Betty
Concerned but not a parent

As far as I can tell – The Custodian (referred to from here on as T.C.) gave a girl a doll. Yet this article does a wonderful job of painting T.C. as a predator of young girls. To state that “prosecutors could still end up charging the man with “annoying or molesting” a minor if investigators can substantiate the allegations, which include playing games with the girls on the playground and offering them inappropriate gifts.”

“Annoying or molesting”? Wow – that’s a pretty a big jump isn’t it? It states in the paragraph just before “that no one has accused the custodian of sexually assaulting a child” – so where does “molesting” come from?

“Playing games with girls on the playground”? Does it matter that he also played with the boys on the schoolyard? My goodness – a school employee that actually enjoys kids? The article does not say that he played with “kids” on the schoolyard – just “girls”.

What inappropriate gifts? Who deemed them inappropriate? Simply cause they are from the “custodian”. What if the music teacher gave a boy a harmonica – is that inappropriate? Those kids love T.C. because he is who he is and not some cynical old has been, who ended up a “custodian”. T.C. really liked being a custodian at Otis. He wore it on his sleeve with pride.

This article makes it sound as if T.C only played with the girls, which is not true. T.C. is like a pied piper around the school. I volunteered in the lunch room for 3 years – there are kids who want and choose to help T.C. clean-up. Kids who get self-esteem from their efforts. I worked at the Boys Club for 10 years – kids who helped clean-up often got Youth of The Month awards. Now it’s a crime?

T.C.’s efforts around the school go far beyond his job description. This is a man who commutes from Brentwood for his job and still he comes for the special event days on weekends. He’s not some faceless custodian who never engages the students or staff. I’ve always felt that T.C. was a tremendous asset to the school because of his inter-action with the kids.

My point is – if there is more to the story, then it should come out, otherwise – the Journal has ruined this man’s life.

If we had a woman custodian who had dolls in the closet – would it have been an issue? Does it matter that T.C. didn’t only have “dolls” in the closet – but “toys” also? Aren’t dolls – toys?

Was T.C. going to get suspended the next time he played 4-square?

I’ve seen T.C. address kids who are maybe having a bad day, or are not being engaged by their peers – and he let’s them stay and help – or heaven forbid, play with a toy that he keeps for such occasions.

So I’m really torn up here. There is a part of me that fights having to believe T.C. has to have done more then what was reported– and then there is the part of me that feels if he didn’t do anything more then give a girl a doll, T.C. being who he is, then the harm done to him through the suggestion of this article is reprehensible and irreconcilable and the writer ought to be made to apologize and then suspended from the paper.

“female students”, “sexually assaulting a child”, “molesting”, “allegations”, “fullest extent of the law”. Put enough of this stuff in an article – it’s like Bush saying “Iraq & Terrorism” together. It sticks.

If T.C. is in anyway guilty of sexual misbehavior, then I have no pity for him. But I don’t see any suggestion of that fact at all and if in fact there has been no such misbehavior, then for the paper to have printed that article was grossly negligent and terribly damaging to a man who never really did anything more then be a kid friendly person.

David McCarver
Concerned Otis Parent