Pottsgrove Band Camp Sexploits Lead to New Ruling
According to the Legal Intelligencer, a 2005 sexual discrimination suit, filed by a Pottsgrove woman who had a 10-month affair with her band camp instructor when she was 17 years old, can still stand. This sets a bad legal precedent for school districts with hands-y band camp counselors.
The U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that even though the woman, Jeannette Chancellor, was a voluntary participant (and drum major!) in the bang-happy 2003-’04 affair with her teacher, Christian Oakes, she was still a minor and didn’t have the legal capacity to consent to Oakes’s sexual advances. So now, her discrimination suit against the Pottsgrove School District still stands.
“A high school student who is assigned to a teacher’s class does not have the capacity to welcome that teacher’s physical sexual conduct,” U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno wrote in his 41-page opinion in Chancellor v. Pottsgrove School District. Under these circumstances, the teacher’s conduct is deemed unwelcomed. Unwelcome sexual conduct constitutes a sexually hostile educational environment, a form of sexual harassment. And sexual harassment constitutes … “
Snore. All that legalese is headache-inducing. However, the deposition recap reads like a Cinemax script. Observe:
The suit says the two had sex more than 40 times, with the encounters taking place during band camp in the summer of 2003, in the closet in the band room at the school and in Oakes’s car during the 2003-04 school year, and in a hotel during the band’s school trip to Virginia Beach in April 2004.
The LI goes on to report that the super-studly Oakes was also apparently having sex with another one of his students during the same period. That drove the heartbroken Chancellor to the loony bin and, ultimately, this lawsuit.
Students Can Never Consent to Sex With Their Teachers [Law.com] (reg. req.)
August 15th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“I do not have the capacity to welcome your physical sexual contact.” Hey, I think I’ve heard that one before…
August 16th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
This columnist obviously doesn’t have children in school - and certainly doesn’t have a daughter. A schoolteacher stands accused of hiding in a school closet, his car, and romping through band camp and school trips with his student(s), and your editorial consists of yawning at the boring legalese and perking up to the Cinemax-like details of this misbehavior? Oakes, if guilty as charged, is NOT a “super-stud”, he’s a pedophile. A man who abused his position and took advantage of someone placed in his care. A 17-year-old is not a “woman”. Yes, girls younger than this have sex, and yes, they are often willing participants. But are we supposed to be encouraging this behavior? The adults in this girl’s life should have been setting an example for her. Teachers are supposed to help you know that you can wait until you are older before having these experiences - not offer to be the one you have them with!!!
We teach our children from the first day we drop them off at school to obey, respect, emulate their teachers. How can we expect an impressionable young woman to exercise mature judgment in the face of such authority? The court is absolutely correct to treat this matter in the harshest possible way - how else are we to ensure that others don’t cross the line between teacher and student the way this man did? There can be no question of a softer stance that might suggest that there could be a situation where it would be ok for a teacher to sleep with a student.
Your flip coverage of such a serious matter is really offensive. I guess it is attitudes like this that allow men like Oakes to think that he has the community’s blessing while sneaking into the backseat with our daughters.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
IT TAKES TO TO SCREW,SHE WAS 17 YEARS OLD. THIS IS WHY THE STATATORY LAWS NEEDS TO CHANGE THERE ARE SO MANY INNICENT MEN WHOS NAMES & LIVES HAVE BEEN DESTROY BECAUSE OF THE HOTTIE TOTTIE FAST GIRL’S.THE FAST GIRL’S PUT THEMSELVES OUT THERE FOR THE MEN TO TAKE & THEN THE MEN GO TO JAIL OR LOOSE EVERYTHING THEY HAVE.THIS SLUT KNEW WHAT SCREWING IS ABOUT & ITS NOT THE FIRST TIME ,I HOPE THIS MAN WILL NOT GO TO JAIL BECAUSE SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WANTED AND SHE GOT IT.SHE NO ROSE SHE THE THORN. THIS MAN DID NOT RAPE HER!THE LAW SAID SHE CAN NOT CONCENT TO SEX. WHAT A FLOCKING JOKE.THE LAW CAN NOT STOP IT.JUST WALK AROUNG LOOK AT HOW THE GRILS DESSS SHOWING EVERY THING.WHY DON’T THE LAW NEEDS TO HAVE A DRESS CODE FOR GRILS,WHY IS IT RIGHT FOR A GRIL TO WEAR A PAIR OF SHORT’S & WRITTEN ACROSS THE ASS SAY’S FEEL THIS!!!ITS TEASING MEN .BUT THATS OK WITH THE LAW.SEX IS ONE THING. IF THE LAW WANTS TO STOP MEN AND GRILS FROM SCREWING. THEN THE LAW NEEDS TO HOLD BOTH RESPONABLE. NOT JUST THE MAN.THE STSTATORY LAW NEEDS TO BE CHANGE.TO THE AGE NEED TO BE LOWER ,THE 13 ON UP GRILS KNOW WHAT SEX IS ABOUT. THE LAW WILL NOT STOP IT. ITS A SHAME MEN ARE BEING DESTROY BECAUSE OF THE NASTY GIRL’S.AND THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THEIR SO CALL DAUGHTERS ARE SO INNOCENT.THEY ARE THE POISON MEAT & MEN AS WELL AS BOYS NEED TO WAKE UP.A DICK IS THE SAME AS IF ITS A 13 YEAR OLD ARE A 40 YEAR OLD. IF THE LAW IS GOING TO PUT ONE IN JAIL THEN PUT THE 13 IN JAIL.THE POISON MEAT WHO PUT IT OUT THERE FOR THEM TO TAKE.PUT HER IN JAIL ALSO.THEY DO POSTITUTES.SHE NEEDS TO GO DOWN ALSO. I’M SO SICK OF HEARING ABOUT HOW INNOCENT THE GRILS ARE. WHEN ARE THE MEN GOING TO WAKE UP.WHEN A GRIL COMES ON TO THEM HAVE THEM ARRESTED FOR STATATORY RAPE. JUST LIKE THE GRILS DO THE MEN. TURN THE TABLES ON THE FAST GRILS. THE LAW WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CAHNGE OR STOP SEX.ONLY THING IS THEY ARE DESTROYING MENS LIVES. THIS GRIL IS WHAT SHE IS !!!!!!!!!!!!. NASTY .IT TAKES TO TO DANCE.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
SHE WAS JUST AS GUILTY AS HE WAS. IF HE GO’S DOWN SHE NEEDS TO ALSO.WHO IS SHE? SHE OFFER IT. AND HE TOOK IT.SEX WILL NEVER STOP BETWEEN 2 PEOPLE NO MATTER THE AGE.FOR THE TEACHTER. HE SHOULD HAVE TOOK IT OUT SIDE THE SCHOOL.BUT I GUESS ITS THE EXICIEMENT OF IT ALL. IT TAKES 2 TO CROSS THE LINE. ONE IS JUST AS BAD OR WRONG AS THE OTHER. THEY BOTH KNEW. CASE CLOSE.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Regardless of the legalities involved, this relationship was Wrong! I don’t believe 17 year olds are emotionally prepared for sexual relationships….yes, I was sexually active when 17, but not quite as mature as I thought I was. This teacher was an adult. She was a child. Bottom line! This man was a teacher. What he did was Unethical. He should be punished for that!