It’s time for another Ethics Quiz!
Freeland (Mich.) High School Marcie L. Rousseau has already been sentenced to prison for committing sex crimes with one of her students, but the matter is hardly over. The student’s lawyer says he is seeking at least $1 million in damages in a lawsuit naming Rousseau, the Freeland Community School District, Freeland Superintendent Matthew A. Cairy, Freeland High School Principal Jonathan Good and former high school Assistant Principal J. Barry Weldon Jr. as defendants. The suit alleges negligence, and that the three administrators “neither completed a proper investigation nor reported the findings as they had a legal and ethical obligation to do,” despite having sufficient information to alert them that Rousseau was having sex with her student, who was 16 at the time.
This is pretty standard stuff. What is causing some skepticism and hilarity around news rooms, coffee machines and the Internet, however is this: the lawsuit claims that the young man has suffered and continues to suffer “physical, psychological and emotional injury” because of the illicit relationship with Rousseau, which the law suit claims “was non-consensual” and which, according to police reports, included at least 100 instances of sexual intercourse and at least 75 other sex acts between May 2009 and February of 2010.
Your question:
Is the law suit’s contention that the young man participated in various forms of sex with his teacher against his will inherently absurd and dishonest when it includes 175 sex acts in a nine month period?
Many people seem to think so. These are typical of the comments that can be found following the story on various websites:
- “He deserves absolutely nothing.”
- “This is, and apparently, continues to be, a mockery of our judicial system.”
- “If you’re 16, you hook up 100 times… you’re in. No victim. Period.”
- “Nice, im sure that 16 year old boy will be just fine. right now he is telling his friends how he banged his teacher and they are all having a good laugh.”
- “Geez o petes… This kid gets laid 100 times and now sues for $1,000,000?! Some lawyers are actually out to defend good, and defeat evil, but most seem to be just looking for a pay day…”
- “Did she telepathically make him run the six miles to her house to boff her? Gees, this woman just may well be a flipping witch – casting spells on “innocent” little boys to make them come have sex with her. Made him have unprotected sex? Huh? They sell condoms in most stores – but the fact is most guys don’t like them except to carry around in their wallets where they sit for years and years. Why doesn’t he sue the Easter Bunny and the Playboy Bunny as well?”
- “I think the teacher behaved disgracefully, but I am bemused as to how this relationship can be described as ‘non consensual’. It doesn’t say she raped him, it says she seduced him. Seduction implies consent, surely? She said she loved him etc, in order to get him to have sex with her. That isn’t the same as using force.”
- “I would feel the same if it was a male teacher who had seduced a female pupil. While thoroughly reprehensible, I still don’t see how it could be called ‘non consensual’.”
- “Fulfilling your ultimate sexual fantasy, and getting a million dollars on top of that. Isn’t America a great place to live?”
- Once the family gets the cash they will move and Freeland will just be remembered as the Emerald City with the big pot of Gold that they won. Having sex with a teacher will be a better route to riches than going to college for four years. It will be the new “cottage industry” in town!
- “Ridiculous! Not consensual 100 times. Give me a break. How about punishing the kid for being so stupid? The teacher is very wrong, but the kid is just plain stupid. The parents are just as stupid too for this lawsuit. I’m sure a judge will throw this out as far as he/she can.”
- “That poor high school aged boy, lol. 175 sex acts with his teacher means he’s a reaaaaaaaaaaly slow learner or his dad knew about it and told him to keep boning her so he can sue the school later so he can retire early. This judge better throw this out of court. Why couldn’t I be lucky enough to have a teacher like that when I was in H.S.?“
The answer to the quiz question is, however, that all of these people and many others are missing the point. There can be no true consent when there is such an extreme disparity in power and authority in a relationship. The gross betrayal of trust involved when a teacher exploits a student for sex, like the misuse of supervisory authority when a supervisor initiates a sexual relationship with a subordinate, precludes any claim of genuine consent. Whether the student came to enjoy his sexual interludes with his teacher or enjoyed them from the outset is beside the point. Did he feel free to refuse the teacher’s advances? Could he muster the strength and courage to end the relationship once it commenced, when his teacher was an authority figure as well as a sex partner? It is not unreasonable to answer both of these questions, “No.”
The boy—and 16 years old is still a boy—was not accountable for his participation in the relationship because he was, for the entire nine months, the victim of an abuse of power and professional ethics, plunged as he was into a situation of distorted roles and abused authority that he could not have been prepared to handle.
This is no joke, and the lawsuit is far from frivolous. 175 sex acts are evidence of the magnitude of Rousseau’s crime, not of the student’s culpability. His culpability is zero.
Ethics Alarms 
Agreed fully. Good analysis, Jack.
Good article. I would just add that I think this is the perfect case for a trial. I feel like I would be robbed if this got settled out of court. On its face, I would lean 62% in favor of the student, but 38% is nothing to scoff at for the District’s favor.
There’s enough evidence here that could be presented by both sides that I think it would be fascinating to see how it all played out.
Great point…this is exactly what trials are for.
Jack,
I’d agree with you, except that this kid is out for a payday and little else. In fact, he’s even gone so far as to admit he never would have revealed what happened were he not “jealous” over rumors Rousseau was balling the assistant principal as well (who has, apparently, since resigned).
Is an ethical lawsuit still ethical if it’s done for unethical reasons?
-Neil
The answer to the last question is…sure. As long as there are ethical reasons to justify it. You know this, because motives are almost never 100% pure, and balancing the proportions is impossible.
Yes, the family is after a payday, and yes, I think the damages are inflated. Yes, I think the likelihood that he has been harmed “physically” or “mentally” is miniscule. But school systems have to do better keeping sexual predators out of the classroom, and a couple million dollar bites out of taxpayer funds might just make people like those commenter take this seriously.
“Taxpayer funds” is the key to what’s wrong with this lawsuit. If the responsible individuals had to come up with the money out of their own pockets, that would be one thing, but any monetary award will come out of the taxpayer’s funds and what did the taxpayers do wrong, other than to be the deep pocket whence cometh the money? (I understand all about the doctrine of “respondeat superior.”)
John,
So, in this case, are we (all of us) considered the superiors?
I suppose since, indirectly, some of my taxes go to funding public schools, one might argue I collectively “own” them along with the rest of society, but they’re not exactly run by a quorum of taxpayers nor by the direct consent of the governed. Thus, I’m not really sure respondeat superior applies as “we, the people” are only the financiers, not the CEOs.
Either way, I agree that it’s a rip-off.
-Neil
What was wrong (allegedly) was the employees of the school system looking the other way. If they are free of punishment, then they are free to continue this behavior. Maybe principals should look the other way when the lunch staff steals the food for lunches, and gives the students only half portions (at full price). Maybe, instead of hiring enough support staff or working later, the pincipals should just kick out at the end of their contracted day, and to hell with whether the schedule is right, the report cards went out, or there’s paper for the copier.
Without some kind of accountability, you have government run wild. I’m perfectly willing to sacrifice some of my tax dollars to let government employees know they have to do their jobs.
I am all for this law suit and hope and pray that justice will be done for this 16 year old boy and his parents. Yup I said it.What is it that having sex to some people is so impersonal and we have come to an animal-like mentality . This woman crossed the line no matter what, and these school officials were looking the other way because she was hot or they had their own fantasies. If I was a betting person, these school officials knew something was up but did not address people’s concerns. So let’s go to court. I love these lawyers who want the truth. Thank God I live in America where we can go to court and hear both sides.