faith. I've watched at least a hundred episodes, and I like to think I'm a good judge of character (at least, the character they have put out on the show), and never have I heard them assert that they are in any way perfect or above reproach. I don't think this story coming to light should cancel all the good they have done with their program and influence in the media. It is hypocritical on their part to oppose transgender protections legislation, claiming that it will allow transgender individuals to molest children in bathrooms, when they've known for years that their son molested their daughters. In that arena, their credibility is shot. However, it shouldn't forever negate their portrayal of positive family values or irreparably scar their witness to the world. We all sin.
7. "He did what he did, we need to forgive him and move on" journalism - The problem I have with this is that it tells the victims that they need to move on too because what they experienced is not a big deal. It's another variation on "Boys will be boys," which implies that men can't be held responsible for what they do in the heat of sexual haze. Yes, it sounds like his family and his victims have forgiven Josh, but that's not the same as moving on. Survivors of sexual abuse need to know that not only is the abuse not their fault in any way, but also that the healing process can take years and lots of hard, painful work. I highly doubt that a family meeting and a pardon for Josh was enough to make the girls get over it. Even it did work that way for them, they are in a very small minority. Treating the Duggar scandal this way in the media teaches other survivors that it is more important to forgive their abuser and move on than to take the time they need to come to terms with and make sense of their experience. There is considerable clinical evidence to show that avoiding and repressing traumatic experiences can often lead to that pain surfacing in other ways. Telling survivors to forget about what happened to them not only invalidates what they are feeling, but also tells them that their experience is not important enough to remember.
Those are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to comment.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete